--- title: "Complete Book 0" book: "MA Pol.Sc 103 Final" category: "MA" publisher: "Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd." type: "Educational Material" ---  According to Latest Syllabus Read For Sure Success In University Examination RATAN TEXT BOOK THEORIES AND CONCEPTS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS M.A.Political Science (Sem-I) Dr. G.D.Sharma Published by Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Centre Plaza, Parinay Kunj, Lajpat Kunj Marg, Agra-282002 Copyright Authors & Publishers Published by Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Centre Plaza, Parinay Kunj, Lajpat Kunj Marg, Agra-282002 ISBN :978-81-69604-63-5 Price 482.00 only Printed at : KIDS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. C-60, 61, 62, 63, EPIP, Shastripuram, Agra - 282007 Ph. : +91 9719004921 Preamble to the Constitution of India WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, Having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens : JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION. SUCCESS Success is not permanent and failure is not final. Never stop working after success and, never stop trying after failure. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM UNIT 1 MEANING, NATURE, AND SCOPE Of INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Structure 1.1    Introduction 1.2    Learning Objectives 1.3    Meaning and Nature of International Relations Self-Check Exercise 1 1.4    International Relations and International politics Self-Check Exercise 2 1.5    Scope/ Subject Matter of International Relations Self-Check Exercise 3 1.6    Summary 1.7    Glossary 1.8 Answers to Self-Check Exercises 1.9    Suggested Readings 1.10 Terminal Questions 1.1    Introduction The study of international relations has become truly global in nature and scope as the world stands politically organised in nearly 200 Nation states at the beginning of 21st century. International relations studies the behaviour of nation states with each other and international entities. Apart from behaviour, the conflicts and cooperation among states, role of international organisations and the non- state actors are also taken into account. The very understanding of the relations among nation states do help in analysing the ways and means to deal with the global challenges facing international community. It is important to differentiate between international relations, the relationships among states in international politics, and International Relations in Capital letters, which refers to the academic study of these relationships. The academic discipline has been in existence for less than a century, relationships among actors in international politics have been occurring for millennia. International relations (IR) today refers to both an academic discipline and the field of activity that deals as much with relations between and among states as with transnational global actors, problems and issues. It was in 1919 and at the University of Wales that the first chair of international politics was founded. Known as the Woodrow Wilson Chair, it was first of all occupied by Alfred Zimmeren. Later, those who decorated this Chair were scholars like C.K Webster, E.H. Carr, P.A Reynolds, Laurence W. Martin and T.E. Evans. While the founding of the Chair indicates a beginning of the interest in the study of international politics as an independent academic discipline, the appointment of historians on that Chair indicates the tendency of identifying international relations with diplomatic history as also with international law. As we all know, the world we live is in a state of flux. The change, whether in technologies, telecommunications or travel affect our daily lives. Our everyday choices get influenced by such changes. In this fast -moving globalised world from the time we vote in election or work on a political platform or simply purchase commodities or even trade services in the world market, we become part of international community. The discipline of International relations makes an endeavour to explain such international politics and processes. International relations scholars, who make up the largest group within political science, aim to answer fundamental questions: Why do nations act as they do? What is the best method for accurately describing, explaining, or predicting the interactions of national foreign policies (or non-governmental groups) in the global context? How can we describe, explain, or predict the functioning of the international system? While the study of international relations has been marked by numerous attempts to define its scope, it primarily revolves around these questions. However, there is no universally agreed-upon "line" that defines the boundaries of the field. The debate about whether international relations should be independent of political science has largely diminished, not due to a clear consensus on its borders, but because it is generally considered a natural subfield of political science. Quincy Wright, a strong proponent of its separation, in The Study of International Relations, identified subjects like geography, demography, technology, sociology, psychology, ethics, history, and general philosophy as integral to the study of international relations. Alfred Zimmern once described an international relations student as someone who wishes they had a deeper understanding of subjects like psychology, economics, diplomatic history, law, jurisprudence, sociology, geography, languages, comparative constitutional organization, and many others. “Perhaps here we confront an ultimate truth, the unity of all knowledge. Even so, the road to a unified field theory, or simply a better understanding of international relations can only be built by division of labour. But there must be some agreement on the direction of the road, standards of roadbuilding, and methods consonant with both standards and direction”. 1.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit students will be able to: •     To understand the meaning, nature and scope of international relations. •     To analyze the changing nature of international relations. •      To differentiate between international relations and international politics. •      To understand the practical utility and significance of international relations from     a broad and a narrow perspective. 1.3    Meaning and Nature of International Relations Jeremy Bentham used the term "international" for the first time in reference to national laws in the later half of the eighteenth century. As a result, the formal ties between the sovereign states were defined using the phrase international relations. Nonetheless other academics would rather include the states' economic, social, and cultural ties within the topic's purview. Issues pertaining to the evolution and evolution of sovereign statehood within the framework of the greater system or society of states constitute the traditional core of international relations. Professor Dunn describes international relations as the real relationships that occur across national borders, which is a limited definition. Lawson claims that the study of relations between nations is the most basic and limited definition of international relations. According to Padelford and Lincoln, the ties between nations are often what people think of when they talk about "international relations." They also argue that these kinds of connections between nations make up "international politics," which is the way state policies interact with shifting power dynamics. On the other hand, some academics have adopted a more expansive perspective on international relations, encompassing, in addition to formal ties between states, all interactions between nations as well as all cross-border flows of people, products, and ideas. This viewpoint has become more relevant and appealing. According to Quincy Wright “It is not only the nations which international relations seek to regulate. Varied types of groups –nations, states, governments, people, regions, alliances, confederations, international organisations, even industrial organisations, cultural organisations, religious organisations must be dealt within the study of international relations if the treatment is to be made realistic.” In the words of Palmer and Perkins “IR encompasses more than the relations among nationstates and international organizations and groups. It includes a great variety of transitional relationships, at various levels, above and below the level of the nationstate still the main actor in the international community.” For Jackson and Sorensen “ Relations “at one extreme the scholarly focus is exclusively on states and inter-state relations; but at another extreme International Relations includes almost everything that has to do with human relations across the world. Therefore, IR seeks to understand how people are provided or not provided, with the basic values of security, freedom, order, justice and welfare”. Goldstein opines that International Relations basically “concerns the relationship among the world’s governments”. But he also argues that IR is not just a relationship between governments. IR needs to be understood in terms of activities of Non-State actors also. P.A Reynolds defines two main categories of international relations, namely “ micro international relations” and “ macro international relations”. The former refers to the behaviour of those individuals, groups and institutions that are supposed to be the major actors on the international scene and the latter to the diverse kinds of international relationships that bring a change in or stability to the international system. But this categorization is broadly concerned with only the political part of the international system. In one category fall the individual actors and in the other the impersonal forces, all of which are essentially political in nature. After going through these definitions it can be concluded that international relations deals with the interrelationships of the various states of the world, non-State organizations, international organizations, war and peace, disarmament, alliance formation, terrorism and the whole international system. International relations have a profound effect on world politics, and the research and practice of the subject matter ranges from contemporary to modern politics, the relationship between multiple states and political ideologies on economic and global issues, mutual exchange, cooperation and debate. Thus IR is a vast field encompassing the relationships among states in all their dimensions, including interactions with various other political and non-political groups along with the study of international history, international law, international society and international political economy. The nature of a subject refers to the characteristics of that subject. On the basis of the above definitions and arguments following can be characterised as the nature of international relations. Dynamic Nature of International Relations International relations is inherently dynamic, involving a comprehensive analysis of global political developments. The post-World War II era marked a significant shift in world politics, with the world divided into two major blocs: the USA-led NATO and the USSR-led Warsaw Pact. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led to a more unipolar world order. In recent years, the growing economic influence of Asian countries like China, India, and Singapore, as well as South American nations like Brazil, has significantly shaped global politics. Additionally, the rising role of nonstate actors, such as NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) and MNCs (Multinational Corporations), is also a key topic in the study of international relations. This field examines the evolving patterns of the modern world. Interdisciplinary Nature of International Relations Like all social science disciplines, international relations is interdisciplinary, drawing on insights from various fields, including history, economics, political science, philosophy, geography, and culture. These interconnected disciplines contribute to a comprehensive understanding of global political dynamics. Nation-State as the Primary Actor The nation-state has long been the central actor in international relations. The behavior of states is a fundamental driving force in global politics, and this dynamic is a core focus of international relations studies. National Interest and Power at the Core A nation's primary objective in international relations is the protection of its national interests. States engage in diplomatic relations to safeguard these interests, with national power serving as a key instrument in achieving their goals. Thus, the concepts of national interest and the role of power in fulfilling these interests lie at the heart of international relations. Continuous Interaction Among Nation-States No state today can function in isolation. The interconnectedness and interdependence among states make it essential for them to maintain positive relationships. International relations examines how states' foreign policies shape their interactions and how they influence one another. Analytical and Empirical Approaches in Theory Building International relations employs both analytical and empirical methods to build theories. The ongoing interactions between states are analyzed through different theoretical frameworks. For example, Idealism and Neo-Liberalism emerge from analytical studies, while Realism and Neo-Realism are based on empirical research. Self-check Exercise:1 1)     ______ is the basic unit of study in International Relations ? 2)    The term International was first time used by ____________? 3)     International Relations is ________in nature? 4)    What do you understand by International Relations(IR), and how is it defined as an academic discipline? 1.4    International Relations and International Politics The terms International Politics and International Relations are used synonymously. International relations is a comprehensive concept where all types of social, economic, political, non -political, legal and governmental relations are studied. Whereas International politics is with power struggle going on among different nations as every weak state or strong state wants to spread its influence over other nations. International relations and international politics also differ in their aim. The ultimate aim of International Relations is the establishment of ‘International peace’ through cooperation & agreement among different nations promoting mutual interests. In comparison to it, international politics is ‘struggle for power’ through conflicts, wars, political manoeuvres among different nations. Padelford & Lincoln provides the distinction between international relations and international politics, “In its broadest sense, the field of international relations comprises myriads of contacts among individuals, business organisations, cultural institutions, and political personalities of many different countries. When people speak of international relations, however they are usually thinking of the relationship between states as such. This is to be expected in view of the fact that it is states which make the vital decisions affecting peace and war and that it is their governments which have the authority to regulate business, travel, commerce, use of resources, political ideas, territorial jurisdiction, nationality, communications, employment of armed forces, and other aspects of international affairs. This relationship between states we describe as ‘international politics’ that is, the interaction of state policies. This is the core of contemporary international relations.” International relations and international politics may also be distinguished from ‘international affairs’ and ‘world affairs’. The latter represent a general expression covering any matter of interest in the entire universe of human beings that may, or may not be, of any interest to the student of the former. For instance, breaking out of an epidemic or the blowing up of an aircraft in some part of the world may be a matter of world, affairs, but it is of no value to a student of international affairs. It is a different matter that a student of this discipline may draw some material from the massive stock of world affairs for the purpose of his investigation. Unless a matter has some relationship, direct or indirect, near or remote, overt or covert, with the political process it is of no significance in the field of international relations and politics. There is, however, a special sense in which international politics and international relations are coming closer to each other. The basis of this approaching closeness is the same as that of the closeness between international politics and international organizations, that is, the concern for peace, puts certain limitations on the process of international politics and this concern affects political as well as nonpolitical aspects of international relations. Therefore, the concern for peace is the common denominator between international politics and international relations. Self-Check Exercise 2 Q 1) Is it correct to say that International Relations is broad based. Q 2) What is the basic difference between International Relations and International Politics ? 1.5    Scope of International Relations The international community is the instrument of international relations. The unimaginable changes in the international community over the past seventy years have drastically changed inter-state relations. The study of international relations has been considerably advanced in recent years by the application of findings from other areas of the social sciences. These have included decision-making game-theory, conflict, bargaining, communication, negotiation system, geography, attitudes and simulation. International relations scholars such as Mortan Kaplan, Charles Mc Clelland, Richard C. Synder and Harold C. Sprout have built important bridges between international relations and other disciplines. The scope of international relations is as follows: Study of the relations among states Just as when a nation builds good relations for the sake of its overall development, it becomes the subject of international relations, just as when there is a conflict of interest, bitterness develops among itself and that too becomes part of international relations. Thus international relations consist of both cooperation and conflict. International relations are also a matter of forming alliances and dealing with the crisis. Study of Power The concept of power is fundamental to the study of international politics and international relations. Power, or, more exactly, the particular way in which it is conceived at any given time, has been a significant constitutive force defining the discipline of international relations. Any concept of power involves instruments, influence, and control. And any study of international relations must be concerned not only with power's nature but its distribution, its transformation, and its effect on inter-state behaviour. Role of Non-State Actors in International Field The content of international relations does not revolve only around the activities of the state and its formal institutions. The state is not the only active actor in the international community. There are many non-state actors whose activities affect international relations. Multinational Corporations (MNCs), European Economic Community, Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, NATO, SEATO, WARSAW PACT, ASEAN, Organization of American States, different terrorist organizations, Religious Organizations are the examples of the non-state elements in international relations. Question of War and Peace Today, international relations are not free from the discussion of the determination to save mankind from war. What was utopian in the past is becoming more and more realistic today. The main purpose of establishing the United Nations is to ensure world peace and security. Large, and regional powers are often exchanging views to create an atmosphere of peace and security. All kinds of contacts for the welfare of various exchanges and globalization process in cultural and other fields are Gradually increasing. All this has become the subject of international relations. Study of Foreign Policy Another important issue in international relations is foreign policy. In the past, kings or prime ministers or a few individuals played an active role in determining foreign policy Today, not only statesmen but also the legislature and many citizens are involved in the formulation of foreign policy. The state of affairs or ideology in foreign policy and the ideological issues of the respective regimes are important parts of international relations. Study of Nation States Nation states are the basis of International relations. The ethnic composition, geographical location, historical background, religion or ideologies of different states are not the same at all. And because of all these differences, the relationship between different states is different. So international relations tries to discuss all these differences in detail. When the social environment is different, his reaction falls on international relations. International Organizations The role of national and international organizations in international relations is no less important. People from different countries are involved with the US Congress of Industrial Organizations, the US Federation of labour, the French labour Organization, and the Women’s International Democratic Federation Engagement Organization. The non-governmental organizations are also involved in the activities of the Coalition and its various expert organizations, such as UNESCO, the International labour Organization and the World Health Organization. Therefore, international relations also discusses all national and international organizations. Global Environmental Issues Issues of the environment are one of the key matters of international relations now. During the 1970s the environmental politics only focused on the question of resource issues. But from the 1990s the environmental politics focused on the issue of ‘Climate change’ brought about through global warming. To overcome this issue, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the Paris Agreement on climate change, etc, have initiated. So, global environmental issues affect every state in the world. For the protection of this beautiful world all the states are trying their best by reduction of the usage of greenhouse gasses and that is why it is considered as the most important part of international relations. Role of People in International politics The importance of public and public opinion in the international arena is also expanding rapidly. The end of imperialism, from international, disarmament, political and economic, has inspired movements and protests by the people of different countries. U.S. scientists, intellectuals-people from different societies have demonstrated against the Vietnam War. So what do people think about the international situation or their views also come under international relations. Role of the Third World The third emergence in recent world politics has brought about qualitative change. Most people in the world are third generation. In 1986, 101 countries participated in the Eighth Non-Alignment Conference. The growing role of non-aligned countries in building new international systems, easing tensions between the East and the West, disarmament, ending colonial rule, etc. is significant. Therefore, the role of the third world in world politics is also the relevant point of discussion in international relations. The scope of international relations is becoming wider as it discusses various issues of dynamic nature. All the domestic policies that affect or are likely to affect other countries are now being covered by international relations. International relations currently discuss various decision-making processes.In the past, these issues were not related to international relations. Therefore, it can be said that the scope of international relations has expanded. Self check Exercise:3 1)    How and where Department of International politics was started? 2)    What role does the non-state actors play in international Relations? 3)     International Relations uses _________ and_______methods for its theory building? 1.6    Summary From the discussion on the Meaning, Nature, and Scope of International Relations, it is clear that international relations encompass all facets of interactions between nation-states and people, whether political or non-political, peaceful or conflict-ridden, legal or cultural, economic or geographical, and official or unofficial. These interactions span from ancient empires to the modern world. At its core, international relations involve the ongoing processes through which states adapt their national interests to align with the interests of other states. Power plays a central role in advancing a nation's goals on the global stage. The field of international relations addresses the full spectrum of political relations between states and the foreign policies of governments. These political relations include diplomacy, conflict, trade, military alliances, and cultural exchanges, among others. Thus, international relations cover a broad range of dynamics between sovereign states, extending far beyond its initial focus on the causes of war and prospects for peace. The complexities of global politics, particularly in the 20th century, have led to a wider scope that includes the study of issues such as human rights, migration, environmental cooperation, economic development, ethnic conflicts, nationalism, terrorism, and international crime. Today, scholars of international relations have developed advanced theories and models to address these expanding concerns. As a significant subfield of political science, international relations continue to demonstrate how political power shapes and influences an ever-growing array of global issues. 1.7    Glossary State: An organised political entity that occupies a definite territory has a permanent population, and enjoys stable government and sovereignty Nation: A community of people who share a common sense of identity, which may be derived from language, culture,or ethnicity. Nation- State: The main actor in IR is referred to as a ‘country’or a ‘nation-state. The term is applied in reference to both the populated territory of the state and the political body that governs that territory. nation- states marks the formal beginning of the modern sovereign states and modern international relations. International Relations: The study of the interactions of states(countries) and other actors in international system. International Politics: The Study of international relations, and it requires critical thinking skills and proficiency in cross-cultural communication. 1.8 Answers to Self-check ExerciseExercise1 (1)    Nation State (2) Jeremy Bentham (3) Dynamic in Nature Exercise 2 1)    Yes (2) see 1.4 Exercise 3 (1)    1919, University Of Wales (2) see 1.3 (4) (3) Normative and Empirical 1.9    References/Suggested Readings Palmer, Norman D., and Howard C. Perkins, International Relations-The World Community in Transition, AITBS Publishers, New Delhi, 1997. Wright, Quincy, The Study of International Relations, Appleton Century Crofts, New York, 1955. Goldstein, Joshua S., International Relations, Pearson Education, New Delhi, 2006. Jackson, Robert and George, Sorensen, Introduction to International Relations-Theories and Approaches, Oxford University Press, London, 1999. Ghosh, Peu, International Relations. Prentice-Hall of India, 2020. Lott, A., History of International Relations. In J.T Ishiyama and M Breuning, 21st century political science: A reference handbook, Sage Publication, London, 2011 Walt, S. M. (1998). International Relations: One World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy, 110, 29–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1149275 1.10    Terminal questions Q.1 Discuss the meaning and nature of International Relations? Q.2)Explain the changing scope of International Relations by giving suitable examples. UNIT 2 GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT &SIGNIFICANCE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Structure 2.1    Introduction 2.2    Learning Objectives 2.3    Development of International Relations / History of International Relations Self-check Exercise 1 2.4    Significance of International Relations Self-check Exercise 2 2.5    Summary 2.6    Glossary 2.7    Answers to Self -Check Exercises 2.8    Suggested Readings 2.9    Terminal Questions 2.1    Introduction The discipline of International Relations (IR) traditionally traces its roots back to the early modern period in Europe, specifically the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when sovereign states began to form, each based on clearly defined territories. By the eighteenth century, interactions between these independent states were termed 'international relations.' Initially, the system of states was European in nature, but by the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it expanded globally. The world of states is essentially territorial, representing a distinct form of political organization in which multiple, legally independent governments operate within their respective borders. The emergence and development of IR as both a field of study and an independent discipline have been shaped by various theoretical perspectives and interpretations. The rapidly changing global events and the expanding scope of the field further complicate the understanding of IR’s evolution. However, it is clear that the origins of international relations stretch back millennia, with early forms of state interaction seen in the Sumerian city-states around 3500 B.C. Greek city-states also had their own systems for managing war and peace. Yet, these early forms cannot be considered the true beginning of international relations as we understand it today, as they lacked the fundamental characteristics of modern IR. The modern history of International Relations is more accurately tied to the rise of the nation-state system in the seventeenth century. In this regard, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which formalized the concept of sovereign nation-states, is often considered the foundational moment for the field of IR. Prior to this, medieval Europe’s political order was dominated by a hierarchical religious structure. Even after the Westphalian settlement, layered systems of sovereignty persisted, particularly within the Holy Roman Empire. While the Westphalian Treaty was significant, the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 is often regarded as a more decisive document in the establishment of sovereign states, as it solidified the idea that a sovereign state’s authority was supreme within its borders, free from external interference. Given the diverse origins, evolving scope, and shifting nature of activities within IR, it is crucial to critically evaluate the discipline's development to truly understand its complex trajectory and modern form. 2.2    Learning Objectives: After going through the Unit the students will be able to: •      Trace the evolution of the discipline of International Relations. •     To Identify different stages in the development of International Relations as a discipline •     Explain the causes for the changes in different stages of the discipline 2.3    Development and History of International Relations The history of International Relations (IR) can be traced back to 1919 when the University of Wales established the first chair in international politics, known as the "Woodrow Wilson Chair," which was held by Alfred Zimmerman. In 1920, the Department of International Relations was founded at the London School of Economics. Several prominent scholars, including E.H. Carr, P.A. Reynolds, C.K. Webster, and Lawrence W. Martin, held this chair. While international relations have existed since ancient times, with civilizations like Egypt, China, Greece, and India establishing codes of conduct for interactions, these rules were primarily moral in nature and were not strictly enforced. It wasn't until the seventeenth century that states began establishing formal relations beyond their regions, marking the true inception of international relations. Early Development of International Relations as a Discipline Initially, the study of international relations focused primarily on diplomatic history, law, and philosophy. There were no coherent theories developed to understand international relations in a structured way. As an academic field, international relations is relatively young, with its roots grounded in the aftermath of World War I. Following the war, scholars, philanthropists, and diplomats in Europe and the United States sought to understand the causes of war and explore ways to foster international peace and security. The early study of IR was both normative and empirical. Normative theories aimed to establish values that could guide policymakers and diplomats to improve global conditions, while empirical theories sought to explain the underlying causes of political events. The initial focus was on resolving interstate conflict, with scholars drawing from philosophy, history, law, and economics to develop insights into the causes of war and the potential for peace. Emergence of International Relations Departments After World War I, international relations departments were established in countries like Great Britain, Switzerland, and the United States, aiming to train diplomats and policymakers and promote theoretical research. Although early IR scholarship focused on the causes of war and the potential for peace, the increasing complexities of world politics and the rise of globalization in the 20th century expanded the scope of IR. This expansion incorporated the study of human rights, migration, environmental cooperation, economic development, ethnic conflict, nationalism, terrorism, and international crime. Kenneth W. Thompson's Four Stages of International Relations Development Kenneth W. Thompson identified four distinct stages in the development of international relations: 1.    First Stage (Up to the End of World War I - Emphasis on Diplomatic History) This period was characterized by a strong emphasis on historical accuracy and a strict adherence to principles of research and documentation. Diplomatic historians monopolized the field, presenting international relations in a descriptive and chronological manner without linking past events to present-day dynamics. This lack of connection between past and present made it difficult to develop a universal theory of international relations. 2.    Second Stage (Interwar Period - Emphasis on Current Events) As diplomatic historians failed to address contemporary issues, scholars, policymakers, and the public turned to other approaches to understand international behavior. This stage saw a focus on current events, with an attempt to understand the significance of recent developments. However, this approach lacked a comprehensive view, failing to link present issues to historical context or future implications, and thus no solid theoretical foundation emerged. 3.    Third Stage  (Interwar Period - Emphasis on InstitutionalizingInternational                                                   Relations) This stage paralleled the previous one but focused on the institutionalization of international relations through international law and organizations. There was hope that the international community could create institutions to automatically resolve global problems. The creation of the League of Nations was seen as an effort to establish a peaceful world order. However, this focus on law and institutions proved too narrow, as it could not address the harsh realities of international life during the interwar period, leading to the outbreak of World War II. 4.    Fourth Stage (Post-War Period - Emphasis on Behavioral Studies with New Techniques) After World War II, the focus shifted from international law and organizations to the forces and influences that shape state behavior. Scholars began to explore the motivations behind foreign policies, the techniques used in their implementation, conflict resolution strategies, and the creation of a new international order based on socio-economic justice. This stage marked a shift toward understanding the broader dynamics shaping international relations, with a greater focus on empirical studies and behavioral approaches. The Evolving Nature of International Relations The development of international relations as a discipline has been marked by periods of both simplicity and complexity. Before World War I, the field was relatively straightforward, focused on diplomatic history. However, after the war, the field grew multi-dimensional, as scholars rejected past methods and sought new ways to understand global political realities. The post-war period saw significant developments in international relations, largely due to changes in the international landscape. The establishment of international organizations like the League of Nations and later the United Nations contributed to the growth of internationalism. Additionally, the Cold War further shaped the field by introducing new geopolitical dynamics. Today, the international environment is characterized by both hope for lasting peace and security, as well as fears of catastrophic disasters, particularly in the face of nuclear weapons. New trends, challenges, and issues continue to emerge in the realm of international politics, further expanding the scope of the discipline. Self-check Exercise 1 Q 1) Originally, IR had the desire to achieve pacific relations between___________ states. Q 2) Up to the end of first world war International Relations were viewed in a ____________manner. 3)The real beginning of the Nation State system and the International Relations started with the _______________________. 2.4    Significance of International Relations: International Relations (IR) is closely related with several disciplines. These include History, Political Science, Law, Economics, and Geography. As we all know that no country in the world can live in isolation. Even when means of transportation and communication were primitive or much less developed than today, sovereign states did interact with each other. They cooperated at times, and had frequent conflicts which often led to wars. Relations among those states were generally studied by Historians and Political Scientists. Diplomatic History was usually studied for understanding relations among sovereign states. During the second half of the twentieth century, revolution in the means of travel and communication has not only changed the nature of international relations, but made its study essential for every enlightened person. We are today living in an interdependent state – system. It is essential for all of us to have a clear idea of what is happening in the world. Political events are important, but even economic developments, trade, commerce and activities of actors like multinational corporations are no less significant. We live in an age of growing international cooperation. Therefore, not only do the activities of the United Nations and its numerous agencies affect all the nations and their peoples, but reg.. ional organisations like the European Union, South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) also play important roles in our lives. International terrorism has been a concern for the humankind and economic institutions like the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) affect international relations. The study of International Relations has therefore become highly useful and enlightening for students and others alike. In the present day inter-dependent world the study of International relations has great significance. It enables us to understand the basic motives underlying the policies of various countries in the international spheres and the reasons which contribute to their ultimate success or failure. Dear students as you all know the significance of international relations lies in its profound impact on shaping global dynamics and fostering cooperation among nations in an increasingly interconnected world. Some reasons why international relations is of utmost importance are: •    Global Interdependence: It is impossible for a country to solve its problems in isolation or to meet its growing needs without engaging with others. To fulfill its economic, cultural, and other needs, each state must engage in bilateral or multilateral agreements with other states. This has led to an environment of interdependence and cooperation rather than extreme self-reliance. •    Understanding Global Dynamics: From a broader perspective, international relations help us understand how global affairs work, what issues should be addressed or accepted, and how states can foster mutual friendship. IR brings awareness to critical issues such as war and peace, mutual security, disarmament, international law and trade, peaceful conflict resolution, imperialism, colonialism, and national liberation movements. •    Rich Historical Experience: The history of international relations has provided each nation with significant experience in shaping and executing its foreign policy. While international relations have inspired the idea of a global society, they also reveal the divisions among nations. The socio-economic differences between countries inevitably shape their national and international policies. Thus, international relations cannot be understood through sentiment alone. •    Broadening Perspectives on IR: To fully understand the value of international relations, one must objectively review real-world events while building a robust analytical and theoretical framework. The advancements in science and technology that have benefited other branches of sociology should also be applied to the study of international relations. Since global developments affect everyone’s lives, the study of IR should not be confined solely to policymakers and diplomats—it is relevant to every individual. •    Understanding Global Complexities: International Relations (IR) helps us navigate the complexities of issues like climate change, terrorism, pandemics, and economic crises, shedding light on their interconnectedness and far-reaching consequences. •    Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding: Through the study of IR, scholars and policymakers are equipped to develop strategies that prevent conflicts and work toward global peace and security. •    Promoting Cooperation: IR fosters collaboration between states and nonstate actors, resulting in better outcomes in areas like international trade, human rights, and sustainable development. •    Addressing Emerging Threats: International Relations provides the necessary tools to effectively confront new and evolving challenges, including cyber threats, nuclear proliferation, and the rise of new global powers. Self-Check Exercise 2 Q 1) IR can help policymakers and scholars can develop ___________to prevent conflicts and promote peace and security. Q 2) International Relations fosters cooperation between ____________ and - __________ actors Q 3) Is it correct to say that International Relations help us to understand the complexities of the global issues and problems ? 2.5    Summary An account of the rise and growth of the study of international relations and politics is as old as the history of the state system. What captivates our attention in this regard, however, is not the record of its intermittent development from ancient times till the emergence of the nation-state system in modern times, it is the invention and utilization of the new and newer approaches to the field of study in the period following the First World War due to which great scholars have come to be identified with the contending schools of’ idealism’ and ‘realism’ ,‘traditionalism’, ‘modernism’ and ‘post-modernism’ . The history of IR is often traced back to the treaty of Westphalia of 1648, through which the modern state system evolved gradually. States are the most important actors in IR. Westphalia encouraged the development of the nation state and the institutionalization of diplomacy and militarization. The modern international system was finally consolidated in the post-Second World War period with the decolonization of a large number of Asian, African and Latin American countries in the Cold War era. Although the discipline began by focusing on the causes of war and potential for peace, the complexities of world politics and the emergence of globalizing forces throughout the 20th century expanded the scope of IR to include the study of human rights, migration, environmental cooperation, economic development, ethnic conflict, nationalism, terrorism and international crimes. IR initially focused on the study of political and diplomatic , much later commercial, relations among sovereign states. But with the institutionalization of the law and organizations, IR has expanded its significance to a broad emerging problems, threats as well as devices for the maintenance of international peace and security. 2.6    Glossary •     Peace Treaty of Westphalia: The Peace treaty of Westphalia was a series of peace treaties signed between May and October 1648 in the Westphalian cities of Osnabrück and Münster that ended the Thirty Years’ War. The treaties did not restore peace throughout Europe, but they did create a basis for national selfdetermination. The Peace of Westphalia established important political precedents for state sovereignty, inter-state diplomacy, and balance of power in Europe. •      Nation-State: Is a territorially bounded sovereign polity- i.e, a State -that is ruled in the name of a community of citizens who identify themselves as a nation. 2.7    Answer to self-check ExercisesExercise 1 1)    normative       2) descriptive & chronological      3) , the Peace Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. Exercise 2 1)    strategies 2) State and Non-State. 3) Yes 2.8    Suggested Readings Spindler, M. (2013). History of theoretical thought on inter-state relations and the formation of “International Relations” as an academic discipline. In International Relations: A Self-Study Guide to Theory (1st ed., pp. 13–35). Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf09vd.4 Lott, A. (2011). History of international relations. In 21st Century Political Science: A Reference    Handbook (pp.     303-310).     SAGE     Publications,     Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412979351 Thompson, K. W. (1952). The Study of International Politics: A Survey of Trends and Developments. The Review of Politics, 14(4), 433–467. 2.9    Terminal Questions Q 1) Discuss different stages of evolution of International Relations as an academic discipline. Q 2) What is the significance of International Relations in today’s context. UNIT 3 THE GREAT DEBATE IDEALISM Vs. REALISM Structure 3.1    Introduction 3.2    Learning objectives 3.3    Meaning of Idealist and Realist approach Self- Check Exercise 1 3.4    Idealism and Realism Debate in International Relations 3.4.1    Arguments of the Idealists against the Realists 3.4.2    The Arguments of the Realists against the Idealists Self- Check Exercise 2 3.5    Idealism and Realism as Two Extreme Views Self- Check Exercise 3 3.6    Summary 3.7    Glossary 3.8    Answers to self-check Exercises 3.9    Suggested Readings 3.10 Terminal Questions 3.1    Introduction The concepts of Idealism and Realism in political theory address two fundamental aspects of what should be versus what actually is. In 1962, renowned realist scholar Hans Morgenthau remarked that "the history of modern political thought is the story of a contest between two schools that differ fundamentally in their conceptions of the nature of man, society, and politics." Similarly, political theorist Arnold Wolfers noted that “in international relations, two opposing schools of thought have clashed throughout modern history. Since Machiavelli's The Prince, his 'realistic' views have alarmed 'idealists.' The narrative of international relations is often described as a series of major ‘debates,’ the first of which was the idealist versus realist debate in the late 1930s and early 1940s. This debate was spurred by real-world events such as the Manchurian Crisis, the Abyssinian Crisis, the failure of the League of Nations, and most significantly, the publication of E.H. Carr’s The Twenty Years Crisis.” Idealists and Realists remain deeply opposed to one another. The central point of disagreement between them is the role of power in politics. Realists accept and manage the role of power, while Idealists reject power as an undesirable force that should be eliminated, instead promoting morality as the foundation of international relations. Idealism critiques Realism as a pessimistic, reactionary, cynical, and selfserving viewpoint that unjustly normalizes and justifies power politics. In contrast, Realism defines international politics as an ongoing struggle for power among nations—a natural, unending condition. While this power struggle cannot be eradicated, Realism believes that managing it can prevent wars, ensuring international peace and security. Idealism, according to Realism, is seen as an impractical and utopian approach. 3.2    Learning Objectives After going through this Unit , the students will be able to understand •  the first great debate in International Relations between Idealism and Realism •  to comprehend the meaning and arguments of the Idealists against the Realists •    to know the ground and arguments of the Realists against the Idealists •    the basic issue of contention between Idealists and the Realists. 3.3    Meaning of Idealist and Realist Approach Idealism stands for improving the course of International Relations by eliminating war, hunger, inequality, hunger, tyranny, force, suppression and violence from international relations. The removal of these evils is the objective before humankind. Idealism accepts the possibility of creating a world free from these evils by relying upon reason, science and education and establishing peace, order and justice. The intellectual foundations of international idealism can be traced from the nineteenth century Benthamite rationalism which was based upon the idea of the supremacy of reason. It was argued that the real problem was one of right reasoning. The postulates that emerged from this argument were that a correct understanding of international society could be acquired through right reason, that the public opinion was prepared for being moulded in accordance with the demand of reason, and that the international society could be improved once the voice of reason is known. Idealists like E.H Carr, Reinhold Niebuhr, Woodrow Wilson and Huxley support this argument. Idealist approach is quite old. Finding its faint echo in the declarations of the American War of Independence of 1775 and in the French Revolution of 1789 and also in the writings of great optimists like Condorcet , Rousseau and Kant and in the utterances of leaders like Woodrow Wilson, A.Briand, F.B. Kellogg, Noel-Barker and Nehru, it desires , in positive terms , a state of perpetual peace through the existence of ‘world federation’. In negative terms, it desires the absence of war, elimination of inequality of mankind, end of tyranny and the like. Obviously , it “ presents the picture of a future international society based on the notion of reformed international system free from power politics, immorality and violence. According to the idealist approach, morality is the most suitable way to achieve the goal of establishing an ideal world. Its best illustration is contained in the Wilsonian Idealism of 1918 that desired the way of making open treaties, removing restrictions on the freedom of navigation, developing economic intercourse among nations, reducing armaments, effecting impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, having evacuation of the Russian, French and Belgian territories, implementing the principle of national self-determination and above all providing guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity. The Realistic approach discards all canons of ethics in international behaviour and instead sticks to the element of power. Realism is an approach to the study of international relations (IR), which explains and interprets world politics in terms of power. Nation states are always involved in the struggle for power. Realism has been the most dominant school of thought in post-second world war period and in international relations it continues to have relevance in contemporary world politics. We associate Realism with thinkers from the times of Kautilya, Machiavelli, and Hobbes through 20th century scholars like Hans Morgenthau, Freidrich Schuman, Nickholas Spykman and Henry Kissinger etc. The principal line of argument of the realist approach is in terms of power and its exercise by states. In other words, it is always concerned with realpolitik. Realists maintain that the principal actors in the international arena are the nation states, each acting in its rational self -interest within an environment of international anarchy. Political realism further regards prudence as the guide in politics and holds, as Columbiums and Wolfe point out, that to act rationally (that is to act in one’s interest) is to seek power, (i. e to have ability and willingness to control others.). Realists primarily emphasize on power, national interest, security and the centrality of nation states. Self check Exercise 1 Q 1) Idealism accepts the possibility of creating a world free from these evils by relying upon . Q 2) The Publication of ____________________________ triggered the first Great debate in the history of International Relations. Q 3) Idealism regards Realism as . Q 4) Realists regard____________ as the main actors, acting in its rational self - interest within an environment of. 3.4    Idealism Realism debate in International Relations The term idealism in international relations is an old one. Idealism emerged as a dominant force in thinking about the world largely as a reaction to the World War I. In that conflict's wake, it was assumed that war was senseless and hardly effective at obtaining national objectives. This thinking became a centrepiece during the so-called First Debate among international relations theorists between realists and idealists during the interwar period of 1919 to 1939. Idealism permeated many of the peace movements, the push and eventual formation of the League of Nations, as well as some of the political initiatives (such as the Kellogg-Briand pact) to use legal means to outlaw war. This First Debate has been depicted as one in which idealists, putting their faith in Enlightenment principles such as reason, naively assumed that war could be avoided through international organizations such as the League of Nations. Ultimately, the depiction goes, interwar realists such as Edward Carr and Reinhold Niebuhr, and post–World War II ones such as Hans Morgenthau, John Herz, Arnold Wolfers, and Kenneth Osgood, “won” this debate when World War II disconfirmed much of the basis of interwar idealism. Morgenthau, in Scientific Man Versus Power Politics, positioned scientific approaches to international relations as a form of idealist theory. Morgenthau asserted that such approaches approximated particularist bourgeois ideals (liberty, property, wealth, etc.) as universals, using those as a barometer to measure the “progress” of nations in global politics. According to Morgenthau, because these were abstract ideals, the study of these by the social scientist ignored the realities of power politics. Nevertheless, these scientific approaches toward the study of international relations became dominant during the 1950s and 1960s behavioural revolution of American social science, and thus, positivist frameworks because of their “problem- solving” approach to social action are considered by many classical realists to be another form of idealism. 3.4.1    Arguments of the Idealists against the Realists Idealists strongly criticize the realist view that the struggle for power is a natural and inevitable part of international relations. They reject the fatalistic approach of realists and argue that power politics is unnatural, abnormal, and merely a temporary phase in history. Idealists believe that through conscious efforts and a strict adherence to moral values, power struggles and wars can be eradicated. They view the realist perspective of politics as "the art of the possible" as a morally permissive justification for war, which legitimizes the use of force and power to secure one’s interests. For the Idealists, politics should be about renouncing force, promoting education, advancing science for the benefit of humanity, and ensuring that all states coexist under democratic and enlightened governance. Idealists advocate for rejecting Realism because it justifies war. During the inter-war period, Idealists argued that, while they supported internationalism, peace, and development, Realists were focused on nationalism, war, and destruction. Idealists contend that Realists fail to recognize the importance of morality in international relations and wrongly defend the use of power to achieve national interests. Instead of preserving the struggle for power, Idealists believe the goal should be to rid the world of war, violence, and power struggles. 3.4.2    The Arguments of the Realists against the Idealists Realists, in contrast, strongly criticize Idealism as mere utopianism that disregards the harsh realities of human nature and politics. They argue that the pursuit of rational self-interest is both natural and just. According to Realists, prudence should be the guiding principle for all actions. While they acknowledge the importance of morality, they contend that it does not work in international relations. Only by being pragmatic and aligning with the forces of human nature can we understand politics and manage the power struggles at the international level. Although war can be prevented and power struggles can be managed through methods like diplomacy, disarmament, and arms control, they cannot be entirely eliminated. The struggle for power is an inherent reality in international relations that must be accepted and managed. Summing up the Realists’ rejection of Idealism, Wolfe and Couloumbis observed that "Realists argue that the adoption of legalistic, moralistic, and ideological behavior in politics goes against the forces of nature, leading either to pacifism and defeatism on one side, or to a harsh, exclusionary, and crusading attitude on the other." According to Realists, the goal is not to ignore these forces but to work with them in order to enhance the chances of peace and avoid war. They assert that "utopian logic cannot be relied upon," as the struggle for power cannot be eradicated—only managed. Likewise, while wars cannot be completely eliminated, the likelihood of war can be reduced. Self check exercise 2 Q1 The basic issue of conflict between idealists and realists is the issue of ______ in politics. Q 2 Idealism is nothing but ________ which ignores the realities of human nature and politics. Q 3 The names of Henry Kissinger and Reinold Niebuhr is associated with ________ School of Thought. Q 4) What role does morality plays in international relations? 3.5    Idealism and Realism as Two Extreme Views Idealists and Realists are deeply opposed to one another, with their main disagreement centered on the role of power in politics. Realists accept the role of power and focus on managing it, while Idealists reject power as undesirable and believe it should be eliminated, instead advocating for morality as the foundation of international relations. Realists focus on the present and emphasize understanding the forces, particularly national interests and power, that drive the power struggles between nations. They argue that by managing power through mechanisms like balance, collective security, disarmament, and diplomacy, the power struggle can be controlled and kept from escalating into war. They believe that national interests, while often divergent, can become more compatible with careful management. In contrast, Idealists call for reforming the international system, advocating for universal acceptance of moral values as the means to achieve this reform. They believe that such acceptance can ensure lasting peace and cooperation. Realists, however, contend that the national interests of nations are inherently incompatible, and this incompatibility is the root cause of conflict, disputes, and wars. By handling these conflicts prudently, they argue, war can be avoided, though it cannot be entirely eliminated. The chances of war can be reduced, but power politics will always be part of international relations. Thus, the differences between Realists and Idealists are stark. Both are extreme in their views: Realists wrongly prioritize power and emphasize the inevitability of incompatible national interests, while Idealists are overly naive in ignoring the role of power and assuming that national interests are perfectly compatible. Neither view fully captures the true nature of international relations. The national interests of nations are neither as irreconcilably opposed as Realists claim, nor as perfectly aligned as Idealists assume. The Realist glorification of power struggles is unnecessary, but the Idealist dismissal of power struggles as a temporary phase is equally misleading. Therefore, neither Idealism nor Realism provides a complete understanding of international relations. The scientific approach, in contrast, rejects both Idealism and Realism as overly formal, abstract, and insufficient for understanding international politics. While we may not fully agree with the scientific criticism, we recognize the limitations of these two classical approaches in explaining the complexities of international relations. The question is can we synthesize these two approaches? Reinhold Niebuhr holds that positively we should try to combine the wisdom of the Realists (the acceptance of the role of power), with the optimism of the Idealists (the advocacy of the need and possibility of an end of war), or negatively we should reject the pessimism of the Realists (no end to war and power struggle) and the foolishness of the Idealists (non-recognition of the role of power). Niebuhr speaks of “the children of light” and “ the children of darkness”. The former are those who believe that self-interest should be subordinated to more universal laws and put in harmony with universal good, whereas the latter are those who know no law beyond their will and interest”. On the basis of this criterion, Niebuhr regards the children of darkness as evil and wicked and the children of light as virtuous. But on the basis of another criterion, he considers the children of darkness wise because they understand the power of self-will and declares the children of light foolish because they do not understand the power of self-will and because they underestimate the risk of anarchy and disorder in the international community. Niebuhr suggests that the children of darkness should learn something from the children of light and the children of light should borrow something from the children of darkness, though, he warns they should not borrow too much. Niebuhr believes that national self-interest is an inescapable reality but it must not be accepted as a norm. The contribution of realism, according to him consists in the omnipresence of self-interest. But he also asserts that self-interest, unless qualified by higher loyalty to values, would be self-defeating. The divergence between the realists and the idealists is like the divergence between the children of darkness and the children of light. It can be minimized if the merit of both realism and idealism is given due recognition.    There is a need for combining these two classical approaches and the scientific approach for a comprehensive and systematic study of international relations. While accepting the continued presence of struggle for power among nations, we can and we should direct our efforts for strengthening the chances of international peace against war, peaceful co-existence against power politics and development against destruction. Self check exercise 3 Q1) What is the basic focus of realists? Q 2) What is meant by scientific approach ? Q 3) How power struggle can be managed at international level? 3.6    Summary From the preceding discussion, it can be concluded that Idealists and Realists are fundamentally opposed to each other, with each school of thought rejecting the other’s views. Both perspectives present extreme positions regarding international relations, stemming from differing views on how states should engage with one another in the global arena. However, these views are not entirely mutually exclusive. The central issue that arises in international politics is whether states, in their capacity as sovereign entities, have a moral obligation to adhere to ethical principles, laws, or rules, or whether they should act solely based on their national interests, particularly the objective of increasing power. Realism’s glorification of power struggles is excessive and unnecessary, while the Idealist dismissal of power struggles as a temporary phase is equally problematic. Both approaches, while limited in their scope, highlight important aspects of international society. In reality, neither approach fully captures the complexities of international relations, but together, they provide valuable insights into the challenges states face in navigating the global system. The changes in international politics after 1945, particularly due to the rise of science and technology, have reshaped the nature of warfare and global interaction. On the one hand, advancements have made the world more interconnected, while on the other hand, they have fundamentally altered the way wars are fought. These changes have called for a reassessment of the traditional divide between Realism and Idealism. The traditional frameworks are no longer entirely applicable in today’s world, given the complexities of modern warfare, diplomacy, and international cooperation. A more balanced perspective, called eclecticism, has emerged as a middle ground between the extreme views of Realism and Idealism. Eclecticism does not fully endorse either approach but rather seeks to integrate elements from both. It recognizes the pessimism inherent in Realism, which emphasizes power politics and the inevitability of conflict, while also acknowledging the optimism of Idealism, which advocates for moral principles and the possibility of peaceful cooperation. By synthesizing these two perspectives, eclecticism offers a more nuanced understanding of international relations, one that accounts for the importance of power and conflict while also recognizing the potential for cooperation, peace, and reform. In today’s interconnected and rapidly evolving global system, this middle-ground approach is increasingly relevant. The growing interdependence between states and the emergence of global challenges, such as climate change, pandemics, and terrorism, require both pragmatic solutions and moral considerations. Eclecticism, by combining the best of both worlds, offers a more flexible and adaptable framework for understanding international relations in the modern age. 3.7    Glossary •    Power: Power can be social ability to influence or control the actions, beliefs, or behaviours of others. It involves the capacity to create effects and determine outcomes through influence, control, or authority. •    National Power: It can be regarded as the capacity or ability of a country to fulfill its national objectives •    and objectives in relation to other nations. It encompasses the economic, military, diplomatic, and political tools that a state can employ to secure its interests in the international arena. •    National Interest: National interest refers to the primary and overarching goals of a nation, often considered vital for its survival, security, economic stability, and prosperity. It is a guiding principle in shaping a nation’s foreign policy and actions. •    Idealism: Idealism refers to behavior or thought based on an idealistic conception of the world—what things should be like or how one wishes them to be, rather than how they actually are. It emphasizes moral values, ethical standards, and the belief in the possibility of achieving perfection in society and international relations. •    Realism: Realism is a pragmatic approach to understanding and dealing with situations as they truly are, without being swayed by emotions, wishes, or false hopes. In international relations, it emphasizes the inevitability of power struggles, national interests, and the harsh realities of global politics, focusing on what is practically achievable rather than idealistic goals. 3.8    Answers to self check exercise:Self check Exercise 1 1    reason, science and education. 2)    E.H. Carr’s ‘The Twenty Years Crisis’ 3)    unwholesome, reactionary, distrustful and self-serving 4)    nation states, as the chief actors, international anarchy. Self check exercise 2 (1)    power (2) utopianism (3) Realism (4) see section 2.0 Self check exercise 3 (1)    see section 2.5 (2) see section 2.4.2 (3) see section2.5 3.9 Suggested Readings Wilson, P., “The Myth of the ‘First Great Debate’’ Review of International Studies, No. 24, 1998, pp. 1-15 Kumar, Mahendra, Theoretical aspects Of International Relations, Shiva Lal Agarwal, Agra. 1967 Morgenthau, H., Scientific Man versus Power Politics, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1946. Thompson, K. W. (1977). Idealism and Realism: Beyond the Great Debate. British Journal of International Studies, 3(2), 199–209. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20096802 3.10 Terminal questions Q.1 Discuss Idealism Realism debate in “International Relations”. Q.2 What are the contentions of the Idealists as against the Realists? Q.3 Critically evaluate Idealism as a school of thought in International relations. UNIT 4 REALISM AND LIBERALISM Structure 4.1    Introduction 4.2    Learning Objectives 4.3    Liberalism as an Approach in International Relations Self-check Exercise 1 4.4    Basic Assumptions of Liberal approach and its Core Ideas Self-check Exercise 2 4.5    Realism as an Approach in International Relations Self-Check Exercise 3 4.6    Answers to Self-Check Exercises 4.7    Summary 4.8    Glossary 4.    9 Suggested Readings 4.10TerminalQuestions 4.1    Introduction The theories of international relations, which are backed by strong evidence, are a collection of several concepts that describe how this system of IR operates. These theories are not merely random ideas which exist in the universe rather they are a reflection of phenomena, which are sketched to explain and show how they all are related to one another in a meaningful and astute manner. Till date, IR is influenced by three theoretical perspectives of international politics i.e, realism, liberalism and world system theory. Political realists obtain their pivotal ideas from philosophic thinking of different philosophers and believe that mankind is selfentered and competitive and not benevolent at all. The study of both international affairs and international relations is best understood as a protracted competition between the realist, liberal, and radical traditions. Realism emphasizes the enduring propensity for conflict between states; Liberalism identifies several ways to mitigate these conflictive tendencies; and the radical tradition describes how the entire system of state relations might be transformed. Liberalism is often seen as the characteristic political philosophy of the modern West. Its central principles – freedom, (human) rights, reason, progress, toleration – and the norms of constitutionalism and democracy are deeply embedded in Western political culture. Nonetheless, liberal theories of IR were until recently disdained as utopian, by IR scholars no less than by diplomats. The two world wars and the Cold War seemed to bear out the realist thesis that the international milieu was inevitably subject to the harsh imperatives of power politics. 4.2    Learning ObjectivesAfter reading the Unit the students will be able to- •     To grasp the liberal viewpoint for understanding studying International relations •     To discuss the fundamental propositions of Realism as a conceptual framework International relations •     To examine the fundamental propositions of the Realist Approach. 4.3    Liberalism as an Approach in International Relations The word ‘liberalism’ dates since the nineteenth century, but the distinctive liberal pattern of ideas crystallised much earlier, in the political struggle against monarchical absolutism in seventeenth-century England, and were formulated as a coherent political doctrine by the English philosopher, John Locke, whose Two treatises of government ([1690] ranks as the first great liberal text. For Locke the rights and freedoms of the individual were paramount; government should rest on consent, not monarchical or religious authority, its powers should be strictly limited, and it should practise religious toleration. After the end of the Cold War in 1990 , the world has looked quite different. There is no hostile power threatening the liberal democracies, indeed major war has come to seem unthinkable, and the international economy is organised in accordance with the norms of the liberal market. Liberal internationalism has gained a new relevance. The predominant school of liberal IR theory, most strongly represented in the United States, focuses on the forces of change that are regarded as having brought about this transformation: democratisation, institutionalisation and economic interdependence. Liberal ideas on international relations also took shape in the later eighteenth century. Viewing war as irrational violence and attributing it to the unrestrained power, vanity and ambition of monarchs, liberals looked for same remedy as for internal oppression: the removal previous regime. Among the many opinions on contemporary global politics, liberalism is a significant one. Believing that development is possible is a hallmark of the liberal approach. According to liberalism, people may better their financial and moral circumstances, which will ultimately result in social advancement, and human nature is basically good. The liberal theory's roots may be found in the optimism of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, political and economic liberalism in the nineteenth century, and Wilsonian idealism in the twentieth century. . The rationalism of 18th-century Enlightenment was taken over by the 19th century liberalism, which reformulated it by adding a preference for democracy over aristocracy and for free trade over national self-sufficiency. The liberals believed if harmony of interests among individuals was possible, there could be harmony of interests among states as well. An important development that contributed to liberalism was the 20th- century idealism. The idealists adopted a normative point of view by laying emphasis on the role of morality in international politics. The Liberal approach suggests that long-lasting peace is possible in international relations by the coming into force of a world federation and an international system free from power politics and war. In the early post second world war period, a group of liberals advanced an important argument that transnational cooperation was required to solve common problems. They were known as pluralists, who recognised that world politics was no longer an arena for states alone but other actors such as international non-governmental organizations could be players too. Pluralists, after being criticized by the realists, modified their position and came to be known as neoliberals. In their conceptions of international cooperation, liberal theorists emphasize different features of world politics and thus there are four types of liberal IR Theory: Sociological Liberalism: Sociological Liberalism is a branch of liberal thought that emphasizes that international relations (IR) are not solely about interactions between states, but also involve transnational relationships—those between private individuals, groups, and organizations across different countries. This perspective is also characterized by ‘Pluralism’ and ‘Transnationalism’. Key advocates of sociological liberalism include Richard Cobden (1903), Karl Deutsch (1957), John Burton (1972), James Rosenau (1990, 1992), and Phil Cerny (2010). Sociological liberals support a traditional liberal idea: that interactions between people tend to be more cooperative and conducive to peace than those between national governments. These theorists argue that strong transnational ties between societies foster peaceful relations that go beyond merely avoiding war. Instead, they lead to the creation of a “security community”—a group of people who have become "integrated." Integration, in this context, means that a "sense of community" has been established, where people agree that their conflicts and issues can be resolved peacefully, without resorting to large-scale violence. Sociological liberals reject the realist view that international relations are simply formal and official state-to-state interactions. They emphasize the importance of close networks between people and states. John Burton's "cobweb model" illustrates this point, suggesting that the nation-state is composed of various groups with different interests, such as religious, business, and labor groups. This diversity of interests means that no clear, artificial boundaries should be drawn between nation-states. Interdependence Liberalism This concept came into the parlance of international politics during the latter part of the 1970s. Robert O՚ Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, who developed this concept point out that all actors of international relations – state and non-state are mutually dependent on one another. International politics works on the collaboration of these various actors. Interdependence takes place due to the transnational flow of money, people, goods, services and communication. In their book, Power and Interdependence (2001), Keohane and Nye identify three main features of interdependence: There are multiple channels of connection that link societies and peoples. It includes informal ties between a) government officials; b) nongovernmental individual; and, c) members of transnational organizations. These classifications communicate the idea that transnational connections are important in world politics. This understanding is different from realism. There are multiple issues in world politics. It means that in international politics, there is no hierarchy of issues. Liberalism therefore challenges statesmen across the world who give priority only to military and security issues. It argues that there are certain issues of domestic politics of a country that may have a worldwide impact. There can be a connection between national issues of a country with an international event.. Institutional Liberalism Institutional Liberalism builds on earlier liberal ideas about the positive impact of international institutions on global relations. Earlier liberal thinkers envisioned transforming international relations from a chaotic "jungle" dominated by power politics into a regulated "zoo" of peaceful and orderly interactions. This transformation was to be achieved by establishing international organizations, with the League of Nations being the most prominent example. Contemporary institutional liberals are more cautious than their idealist predecessors. While they agree that international institutions can facilitate and enhance cooperation between states, they do not believe that such institutions alone can guarantee a complete transformation of international relations from a state of anarchy to one of peace and order. Powerful states, they argue, will not easily be fully constrained by international institutions. Nonetheless, institutional liberals reject the realist claim that international institutions are mere "scraps of paper" completely controlled by powerful states. Instead, they believe that international institutions are of independent value and can significantly promote cooperation among states. These institutions help address issues like mistrust and fear between states, which are seen as central problems in an anarchic international system. Republican Liberalism Republican Liberalism is based on the idea that liberal democracies are more peaceful and law-abiding than other types of political systems. The argument does not claim that democracies never go to war—indeed, democracies have engaged in wars—but it does assert that democracies do not typically fight each other. This idea was first articulated by Immanuel Kant in the 18th century in reference to republican states, and it was revived by Dean Babst in 1964 and has been supported in various studies since. Michael Doyle systematically explored the success of democracies in promoting peace. He identified three key features that make democracies more inclined toward peace. First, democracies have domestic political cultures focused on peaceful conflict resolution, which encourages peaceful international relations. Second, democracies share common moral values, which foster the creation of a "pacific union." Peaceful methods of resolving domestic conflicts are considered morally superior to violence, and this attitude extends to interactions between democracies. Third, the economic cooperation and interdependence among democracies strengthen peace between them.Republican liberals are optimistic about the potential for peace, goodwill, tolerance, and mutual respect to prevail in international relations, arguing that these qualities are more likely to emerge in a world where liberal democracies dominate. Self -check Exercise 1 Q 1) The three core ideas which led to the growth of Liberal International theory are _______,__________,_______. Q 2) A group liberals known as _____________ suggested for ___________to resolve problems in the way of international peace. Q 3) _____________ Liberalism has the strongest normative element. 4.4    Basic Assumptions of the Liberal Approach and its Core Ideas People are capable of mutual aid and cooperations as human nature is altruistic. Their concern for others welfare makes their progress possible. The evil institutions leads them to make bad behaviour and not because they are flawed. These evil institutions encourage them to act selfishly to harm others. Liberals believed that there was an underlying harmony of interest among individuals and, hence, a minimal state was a desirable possibility. Liberals also stressed the importance of popular opinion in directing state officials and in the development of sound public policy, particularly foreign policy. The public and the state were not separate entities. It consisted of many people and represented a multitude of interests. The view regarding the domestic polity was carried over further in the international realm. While liberals agreed that war was a defining characteristic of international politics, and there was a suspicion and distrust among states that posed obstacles to peace, they also assumed that as there was synchronisation of interests between people within a given state, so too there was harmony of interests among states. According to Wittkopf and kegley •     Though war is not inevitable but its destruction can be reduced by reforming institutional arrangements. •      War is an international problem which requires collective efforts to avert it. •     To eliminate war nations would recognize International society and make its governance democratic and full of self-determination to pacify with other fellow states. Liberalists believe that international institutions should be established to construct prosperity and peace manually which do not just appear naturally. The chief supporters of this view encouraged that creation of league of nations, United Nations and the implementation of new international economic order and human rights. Liberal institutionalism faction believed that merger of regional and international institutions would help to solve the common problems if more stress is laid down in increasing the cooperation between European states. The core understanding of this approach is that solution of human rationality, logic and morals believe in reforming the institutions and put pressure on human progress. The heart of this concept is that humans are rational creature who likes to build trust and faith, and because of this human would realise that things like wars is undesirable and irrational because liberals reject what realist say on the matters of IR changing its basic dynamic and fundamental realities. David Sidorsky said that liberalism is firstly a conception of man who desires freedom and is capable of exercising rational free choices. Secondly, it is an opinion to reconstruct social institutions to fulfil individual needs and thirdly a view of history of social institutions which is progressive and continuous application of human reason to it. What liberalist theory stands for - thinkers like Thomas Jefferson, Emmanuel Kant, Rousseau, John Stuart Mill and John Locke etc were the chief advocates of the tradition of liberal political thought which was developed into the liberal theoretical approach, mainly during the World War 1 during which thinker like Alfred Zimmern and Norman Angell etc promoted it. Carr in 1939 called them out as utopians but these philosophers were known as liberal idealists or in general terms only idealists. Self check exercise 2 Q 1) According to liberals human beings are basically _____________. Q 2) Liberalists believe that international institutions should be established to construct _____________and______________. 4.5    Realism as an Approach in International Relations Realism has long been a dominant theoretical approach in international relations, particularly gaining prominence after World War II and continuing to remain relevant in the 21st century, even in a globalized world. As the term suggests, realism focuses on the "reality" of international politics (what is), in contrast to the Idealist school of thought, which emphasizes "what ought to be." According to Hans Morgenthau, realism is an empirical paradigm, focusing on the actual dynamics of international relations rather than advocating for normative ideals. Realism explains how the current order in international relations is established and maintained, with widespread acceptance due to its ability to clarify why states compete and go to war. Since the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, over 200 wars and conflicts have occurred within the international system. Realism is often referred to as the study of power politics, as it places significant emphasis on power within its analysis of global affairs. However, realism is not a singular theory, but rather a collection of theories that stress key factors such as national interest, state power, and military influence in global politics. Notably, alongside political theorists, military strategists, rulers, and diplomats have also contributed to the growth of realism. Notable figures such as military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, Austrian statesman Klemens von Metternich, former French President Charles de Gaulle, and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger have influenced its development. Although realism encompasses various sub-theories, all of them center on the importance of power and military means as tools for states to achieve their goals. In general, realism takes a pessimistic view on the potential for radical reform in international relations. It shares close ties with security studies, as both disciplines focus on conflict, war, and the survival of states. Realism echoes Charles Darwin's "survival of the fittest" concept, applying it to international politics. Within realism, three main schools of thought are recognized: classical realism, neo-realism (or structural realism), and neo-classical realism. Realism is not a singular theory but rather an academic approach to understanding international relations. As Jonathan Haslam highlights in No Virtue Like Necessity: Realist Thought in International Relations since Machiavelli (2002), realism should be seen as a spectrum of ideas rather than a fixed, clearly defined theory. Duncan Bell suggests that realism is perhaps best understood in negative terms—by identifying what realists reject rather than what they explicitly endorse. Realists argue that justice does not function in international relations, as these relations are marked by competition and conflict among states. Despite the variations in different strands of realist thought, they share several core beliefs, including: •    Primacy of States: Realists view states as the primary actors in international relations, with a primary focus on explaining state behavior while giving less importance to non-state factors. •    Power and Security: International relations are primarily a study of power dynamics and security, with the survival of the state being of utmost importance. Realists distinguish between high politics (related to survival, such as security) and low politics (such as trade and social matters, which are not immediately necessary for survival). •    Human Nature: Realists believe that human nature is driven by ego, and that states, like individuals, possess a collective ego. States act as rational actors motivated by self-interest, with moral and ethical considerations taking a back seat in foreign policy decisions. National interest is prioritized above all. •    Anarchy: The international system is characterized by anarchy, meaning there is no overarching global authority to ensure rule of law or protect the interests of all states. Therefore, states must rely on themselves to protect their national interests. •    Balance of Power: In order to ensure their survival, states engage in a Balance of Power (BoP), which prevents any one state from becoming so powerful that it can dominate others. BoP can be external, through alliances, or internal, through strengthening military capabilities. For example, India has been balancing China's influence by both increasing its own military power and forming alliances with countries like the U.S., Japan, and France. •    Security Dilemma: In an anarchic international system, a security dilemma arises. When one state enhances its security, it often diminishes the security of others, leading to a competitive cycle of military buildup and distrust. In a zero-sum environment, efforts by one state to secure itself can threaten the survival of others, perpetuating ongoing competition. Thus it can be stated that, realism presents a pragmatic and often cynical view of international relations, focusing on the unyielding nature of power dynamics, the importance of military and state interests, and the belief in the inevitability of conflict and competition. Self-Check exercise 3 Q 1) In common parlance Realism, is ________________chances of ___________ in a global system. Q 2) There are chiefly_____________ schools in Realist thought. These are ___________,___________and ___________. 4.6    Answers to Sel-Check Exercises:Exercise 1 1)    Enlightenment, political and economic liberalism and Idealism 2)    Pluralists, Transnational Cooperation. 3)    Republican Exercise 2 (1) . Rational (2) prosperity, peace manually. Exercise 3 1)    Pessimistic, radical reform          2) three, classical, neo-realism or structural realism and neo-classical realism. 4.7    Summary Both Liberalism and Realism are important theories to define the international politics. The main focus of liberals pertains to the nation states. The supporters of liberalism believe that international relations can establish conditions of peace and that there is possibility of progress in human affairs. It believes in the human capacity to reason and obtain better collective outcomes. The appeal of Realism is based on an unverifiable simplistic assumptions. It professes the doctrine which takes for granted the primacy of foreign policy and the dominance of the security issue, defined in terms of simple notions of power. While liberalism offers an optimistic opinion international order, it is about what the world should be whereas Realism offers a more pragmatic view i.e., about what the world is. Therefore, it best describes the world today which is quite complex and multifaceted. 4.8    Glossary4.8    Glossary Balance of Power (BOP): This concept stands for the notion that states consciously or unconsciously strive towards an equal distribution of power to avoid dominance by one – is a core concept for the study of international politics. Anarchism: is a name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government – harmony in such a society being obtained, not by the submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups. Survival of the Fittest: he British biologist Charles Darwin popularized this phrase in his book On the Origin of Species, which proposed that creatures that are most adapted to their surroundings had the highest chances of surviving and procreating. 4.9    Answers to Sel-Check Exercises: Exercise 1 1)    Enlightenment, political and economic liberalism and Idealism 2)    Pluralists, Transnational Cooperation. 3)    Republican Exercise 2 (1 ). Rational (2) prosperity, peace manually. Exercise 3 1)    Pessimistic, radical reform          2) three, classical, neo-realism or structural realism and neo-classical realism. 4.10    Suggested Readings Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. 2nd edition. New York. St Martin’s Press. 1996. Donnelly, J., Realism in Andrew Linklater et. al. (eds) Theories of International Relations. 3rd Edition. Palgrave. Macmillan, 2005 Gilpin, R. G., War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Korab-Karpowicz, 1981 Mearsheimer, J. J., Structural Realism in Tim Dunne et. al. (eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford. OUP., 2016 Morgenthau, Hans. (1960). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 3rd ed. New York. Knopf, 1960 Niebuhr, Reinhold., Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study of Ethics and Politics. New York. Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1932. Jackson, Robert and George Sorensen. (2008). International Relations: Theories and Approaches. New York. Oxford University Press. 4.11    Terminal Questions Q.1) Explain the liberal Approach to the study of international relations. Q.2) Explain the basic assumptions of Idealists about human nature. Q.3) What are the fundamental propositions of Realism as a theory of International relations? UNIT 5NEO-REALISM AND NEO-LIBERALISM Structure 5.1    Introduction 5.2    Learning objectives 5.3    Meaning of Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism Self-check Exercise 1 5.4    Main features of the Debate between Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism Self-check Exercise 2 5.5    Similarities between Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism Self -check Exercise 3 5.6    Summary 5.7    Glossary 5.8    Answers to self- check Exercises 5.9    Suggested Reading 5.10    Terminal Questions 5.1    Introduction The debate between Neo-realism and Neo-liberal institutionalism has been a central feature of International Relations (IR) theory, particularly in the United States. The “neo-neo” debate, which focuses on the divergence between these two schools of thought, has sparked considerable contention among IR scholars. Despite their differences, these paradigms have often been viewed as remarkably similar, leading to ongoing discussions about their theoretical implications and their application to real-world international politics. This enduring debate has significantly influenced both policy-making and academic research within the field of international relations. Neo-realism, as developed by Kenneth Waltz in Theory of International Politics (1979), presents a structural approach to understanding the international system. Waltz argues that the international system is anarchic, meaning there is no overarching authority above states, and this anarchy drives states to prioritize survival and power maximization. Neo-liberal institutionalism, in contrast, emphasizes the role of international institutions and regimes in mitigating the effects of anarchy. Neo-liberals argue that despite the absence of a central authority, states can cooperate and create institutions that help them manage their relationships and achieve mutual gains. At the heart of the neo-neo debate are several critical issues: the nature and consequences of anarchy, the potential for international cooperation, the focus on relative versus absolute gains, the distinction between intentions and capabilities, and the importance of institutions and regimes in shaping state behavior. Neorealists tend to emphasize the persistence of anarchy and the competitive nature of international relations, arguing that states will primarily act in their own self-interest, often leading to conflict. Neo-liberals, on the other hand, believe that cooperation is possible and beneficial, as institutions can reduce the uncertainty and transaction costs that would otherwise hinder collaboration. The "neo-neo" debate is fundamentally a response to the work of Waltz and reflects the intellectual tension between these two perspectives. Neo-realists argue that institutions are largely epiphenomenal, having little independent impact on state behavior, while neo-liberals counter that institutions can play a vital role in fostering cooperation and reducing conflict. Over the decades, these schools have shaped the direction of international relations theory, prompting further exploration of the dynamics of state behavior, the role of institutions, and the broader implications for global politics. While the neo-realism and neo-liberal institutionalism debate has often revolved around contentious theoretical differences, it has also been instrumental in advancing the study of international relations. It continues to influence how scholars and policymakers understand the complexities of the international system and the possibilities for cooperation and conflict in global politics. 5.2    Learning Objectives After reading the Unit the students will be able to •     Understand the meanings of Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism •     To comprehend the central arguments of Neo-realism and Neo-Liberalism •     To understand the common assumptions and dissimilarities between the two approaches. 5.3    Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism: An Overview Kenneth Waltz, a key figure in the development of Neo-realism, expanded upon the traditional realist theories of scholars like Hans Morgenthau, who focused on the interactions between states to explain international politics. Neo-realism aims to separate internal factors within states from the external influences of the international system. This separation allows theorists to analyze each realm independently. Neorealists emphasize the structure of the international system, examining how variations in this structure affect state interactions and their outcomes. Waltz contended that the anarchic nature of the international system shapes states and drives them to prioritize security. He argued that the preferences of individual states do not explain international outcomes; rather, he suggested that “state behavior varies more with differences in power than with differences in ideology, internal structures, or governmental form.” From a realist perspective, international cooperation is viewed pessimistically, as humans inherently seek power and act out of self-interest. This constant pursuit of power disrupts the status quo, making cooperation difficult. For realists, survival in the anarchic international system is paramount, and states are cautious in cooperating due to uncertainty about each other’s intentions. Cooperation may bring mutual benefits, but states are more concerned with who will benefit more, as they fear a shift in the balance of power. Waltz argued that under global anarchy, states must ask, "Who will gain more?" rather than, "Will both of us gain?" For neo-realists, understanding the balance of power is key to world politics, and concerns over power dynamics make cooperation challenging. Neo-liberalism, on the other hand, is a modernized version of classical liberalism that avoids the idealism of earlier liberal theories. Neo-liberals share the classical liberal belief in the possibility of progress and change but reject unrealistic ideals. They emphasize scientific methods and theories, focusing on how states can cooperate even within an anarchic system. Neo-liberal institutionalists argue that international institutions play a crucial role in facilitating cooperation among states by providing a framework for interaction. These institutions help states achieve collective goals in areas such as security, the environment, immigration, economics, and human rights. Unlike realists, neoliberals believe that anarchy does not preclude cooperation. In the mid-20th century, issues like trade, investment, travel, and communication, particularly between Western liberal democracies, provided the foundation for neoliberals to propose an alternative to realist thinking. While they still hold to the idea of progress and change, neoliberals emphasize scientific methods and the pragmatic aspects of international cooperation in a post-1945 world, where the debate between liberalism and realism has continued, shaped by new international dynamics and behavioral methodologies. Self check Exercise 1 Q 1) The structure of the anarchic system compelled states to worry about Q 2) Neo-realism looks to separate the________factors of the international political systems from the ____________. Q 3) Neoliberals share__________ ideas about the possibility of progress and change, but they ___________. 5.    Main Features of the Debate Between Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism Neo-realism and Neo-liberal institutionalism differ significantly in their focus areas, particularly when it comes to security versus economic and environmental concerns. While neo-realists prioritize security measures, neo-liberal institutionalists emphasize economic and environmental issues, with a particular focus on economic interdependence. Keohane and Nye argue that economic interdependence has become a crucial aspect of world politics. They also maintain that states remain the dominant actors in international relations, and that hierarchy exists within international politics, with force being a useful tool for state policy. Globalization, according to this view, increases interconnectedness between states, which positively influences their behavior and alters the way they cooperate. Neo-liberal institutionalists are more concerned with the overall benefits a state gains from cooperation, as opposed to how it compares to others. They suggest that policymakers should focus on absolute gains—those that benefit all parties—rather than relative gains, which consider how one state might benefit more than another. Neoliberals argue that focusing on relative gains is counterproductive, as economic interdependence ensures that no state can exploit the other politically. Mastanduno also points out that emphasizing relative gains can lead to negative outcomes like protectionism and nationalism, which may ultimately undermine overall benefits. While neo-realists view international cooperation skeptically, neo-liberals adopt a more optimistic stance. Although they recognize that cooperation is difficult and can lead to tensions, Keohane asserts that states can still benefit from cooperative strategies. Duncan Snidal adds that when absolute gains from cooperation are significant, the concern over relative gains becomes less influential. Like realists, neo-liberal institutionalists are wary of cheating, but they place more trust in international institutions to prevent this. Institutions provide coordination mechanisms, enabling states to capture the benefits of cooperation and offer transparency, which helps prevent cheating. The concept of the "Prisoner's Dilemma" in game theory supports this view by illustrating how institutions can foster cooperation to maximize pay-offs for both sides. In contrast, Mearsheimer, in his article The False Promise of International Institutions, argues that institutions merely reflect the distribution of power and have limited impact on state behavior. He claims that institutions offer little potential for maintaining stability in the post-Cold War period. While neo-liberals link institutions, economic cooperation, and peace, neo-realists question this connection, especially since neoliberals often avoid military issues. Mearsheimer argues that absolute gains apply to economics, whereas relative gains are relevant to security matters. He contends that the distinction between economic and security issues is problematic, as economic strength often correlates with military power. If neoliberals accept the realist view that states act based on self-interest in an anarchic system, then they must confront the issue of relative gains. Both paradigms agree that the international system is anarchic, but they differ in their interpretation of anarchy’s effects. Neo-realists emphasize that anarchy imposes constraints on foreign policy, while neo-liberals argue that the significance of survival as a state goal is overstated. Neo-liberals contend that neo-realists downplay the importance of international interdependence, globalization, and the regimes designed to manage these dynamics. In terms of cooperation, neo-realists believe that cooperation requires deliberate efforts by states and is challenging to maintain due to the competitive nature of international politics. They argue that cooperation is highly dependent on state power. On the other hand, neo-liberals believe that cooperation is relatively easy to achieve when states share mutual interests. Neoliberals aim to maximize absolute gains for all involved, whereas neo-realists focus on preventing others from gaining more.Neo-realists view anarchy as forcing states to prioritize relative power, security, and survival in a competitive international system, while neo-liberals are more focused on economic welfare and non-military issues such as environmental concerns. Additionally, neo-realists emphasize the capabilities (or power) of states, whereas neo-liberals stress the importance of states' intentions and preferences in shaping international outcomes. The ongoing “inter-paradigm” debate between neo-realists and neo-liberal institutionalists has lasted for decades, with each side critiquing the other’s causal logic. It was only with the emergence of alternative international theories that the focus of the debate began to shift. Self check exercise 2 Q1) _________ seeks to distinguish between the exterior and interior components of global international systems. Q2) ______ acknowledge that the analytical distinction between security and economic concerns is not always evident. Q 3) In an_________ states behave in accordance with their interests. 5.5    Common Assumptions of Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism While Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism differ in their focus areas, they share several key analytical assumptions. Both are state-centric theories, using states as the primary units of analysis to understand international relations. These theories seek to explain state behavior by referencing the material structure of the international system. Whether concerned with relative or absolute gains, both schools agree that states act according to a rational choice model. Additionally, both recognize the existence of international anarchy, meaning the absence of a global governing authority. Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics (1979) emphasized the anarchic nature of the international system, where there is no higher authority to govern states, which is central to both theories. However, while realists see anarchy as leading to constant conflict, neoliberals believe that anarchy does not necessarily result in perpetual war. Despite their differences—neo-realists focusing on security concerns and neoliberals on economic issues—both schools of thought share a common starting point: states are self-interested actors in an anarchic system. This self-help approach to anarchy creates competition and challenges collective action. Neo-realists emphasize that the competitive nature of security concerns in an anarchy leads to difficulty in achieving cooperation. However, neoliberals concede the existence of an anarchic system but argue that this self-help environment can still foster cooperation among states. The rationalist approach in both theories provides useful insights into key issues within IR, such as cooperation among major powers, but offers limited guidance when the basic assumption of autonomous state actors is challenged. If decisions within a state are influenced or constrained by external factors, the state's autonomy is compromised. Both neo-realism and neo-liberalism also encounter a paradox within the Westphalian model, which assumes state autonomy and selfhelp. This contradiction arises when states engage in actions—like wars or economic bargaining—where autonomy is less relevant, and these actions often conflict with the principles of Westphalian sovereignty and international law. The concept of collective security acknowledges the importance of military force in international relations but also suggests that states can move beyond the self-help mentality of realism. Collective security relies on three core principles: states must refrain from using military force to alter the status quo, broaden their national interests to include the international community's concerns, and overcome the fear that dominates world politics, fostering trust between states. The persistence of NATO after the Cold War, despite the absence of the Soviet threat, is seen as evidence that international cooperation can endure beyond the realist framework. Collective security theorists believe the post-Cold War environment is more conducive to cooperation, with states sharing common values and interests. However, both neo-realism and neo-liberalism fail to fully explain the variations in states' willingness to participate in collective security arrangements, as they overlook the role of domestic politics in shaping state interests and behaviours. Self check exercise 3 Q1) Kenneth Waltz concentrated on the international system’s . Q2 ) Neo-liberals concentrated on__________ while Neo-Realists were more concerned with. Q 3) According to Neorealism and neoliberalism, the Westphalian paradigm poses a . 5.6    Summary: One may argue that both neo-realism and neoliberal institutionalism are merely expressions of the same viewpoint, given the evolution of the debate over international relations over the years. It has been contested that the big discussion consisted of these two theoretical stances. Since World War II, governments have established a wide range of new international regimes and institutions to govern their interactions, as acknowledged by both neorealists and neoliberals.According to neoliberals, organizations like the World Trade Organization establish standards that are obligatory for its members and alter global political trends. Neorealists, on the other hand, emphasize that institutions like the UN serve as platforms for nations to engage in their long-standing political rivalry and battle for influence. Approaches to international relations that were complimentary rather than competing were neoliberalism and neo-realism. It alludes to the synthesis between liberalism and realism made possible by the rise of neo-liberal institutionalism and neo-realism. 5.7    Glossary: Neorealism: It is an approach to international affairs that highlights the importance of power politics, views rivalry and conflict as permanent aspects, and believes that there is little room for collaboration. Neoliberalism: A renewed liberal approach which seeks to avoid the utopianism of the earlier liberalist theory. By repudiating idealism, it strives to formulate theories and apply new methods which are scientific. Anarchy: A condition of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems. 5.8    Answers to self check Exercises:Exercise 1 (1)    security. (2 ) internal, external. (3) classical liberal, repudiate idealism. Exercise 2 (1)    Neo-realism (2) Keohane and Martin (3) anarchical system Exercise 3 ) (1)    structure ( 2) security, economy ( 3) logical conundrum 5.9    Suggested Readings Baldwin, D, A., Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993 Dannreuther, R., International Security: The Contemporary Agenda. Cambridge: Polity, 2007. Doherty, E, M., ‘Negotiating Across Disciplines: The implications of judgment and decision-making research for international relations theory’, in: Doherty, E, M., &, Sil, R., Beyond boundaries? disciplines, paradigms, and theoretical integration in international studies. Albany: Suny Press, 2000. Elias, J., &, Sutch, P., International Relations: The Basics. London: Routledge, 2007 Jackson, R, H., &, Sorensen, G., Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics:M.A Addison- Wesley, 1979 5.10    Terminal Questions Q1) What do you understand by Neo- Realism? Discuss briefly the various propositions of the neo-realist theory. Q.2) What is the central arguments of Neo-realism and Neo-Liberalism? Q.3) Discuss briefly the dissimilarities between Neo-Realism and Neo- liberalism. UNIT 6 Theory of idealism: assumptions of human behaviour, theory and forms of idealism, foundations of idealism in IR criticism of the school 6.1    Introduction 6.2    Learning objectives 6.3    Meaning of Idealism or the Idealist Approach Self-check Exercise 1 6.4    Idealism in International Relations and Assumptions of human behaviour Self-check Exercise 2 6.5    Principles of Idealism Self-check Exercise 3 6.6    Forms of Idealism 6.6.1    Criticism of the Idealist School Self-check Exercise 4 6.8    Summary 6.9    Glossary 6.10    Answers to check your Progress Exercises 6.11    Suggested Readings 6.12    Terminal questions 6.1    Introduction Idealism in international relations primarily focuses on using international law and organizations to resolve the security-power dilemmas between nation-states. The origins of this approach can be traced to the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, which marked the first significant steps in the development of international organization. Idealism is often associated with optimistic rationalists, particularly those from the inter-war period, who believed that human progress could be achieved through reason and that human interactions are inherently guided by shared interests. Idealism advocates for universal political and economic ideals that humanity should strive for. This approach emphasizes human will and institutional progress, and is often linked to the ideas and methods of Woodrow Wilson. Emerging after World War I, idealism suggested that global disasters were the result of a lack of understanding and the absence of suitable institutions to foster cooperation. As a normative approach, idealism contrasts with more scientific forms of realism and includes a descriptive view of human nature and institutions. It is rooted in the belief that individuals share common goals, such as peace, prosperity, goodwill, and mutual understanding. Philosophically, idealism draws from the Absolute idealism of Hegel and other 19th-century thinkers who opposed materialism, rejecting the idea of "reality" as separate from ideas of reality. 6.2    Learning Objectives: After going through the unit the students will be able to: •     To understand the meaning and origin of Idealism •     To understand the Idealist approach to International Relations. •     To describe the growth and development of Idealist approach in international relations. 6.3    Meaning of Idealist and Realist Approaches The idealist approach is quite ancient, with its roots found in the American Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French Revolution (1789), as well as in the writings of optimists such as Condorcet, Rousseau, and Kant. It also emerges in the ideas of leaders like Woodrow Wilson, A. Briand, F.B. Kellogg, Noel-Barker, and Nehru. The idealist approach envisions a world of perpetual peace, achievable through a 'world federation.' It is grounded in the belief in evolutionary progress in society and the spirit of liberal idealism that influenced American policies, particularly during the inter-war period. During this period (1919-39), U.S. President Woodrow Wilson became its most prominent advocate. The idealist approach emphasizes morality as the means to achieve the goal of creating an ideal world. By adhering to moral values in their relations, nations can not only secure their own development but also contribute to eliminating war, inequality, tyranny, violence, and force in the world. As Couloumbis and Wolfe state, "For the idealists, politics is the art of good government, not the art of the possible. Politics provides for the good life and respect for fellow humans, both domestically and internationally." The idealist approach advocates for improving international relations by removing the evils that exist in the international environment. It argues that old, ineffective, and harmful modes of behavior such as war, violence, and force should be replaced with new methods based on knowledge, reason, compassion, and selfrestraint. Idealism is often associated with optimistic rationalists, especially from the inter-war period, who believed that progress in human relations is attainable through the application of reason and that there is an inherent harmony of interests among people. Idealism aims to eliminate war, hunger, inequality, tyranny, force, suppression, and violence from international relations. The goal is to create a world free from these evils, relying on reason, science, and education. Political idealism in international relations represents a set of ideas that oppose war and advocate for the reform of the international community through moral values and the development of international institutions and law. As Bertrand Russell stated, "A world full of human happiness is not beyond human power to achieve." Idealism stresses the importance of international law, morality, and international organizations over power as the key influences on international events (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2014). For idealists, morality plays a crucial role in international interactions, and power alone is not the sole determinant of outcomes. The ultimate goal of idealism is to create a democratic and peaceful world where every actor, from individuals to international organizations, can be heard and valued. Key supporters of idealism include Mahatma Gandhi, Bertrand Russell, Woodrow Wilson, Aldous Huxley, William Ladd, Richard Cobden, Margaret Mead, and others. They strongly oppose the realist perspective of international politics as a struggle for power and national interest, advocating instead for the use of reason, education, and science to secure reforms in international relations and eliminate war and other harmful practices. Self Check exercise 1 1 )    The Idealist Approach advocates _________as the means for securing the desired objective of making the world an ideal world. 2 )    The major goal of Idealism is to create a___________________ peaceful world. 3 )     Idealist approach laid great emphasis on _____________ and thus gave a normative dimension to international politics 6 .4 Foundation of Idealist Approach  in International  Relations andAssumptions of Human Behaviour The intellectual origins of international idealism can be traced related to the nineteenth-century Benthamite rationalism, which emphasized the supremacy of reason. It was argued that the primary challenge lay in right reasoning. The key propositions of this view included the belief that a correct understanding of international society could be attained through rational thought and that public opinion could be shaped according to the demands of reason. Idealists heavily rely on the principles of identity and reciprocity to demonstrate how peace and cooperation can be achieved, often through the creation of international organizations, fostering inter-state cooperation, and promoting general interdependence among nations. Despite ongoing regional conflicts, the 21st century is considered one of the most peaceful periods in world history. The global impact of these conflicts pales in comparison to the devastation caused by earlier events such as the World Wars. To achieve complete global peace and cooperation, Immanuel Kant, a leading proponent of Idealism, proposed three main solutions: "The civil constitution of every State should be republican, the law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality, and the law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free States" (Kant, 1795). This meant that all states should adopt democratic systems with checks and balances, there should be a world federation facilitating cooperation, and trade between states should promote peaceful relations by encouraging economic interdependence, making war less likely. The idealist approach is deeply rooted in philosophy, ethics, history, and law, with its primary focus on international organizations, institutions, and legal frameworks. As such, it is also referred to as the legal-international approach. Modern idealism emerged in the eighteenth century and is considered a significant source of inspiration for the American and French revolutions. To understand the development of realism and its connection to progress and identity, it is crucial to examine the texts from the period when idealism was most influential. After the devastation of the two World Wars, thinkers sought to design a world based on cooperation, mutual understanding, trust, and nonviolence. Idealists assume the following key points: •    Human nature is essentially good and capable of positive actions in international relations. •    The welfare and advancement of humanity are the concerns of all. •    Negative human behavior is a result of harmful environments and poor institutions. •    Reforming the environment can eliminate negative human behavior. •    War represents the worst aspect of international relations. •    War can and should be eliminated by reforming international relations. •    Global efforts are necessary to eradicate war, violence, and tyranny from international relations. •    The international community should work to eliminate the global systems and practices that lead to war. •    International institutions focused on maintaining peace, law, and order should be developed to ensure global prosperity and development. Self-check Exercise 2 Q 1) The intellectual foundation of Idealism can be traced to ___________. Q 2) The idealist approach to theorizing derives from ___________, _______, __________and_________philosophy, ethics, history___________ and law. Q 3) Is it correct to say that advancement of civilization and human progress pertains to the whole global world? 6 .5 Principles of Idealism Traditional idealism envisions the creation of a centralized world state that holds a monopoly on legitimate force to maintain peace and order in international relations. While traditional idealists advocate for progressive reforms such as disarmament, collective security, stronger laws, sanctions against aggressors, and even the potential for a world government, the key feature is the use of force to discipline states that deviate from international norms. Traditional idealism seeks to establish international order through a world state that eliminates the anarchy inherent in interstate relations. It emphasizes the need for state control to enforce justice, peace, and order. The idealist belief holds that it is possible to abolish the anarchic state relations through centralized world power, and this could be achieved relatively easily and painlessly. Idealism is a prominent theory in international relations, arguing that the national characteristics of individual states shape their interactions in the global arena. This implies that states do not solely pursue selfish interests but also engage with others based on their internal norms and culture. Idealists believe that human nature is inherently good, and states can cooperate, even forgoing their own interests to achieve shared goals. They rely heavily on the principles of identity and reciprocity to demonstrate how peace and cooperation can be realized, such as through the formation of international organizations, fostering international cooperation, and encouraging interdependence among states. Idealism emphasizes international law, morality, and the role of international organizations over the mere use of power as the key drivers of international events. In this view, morality plays a crucial role in international interactions, and power is not the only determining factor. The ultimate goal of idealism is to create a democratic and peaceful world where individuals and states can freely express themselves. The 21st century is regarded as one of the most peaceful times in modern history, with conflicts that, while present, do not have the same global consequences as the World Wars. To achieve total cooperation and peace globally, Immanuel Kant, a key figure in idealist theory, proposed three solutions: “The civil constitution of every state should be republican, the law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality, and the law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states.” This suggests that states should adopt democratic systems with checks and balances, a world federation should facilitate cooperation, and trade should promote peaceful relations by creating economic interdependence, making war less likely. These principles can be observed in today’s European Union and United Nations. Idealists argue that increasing education and ensuring leaders are held accountable will make the world a better place. They believe that spreading education and democracy — including greater democratic control over foreign policy — will empower global public opinion, making it a force that no government can ignore. Idealists recognize the dangers inherent in an anarchic international system. They prioritize transforming this system to achieve a cooperative order that supports peaceful conflict resolution between states. Idealists believe that this transformation is possible if national leaders act according to reason and enlightened self-interest. They argue that all reasonable parties should share this goal. In their view, such transformations would alleviate the security concerns imposed by the anarchic structure of the international system and reduce the need for states to prioritize power and position over more cooperative aims. In contrast, realists argue that interstate conflicts and the potential for aggression are inherent in an anarchic, “selfhelp” international system. According to realists, conflict is inevitable because each state judges its interests and grievances according to its own desires, sometimes leading to war. In this view, cooperation cannot be assumed, and no authority can reliably enforce norms or prevent aggression. As a result, states must ultimately rely on their own survival and pursue national power as a prudent national priority. While realists see power and position as essential for self-preservation in an anarchic international system, idealists believe that the system can be transformed into a more cooperative and peaceful order, where states no longer need to prioritize power. Realism and idealism offer contrasting perspectives on international politics, leading to differing analyses and recommendations for national leadership practices. These contrasting views are especially apparent in debates over nuclear weapons and disarmament. However, the connection between idealism, realism, and the nuclear debate is often overlooked, which obscures a deeper understanding of these narratives. Recognizing the idealist and realist roots of competing nuclear narratives can provide a more comprehensive framework for evaluating these issues. Self-check Exercise 3 Q 1) Traditional Idealism stands for abolishing____________ Anarchy in International Relations Q 2) What suggestions are suggested by Immanuel Kent for promoting International peace? 6 .6 Forms of Idealism: Classical Idealism and Neo idealism A leading Idealist Plato is credited with developing classical idealism as a political theory. IR is a contemporary application of this notion. The overarching notion of society's evolutionary growth is the basis of idealism as a whole. The viewpoints, theories, and approaches that come from the Wilsonian school are typically associated with idealism in the subject of international relations. Referring to the ideals given by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, idealism perspectives such as liberalism and neo-conservatism assume that there are universal political and economic ideals that humans should aspire for. These principles and ideals are referred to as liberty, freedom, democratic representational systems, free markets, and capitalism trade systems in international politics. Certain forms of idealism also see international institutions (economic and political) as ensuring transparency and reinforcing the incentives to the states cooperate. Post–World War II idealism also incorporated certain tenets of scientific positivism in the hope of first studying and then isolating variables that contaminated the ability of nation-states to cooperate so that such variables could be eliminated over. The Theory of Idealism is one of the leading and dominating theory in international relations. This theory's fundamental insight is that each state's national characteristics have an impact on its international relations. This suggests that rather than sharing goals driven by self-interest, governments would interact with one another in accordance with their respective customs and traditions.Idealism also charted a new course for itself by having a fresh look at the new international reality and by stressing that new developments vindicate the inherent relevance of the idealist notions. This set of ideas derived from this fresh look by the idealists constitutes what we know as “neo idealism”. “ Neo-Idealism” is a morally based approach to geopolitics, grounded in the power of values conceived as ideals to strive for: human rights and fundamental freedoms, social and cultural liberalism, democratic governance; self-determination for democratic societies; and perhaps most important the right of citizens in those societies to a hopeful future” The reassertion and justification the basic postulates regarding idealist approach in view of the new evidence is called “Neo-Idealism”. Neo idealism derives its inspiration from developments like détente, the rise of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum exporting Countries), and a transnational /inter-dependency perspective which holds a promise of increased role of international regimes in fostering cooperation among states.Thus neo idealism retains the classical concern for international cooperation but proposes different mechanisms for its achievement. This strand of thought also gave birth to the neo- institutionalist approaches that suggested the possibility of “governance without governments”. Neo-idealists retained the core of the classical concern of international cooperation but proposed different mechanisms for its furtherance. For neoidealists, the motivation of interstate cooperation derives primarily from the interests of state actors. But these interests are not those of state actors themselves. Neo idealism relies on functional and neo functional arguments based on the belief that cooperation in the non-political field, or in the area of, low politics, can build bridges of understanding among nations and motivate them to cooperate in the politicomilitary field or in the area of high politics. The basic neoidealist argument is that state and non-state actors pursue cooperation in order to deal effectively with recurring problems in important issue areas and create international regimes so as to secure gains through interstate cooperation. Thus the principal stress of neo idealism is on inevitability and feasibility of international cooperation and on the faith that this cooperation is the destiny of the international society. Since the international society has come a long way to the realization of the goal of establishment of a long range of international regimes and organizations of regional cooperation, neo idealism also claims to have cleared itself of the charge of utopianism levelled by the classical realists against the classical idealists. Neo idealism in a nutshell is contemporized Wilsonianism which sticks to its faith in the eventual evolution of harmonious international relations through interstate cooperation and justifies the validity of its faith on the basis of the contention that the new international reality is showing definite trends in favor of interstate cooperation. This cooperation is seen to inhere not only in the various international regimes already established but also in the proliferating organizations and associations of regional integration. 6.6.1    Criticism of the Idealist school Critics from the Realist school have leveled several criticisms against Idealism: 1.    Underestimating the Role of Power: Realists argue that Idealists underestimate the significance of power in international politics, while overestimating the influence of law, morality, public opinion, and ideals such as peace and justice. 2.    Idealism as Utopianism: Realists regard Idealism as utopian, claiming that it overlooks the harsh realities of human nature and politics. They believe that the pursuit of rational self-interest is natural and just, with prudence being the most appropriate guide for decision-making. 3.    Morality՚s Limited Role: While morality may have importance in international relations, Realists argue that it does not effectively influence global politics. They contend that politics must be understood and managed pragmatically by considering human nature and power struggles. Though tools like diplomacy, disarmament, and arms control can reduce the chances of war, Realists assert that the struggle for power remains an inescapable reality that must be accepted and managed. 4.    Idealism՚s Incoherence: According to Wolfe and Couloumbis, Realists criticize Idealism for advocating legalistic, moralistic, and ideological approaches in politics, which often conflict with natural forces. These approaches can lead to pacifism and defeatism or provoke an exclusivist, crusading spirit. Idealism, they argue, fails to offer a coherent explanation of international politics, as it seeks to impose rules and an empire without acknowledging the need to understand the realities of international relations. While Idealism provided a simple focus in the early stages of international studies, it fails to adequately address the complexities and challenges faced in international politics today. Self Check exercise 4 Q 1) Classical Idealism is based on the Ideals of_______________. Q 2) What role does morality plays at international level. Is it correct to regard moral values as the only means towards peace. 6.9    Summary Between the two World Wars (1914-45), many thinkers developed idealist theories of international relations, aiming to create a world free of war and to foster cooperative relationships among nations. They drew inspiration from classical idealist political thinkers, such as Plato, and believed that it was possible for nation-states to coexist harmoniously without conflict. The core ideas included the concepts of harmony and perfection. These thinkers argued that the creation of states helped reduce conflicts, and international organizations could further minimize these conflicts. Non-political international organizations—such as those focused on social, cultural, and educational activities—could promote global identification and act as defenses against war. They also believed that people were ultimately sovereign but should gradually agree to share their sovereignty with an international state. They saw poverty, unemployment, economic inequality, and capitalism as key contributors to war and called for these issues to be addressed. Some advocated for a socialist state with economic planning as a possible solution. Ultimately, they believed that states should surrender part of their power to international organizations to create a more just world. While idealism was criticized as utopian and impractical, its true value lies in the ambitious goals it sets for achieving global peace and cooperation. 6.10    Glossary: Utopian: Relating to something of an impossible ideal condition. Tyranny: An arbitrary use of power or control. Diplomacy: Diplomacy is the art and science of maintaining peaceful relationships between nations, groups, or individuals. Often, diplomacy refers to representatives of different groups discussing such issues as conflict, trade, the environment, technology, or security. People who practice diplomacy are called diplomats. Idealism: Idealism in International Relations (IR) is a philosophical approach that emphasizes the possibility of creating a world characterized by peaceful coexistence, prosperity, and well-being through cooperation based on shared human values and aspirations Neo-Idealism: Neo-idealism is a type of Idealism at work in international politics Neo-Idealists emphasise the value of multilateralism and international institutions as means to idealist ends rather than as ends in themselves. 6.11    Answers to self check Exercise Exercise 1 1)    Peace 2) Democratic and Peaceful 3) Norms and Values Exercise 2 1)    Benthamite rationalism     2) philosophy, ethics, history, law. 3)Yes. Exercise 3 1)    Anarchy 2) see 6.5 Exercise 4 1)    Woodrow Wilson 2) see 6.6.1 6.12    Suggested Readings Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, Reissue ed. M. Cox. London, 2001. MacMillan. Long, D. & Wilson, P., Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crisis: Inter-War Idealism Reassessed. Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1995. Aldershot. Ashgate. Wilson, P., The International Theory of Leonard Woolf: A Study in Inter-War Idealism. New York: Palgrave Publication, 2003. Hollis,Martin and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford. Clarendon Press,1990. Long, D. (1991). J. A. Hobson and Idealism in International Relations. Review of International Studies, 17(3), 285–304. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097263 Carr, E. H. (2001). The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. Reissue ed. M. Cox. London. MacMillan. Long, D. & Wilson, P. (1995). Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crisis: Inter-War Idealism Reassessed. Oxford. Clarendon Press. Ashworth, L. (1999). Creating International Studies: Angell, Mitrany and the Liberal Tradition. Aldershot. Ashgate. Wilson, P. (2003). The International Theory of Leonard Woolf: A Study in Inter-War Idealism. New York. Palgrave. Payne, K. B. (2019). Realism, Idealism, Deterrence, and Disarmament. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 13(3), 7–37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26760126 6.13    Terminal Questions Q. 1) What criticism has been levelled against Idealists? Q .2) Discuss Idealism as an approach to International Relations. REALISM: ITS VARIANTS AND COMPLIMENTS UNIT 7 STRUCTURAL REALISM STRUCTURE 7.1    Introduction 7.2    Learning Objectives 7.3    Meaning and Concept of Structural Realism 7.3.1    Defensive Realism 7.3.2    Offensive Realism Self-check Exercise 1 7.4    Kenneth N. Waltz՚s Theory on Structural Realism Self-check Exercise 2 7.5    Mearsheimer՚s theory on Structural Realism Self-check Exercise 3 7.6    Summary 7.8    Glossary 7.9    Answers To Self- Check Exercises 7.10    Suggested Readings 7.11    Terminal Questions 7.1    INTRODUCTION: Realism has long been one of the dominant theories in the study of international relations, providing a distinct framework to understand state behavior and the structure of the international system. At the core of classical realism is the belief that politics among states are driven by a constant quest for power, with the fundamental goal of ensuring survival and security. Classical realists such as Hans Morgenthau, E.H. Carr, Reinhold Niebuhr, and others argued that human nature and the pursuit of power were central to understanding international relations. These theorists contended that the international system was inherently anarchic, meaning that there is no overarching authority above states to enforce laws or ensure security. Thus, each state must rely on its own power and resources to navigate this competitive and uncertain environment. According to classical realism, states act primarily out of a rational desire to protect and advance their national interests, with power being the ultimate instrument through which security can be achieved. In the latter half of the 20th century, however, neorealism, or structural realism, emerged as a significant revision of classical realism. This new form of realism was largely shaped by the work of Kenneth Waltz, who sought to provide a more systematic and scientific approach to understanding international relations. Neorealism aimed to refine the arguments of classical realism by introducing a focus on the international system's structure rather than just the nature of human behavior or the individual actions of states. Waltz and other proponents of structural realism argued that it was the structure of the international system itself—the distribution of power and the relationships between states—that fundamentally shaped state behavior, rather than the intrinsic qualities of individual states or leaders. One of the key contributions of structural realism is its emphasis on the concept of international anarchy. Anarchy, in the context of structural realism, refers to the absence of a central governing authority in the international system. Unlike domestic politics, where there are laws and institutions to enforce order and regulate behavior, the international system operates without a central authority capable of enforcing rules. This absence of authority leads to a system where states must rely on themselves to ensure their own survival and security. In such a system, each state is responsible for its own defense and has no guarantee that other states will come to its aid in times of crisis. This condition of anarchy leads to a number of fundamental dynamics in international relations, including competition for power, insecurity, and the potential for conflict. The second central tenet of structural realism is the belief that states are the primary actors in the international system. While non-state actors such as international organizations, multinational corporations, and non-governmental organizations may play important roles in certain situations, structural realism asserts that states remain the dominant entities in the international system. States are seen as rational, unitary actors who act in their national interest, which is primarily defined in terms of survival and security. To achieve these objectives, states are constantly engaged in a pursuit of power. For structural realists, power is the key instrument through which states secure their interests and ensure their survival. This pursuit of power often leads to a “security dilemma,” a situation where actions taken by one state to enhance its security—such as building military forces— are perceived as threatening by other states, prompting them to take similar actions, which in turn increases insecurity and the potential for conflict. One of the most important implications of structural realism is its focus on the concept of the "balance of power." According to this theory, the distribution of power among states plays a central role in determining the stability of the international system. In a multipolar system, where there are many major powers, the balance of power may be more fluid, and alliances may shift in response to changing threats. In a bipolar system, where there are two dominant powers, the balance of power is more stable, but the competition between the two powers can still lead to conflict. The primary objective of states in a balance of power system is to prevent any single state from becoming too powerful, as this would threaten their own security. This often leads to alliances between states to counterbalance the power of a rival. Over the last several decades, neorealism has evolved and adapted to the changing dynamics of global politics. The end of the Cold War, the rise of non-state actors, and the increasing importance of economic factors in international relations have prompted structural realists to reassess and refine their arguments. However, one of the enduring features of structural realism is its focus on security as the central concern of states. Neorealists contend that states will always prioritize security above all other objectives, including economic development or humanitarian concerns. This focus on security explains why, in times of heightened threats, states may be willing to make significant sacrifices in other areas, such as human rights or economic welfare, to ensure their survival. Despite the centrality of security in structural realism, it is important to note that neorealism does not argue that security is the only goal states pursue. More moderate formulations of structural realism allow for the pursuit of other objectives, such as economic growth or the spread of democracy, once a state has achieved a reasonable level of security. For example, after the Cold War, NATO shifted its focus toward promoting democracy and expanding its membership, as the security threats posed by the Soviet Union had diminished. Similarly, the post-Cold War era has seen Western powers devote more attention to resolving humanitarian crises, such as those in the Balkans or Rwanda, because the absence of major security threats allowed them to focus on non-security issues. Structural realism also provides a framework for understanding the role of international institutions and the potential for cooperation among states. While structural realists are often skeptical of the effectiveness of international organizations in achieving lasting peace or cooperation, they do acknowledge that institutions can play a role in mitigating the effects of anarchy and promoting stability. For example, the United Nations, while limited in its ability to enforce peace, can still provide a platform for dialogue and negotiation, which can help reduce tensions between states. Similarly, organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) can provide a framework for economic cooperation that benefits states by reducing the risk of economic conflict. Therefore, structural realism offers a powerful theoretical framework for understanding the dynamics of international relations. By focusing on the anarchical nature of the international system and the centrality of security and power in state behavior, structural realism provides a robust explanation for many of the key features of international politics. Although the theory has been adapted and refined in response to changes in the global order, its core principles remain central to the study of international relations. Through its focus on the balance of power, the security dilemma, and the role of states as rational actors, structural realism continues to provide valuable insights into the forces shaping the interactions between states on the world stage. 7.2    LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After reading the Unit the students will be able to: •     Understand the concept and meaning of Structural Realism •     The difference between Realism and Structural Realism •     The various assumptions underlying Structural Realism •     To understand the theory of Structural Realism 7.3    Meaning and Concept of Structural Realism Structural realism, also known as neorealism, is a dominant theory in the study of international relations that has been particularly influential in explaining the behavior of states in the post-Cold War era. Popularized by scholars like Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, structural realism provides a framework to understand how the international system, with its inherent anarchy and the distribution of power, shapes state behavior and influences global politics. It is a theoretical approach that emphasizes the role of the international system's structure—specifically, the distribution of capabilities among states—as the primary factor influencing international conflict and cooperation. The theory suggests that the relative power of states, rather than their domestic characteristics or the intentions of their leaders, is the key determinant of their behavior on the global stage. At its core, structural realism argues that the international system is anarchic. This means that there is no higher authority or governing body above states to enforce rules or ensure security. As a result, each state must rely on its own resources to ensure its survival and security. This anarchy leads to competition among states as they seek to maximize their security, which often results in conflicts or tensions. The theory posits that states' primary concern is their survival, and they achieve this by securing enough power to deter potential threats and ensure their sovereignty. Kenneth Waltz’s seminal work, Theory of International Politics (1979), laid the foundation for structural realism. In his book, Waltz sought to provide a general framework for understanding state behavior, focusing on the structure of the international system rather than the specific motivations or intentions of individual states. Waltz’s key insight was that the international system's structure—the distribution of power among states—shapes state behavior, and that this structure leads to recurring patterns of interaction between states. His work introduced the concepts of bipolarity and multipolarity, which refer to the number of great powers within the international system. Waltz argued that a bipolar system, with only two dominant powers, is more stable and less prone to conflict than a multipolar system, which involves several major powers competing for influence. Assumptions of Structural Realism Structural realism is based on several key assumptions that define the behavior of states in the international system. These include: 1.    Great Powers Are the Main Actors: According to structural realism, the primary actors in world politics are great powers, which are the states that have the military, economic, and political capabilities to influence the global order. These great powers are the driving forces behind international relations and the key players in the struggle for power and security. 2.    An Anarchic System: The international system operates in a state of anarchy, meaning there is no central authority that can regulate state behavior or enforce international laws. This lack of a higher governing body forces states to rely on their own power and resources to ensure their security. 3.    Offensive Military Capability: All states, regardless of their size or power, possess some form of offensive military capability. While some states may have more military power than others, all states have the potential to use force in pursuit of their national interests. 4.    Uncertainty About State Intentions: States can never be certain about the intentions of other states. This uncertainty leads to distrust and competition, as states cannot know for sure whether another state's actions are benign or whether they represent a threat to their security. 5.    Survival as the Main Goal: The primary objective of every state in the international system is survival. States prioritize their security and seek to avoid threats that could undermine their sovereignty or existence. 6.    Rational Actors: States are rational actors that make decisions based on their national interests, with a primary focus on ensuring their survival and security. These decisions are driven by the need to maximize power and influence to achieve these goals. Defensive Realism Defensive realism is a branch of structural realism that emphasizes the importance of security and stability in international relations. Defensive realists argue that states are primarily concerned with maintaining their security, rather than seeking to maximize their power or expand their territory. According to defensive realism, the anarchical structure of the international system encourages states to adopt moderate and reserved policies that aim to ensure their survival without unnecessarily provoking other states. Defensive realists contend that states are generally inclined to avoid aggressive expansion and that any conflicts or wars that occur are usually the result of misperceptions, security dilemmas, or external factors such as geography or historical tensions. Defensive realists emphasize the importance of the balance of power theory, which suggests that states seek to maintain an equilibrium in power to prevent any one state from becoming too dominant. They argue that aggressive actions, such as territorial expansion or attempts to dominate other states, upset this balance and undermine the primary goal of ensuring security. Defensive realism thus cautions against overextension or reckless pursuit of power, advocating instead for policies that prioritize stability and security. Offensive Realism Offensive realism, another branch of structural realism, takes a more aggressive view of state behavior. Offensive realists, such as John Mearsheimer, argue that states are compelled to maximize their power and influence in the international system in order to ensure their security. According to offensive realism, states operate in a competitive environment where security can only be achieved by gaining relative power over other states. This view is rooted in the belief that the international system is inherently anarchic, and states must constantly seek to enhance their power to secure their survival. Offensive realists contend that states are uncertain about the intentions of other states and that this uncertainty compels them to pursue opportunities to expand their influence and capabilities. States, according to offensive realists, are always on the lookout for ways to increase their power relative to others, either through territorial expansion, military build-ups, or forming alliances. The goal of maximizing power, they argue, is driven by the need to hedge against potential future threats and to maintain a position of strength in an unpredictable international system. For offensive realists, the international system creates powerful incentives for states to act aggressively. They argue that competition among great powers leads to a zero-sum environment, where one state's gain is another state's loss. Therefore, states must be willing to use force, economic power, or diplomatic strategies to alter the balance of power in their favor. This leads to a system in which states are constantly vying for dominance and are willing to take risks, including preventive wars or other aggressive strategies, to weaken potential challengers. In sum, structural realism provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the dynamics of international relations. It emphasizes the importance of the international system’s structure—particularly the distribution of power—and its impact on state behavior. While both defensive realism and offensive realism agree on the central role of power and the anarchical nature of the international system, they differ in their assessments of how states pursue security. Defensive realists focus on the importance of maintaining stability and avoiding unnecessary conflicts, while offensive realists argue that states must constantly seek opportunities to expand their power in order to ensure their survival in an uncertain and competitive world. Despite their differences, both approaches share the fundamental belief that power and security are the driving forces behind state behavior in the international arena. Self Check Exercise 1 Q1) Structural realism is the most prominent contemporary version of_______ , the traditional paradigm in the study of world politics. Q 2) Structuralism Realism regards ________ to be more stable than Multi-Polar system. Q 3) What do you Understand by Structural Realism ? 7.    Kenneth N. Waltz՚s Theory on Structural Realism or Defensive Realism Kenneth N. Waltz, one of the foremost thinkers in the Neorealist school of thought, significantly shaped the theoretical framework of structural realism. As a structural realist, Waltz's approach diverges from traditional realist theories, particularly in his response to post-Cold War developments. While many scholars and analysts argued that the end of the Cold War and the rise of democracy, interdependence, and international institutions might signal a more peaceful and stable world order, Waltz remained skeptical of this optimistic view. He contended that these factors alone would not lead to a fundamentally different international system or a more stable world order. Waltz’s contributions to international relations theory have been profound, particularly through his work, Theory of International Politics (1979), which became foundational for structural realism. Key Concepts of Structural Realism Structural realism, as developed by Waltz, provides a framework for understanding international relations by focusing on the structure of the international system rather than the nature of human beings or the intentions of individual states. Waltz argued that the international system is anarchic, meaning that there is no central authority or governing body to regulate state behavior. This anarchy shapes how states interact with each other, as they are left to fend for themselves in the absence of an overarching global authority. Waltz also defined the structure of the international system through three key elements: the organizing principle, the differentiation of units, and the distribution of capabilities. 1.    Organizing Principle: The organizing principle of the international system is anarchy. There is no global government or authority above states. Each state is sovereign and operates independently in an environment where they must rely on their own power and resources to ensure their survival. 2.    Differentiation of Units: The units within the international system are states, which are considered functionally similar. Waltz argued that while states may differ in size, culture, and political systems, they all share similar roles in the international system. Each state is a sovereign entity concerned primarily with its own security and survival. 3.    Distribution of Capabilities: The distribution of capabilities refers to the relative power of states, particularly the great powers, within the international system. This distribution of power determines the structure of the international system, whether it is unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar. The number of great powers in the system influences the likelihood of conflict and the nature of international interactions. Waltz's structural realism posits that the relative distribution of power among states is the key variable in determining the behavior of states and the outcomes of international interactions. Waltz maintained that the structure of the international system — specifically, the distribution of capabilities — governs the actions of states. This distribution shapes the likelihood of war, alliance formation, and the balance of power. Anarchy and the Security Dilemma One of the central tenets of Waltz’s theory is the concept of anarchy, which refers to the absence of a higher authority above states. Anarchy is a fundamental characteristic of the international system, and it drives the behavior of states. In this anarchic environment, states cannot rely on other states or international organizations for their security. As a result, they must constantly strive to maintain and enhance their own security, often by accumulating power, particularly military power, to deter potential threats. The absence of a global authority leads to the security dilemma, a situation where the actions taken by one state to increase its security (such as building up its military capabilities) inadvertently trigger insecurity in other states. In response, other states may take similar measures to protect themselves, leading to an arms race or even conflict. Waltz argued that this dilemma is an inherent feature of anarchy, and that states must constantly be aware of the capabilities and intentions of other states to ensure their survival. Security Maximization and Power Waltz’s approach to power is distinct from the classical realist notion of power maximization. While traditional realists, such as Hans Morgenthau, argued that states seek to maximize their power to achieve dominance or control over others, Waltz took a more nuanced view. He argued that states are not primarily power maximizers but security maximizers. In an anarchic international system, the primary concern of states is survival, not necessarily increasing their relative power. Waltz explained that while power is a useful means to achieve security, states are generally not inclined to seek excessive power, as doing so would provoke balancing actions from other states. When a state accumulates too much power, it triggers counterbalancing coalitions of other states, which may ultimately undermine the initial state's security. This is why, according to Waltz, power maximization can be counterproductive and suboptimal. In Waltz’s view, security maximization is the rational goal for states. Rather than seeking to dominate others or pursue aggressive expansion, states seek to accumulate just enough power to ensure their survival and deter potential threats. This approach contrasts with offensive realism, which emphasizes the aggressive pursuit of power and dominance. Waltz’s structural realism highlights that the international system encourages states to focus on achieving a balance of power, which is necessary for maintaining security in an anarchic world. The Balance of Power Waltz’s theory is also closely tied to the concept of the balance of power. In a system where power is distributed unevenly, weaker states may align with others to counterbalance the influence of stronger states. Waltz argued that the balance of power is a central mechanism for maintaining stability in the international system. When power is distributed in a way that no single state can dominate the others, the risk of conflict is minimized, as states are deterred from pursuing aggressive actions due to the potential for balancing coalitions. Waltz’s key contribution to the balance of power theory is his argument that a bipolar system, where there are two dominant great powers, is more stable than a multipolar system, where multiple great powers compete for influence. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union represented a bipolar world order, which Waltz argued was relatively stable because the two superpowers were capable of maintaining a balance of power between them. In contrast, a multipolar system can be more prone to instability, as smaller states and coalitions may shift allegiances, leading to more uncertainty and greater potential for conflict. After the end of the Cold War, Waltz believed that the unipolar world, with the United States as the dominant power, would likely lead to instability. Although some scholars argued that the absence of a major rival could lead to a more peaceful world, Waltz remained skeptical. He suggested that the lack of a balancing power could create opportunities for other states to challenge U.S. dominance, potentially leading to conflict or the rise of new great powers. Kenneth N. Waltz’s structural realism has been a foundational theory in the study of international relations, particularly in understanding the dynamics of power and security in the international system. By focusing on the anarchy of the international system, the distribution of capabilities, and the rational behavior of states, Waltz provided a robust framework for explaining state behavior and the patterns of conflict and cooperation in international politics. His theory of security maximization and the balance of power remains relevant today in analyzing the dynamics of global politics, especially in an era of shifting power structures and the emergence of new great powers. Waltz’s contributions continue to influence both scholars and policymakers in understanding the underlying forces shaping the international order. Self-check Exercise 2 Q 1) Kenneth Waltz, regards international relations __________ and not Q 2) Structural realists concur that international politics is a______________ , but they do not attribute this to _______________. Q 3) For structural realists, the____________ in the international system is the key independent variable in understanding important international outcomes such as_________________________ . 7.5    Mearsheimer՚s Theory of Offensive Realism John Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism offers an alternative perspective to Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism, yet both theories share a common foundation in the belief that the international system is anarchic and that states are the primary actors. Mearsheimer’s version of structural realism, however, provides a more pessimistic and dynamic view of international relations. He argues that states are not merely seeking to maximize their security, as Waltz suggests, but rather their power. According to Mearsheimer, this drive for power arises from the inherent nature of the international system and the compulsions that stem from anarchy, making it a tragic system where conflict and competition are inevitable. Key Assumptions of Offensive Realism Mearsheimer’s offensive realism shares several key assumptions with Waltz’s structural realism but differs in significant ways. At the heart of Mearsheimer’s argument is the assertion that the international system is anarchic—there is no central authority to regulate the behavior of states. Given this environment, states are self-reliant and must depend on their own resources to ensure survival. However, unlike Waltz, who views states as security maximizers, Mearsheimer argues that states are inherently power maximizers. The lack of a higher governing authority, combined with the uncertainty about the intentions of other states, compels states to seek to increase their power continuously. This drive for power is not driven by ideological desires or even the need to dominate other states per se, but rather by the belief that power is the ultimate tool to ensure security. Mearsheimer’s core proposition is that military power, particularly land-based power, is central to achieving security and status in the international system. Thus, the most powerful state is one with the most formidable military capabilities. Power Maximization and the Security Dilemma Mearsheimer emphasizes that the primary concern of all states is security, but the method by which they seek security is through power maximization. The key dynamic that drives this behavior is the security dilemma, a situation where one state’s actions to increase its security (such as military buildup) create insecurity in other states. In response, these other states will also increase their own military power, leading to an arms race. This escalation can spiral into conflict, even though no state initially intends to provoke war. However, Mearsheimer contends that in an anarchic international system, the competition for power and security is unavoidable. States cannot know the intentions of others, and as a result, they are compelled to assume the worst and act preemptively to maximize their relative power. This fear and mistrust lead to a continuous cycle of competition, where each state strives to increase its power at the expense of others. Military Power and Hegemony Mearsheimer’s theory places a particular emphasis on military power as the most important form of state power. He asserts that land power—the ability to project military force across land—is the essence of state strength. The state with the strongest land forces is the most powerful, as it can threaten or invade other states to protect or expand its interests. This makes military power a critical factor in determining a state’s standing in the international system. Mearsheimer’s theory proposes that the ultimate goal for a state is to achieve global hegemony. In theory, being the global hegemon would grant a state complete dominance over the international system, ensuring its survival and ability to shape the world order. However, he argues that achieving global hegemony is virtually impossible due to the stopping power of water—a concept that refers to the geographical limitations on military power. Essentially, no state can fully control the entire world because physical and logistical barriers, such as oceans, prevent total dominance. Because of these limitations, Mearsheimer concludes that global hegemony is unattainable, and instead, states are condemned to perpetual competition for power and influence. This leads to a permanent great power competition where states strive to enhance their relative power in order to achieve security. The unending quest for power ensures that conflict, war, and rivalry are constants in the international system. The Tragic Nature of the International System Mearsheimer’s view of the international system is inherently tragic. He does not claim that states desire to engage in conflict for its own sake, nor does he suggest that states deliberately seek war. Rather, he asserts that the structure of the international system compels states to engage in behavior that leads to conflict, even when such outcomes are not in anyone’s interest. States are locked in an environment where they must maximize their power to ensure their survival, which inevitably leads to rivalry and war. This tragic view is rooted in the absence of a central authority, the uncertainty of the intentions of other states, and the constant fear that one’s security may be threatened. While no state necessarily desires to dominate the world, the anarchic structure forces them into a cycle of aggression and competition. This dynamic, Mearsheimer suggests, is a key feature of international relations that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Perpetual Great Power Competition Mearsheimer’s theory leads to the conclusion that the international system will always be characterized by great power competition. As long as the system remains anarchic, states will be driven by the need to ensure their survival through power accumulation. This means that the primary relationships in the international system will be defined by rivalry among the great powers. Even in the post-Cold War era, where the United States emerged as the dominant power, Mearsheimer argued that the world was likely to witness increased competition as other states—such as China and Russia—sought to challenge U.S. dominance. Mearsheimer’s view contrasts with more optimistic interpretations of international relations, which believe that greater interdependence and cooperation among states, driven by institutions like the United Nations or the World Trade Organization, could bring about a more peaceful global order. Mearsheimer’s theory, however, remains deeply pessimistic about the prospects for peace, emphasizing that the fundamental nature of the international system—its anarchy and the drive for power—ensures that conflict and competition will always be a central feature of global politics. Implications of Offensive Realism The implications of Mearsheimer’s offensive realism are profound, especially when applied to contemporary global issues. His theory suggests that the primary concern of states will always be to enhance their military capabilities and, by extension, their power. States will not shy away from using military force if they perceive it as necessary to secure their position in the international system. Furthermore, Mearsheimer’s analysis leads to a greater understanding of the dynamics of international conflicts, as it highlights the role of power transitions— situations where a rising power challenges an established hegemon. Mearsheimer’s theory can help explain tensions between the United States and China, as well as other regional power struggles. As China grows in power, for example, it may seek to challenge the U.S.-led international order, leading to increasing competition, insecurity, and potentially conflict. John Mearsheimer’s offensive realism provides a stark, power-driven view of international politics. Unlike Waltz’s structural realism, which views states as primarily security maximizers, Mearsheimer argues that states are driven to maximize their power due to the anarchic structure of the international system. This drive for power, Mearsheimer contends, inevitably leads to a permanent state of great power competition. While Mearsheimer acknowledges the tragic nature of this reality, his theory offers a more cynical view of global politics, where the quest for power and security inevitably results in conflict and rivalry, and peace remains a distant and unlikely outcome. Self-check Exercise 3 Q 1) Offensive Realists regard States as power _______________. Q 2) Mearsheimer’s offensive realism    regards________ , especially ________________, as the quintessence of state power. Q 3) What is the difference between offensive and Defensive Realism ? 7.6    Summary Structuralism in international relations offers a distinct approach by focusing on the structure of the international system and its significant influence on state behavior. Unlike other theories that emphasize human nature or the internal characteristics of states, structuralists argue that the structure of the international system is the primary determinant of how states act and interact. This approach draws a parallel to how the market influences the behavior of economic actors, suggesting that just as the market shapes individual and collective economic decisions, the international structure constrains and directs state behavior. At the core of structuralism is the idea that the global system's structure, including the distribution of power, resources, and relationships between states, dictates the actions of states. Structuralists emphasize that states are not entirely autonomous in their decision-making processes; rather, they are significantly shaped by the system in which they operate. This perspective stresses the importance of the international system in guiding state decisions, interactions, and behaviors. Structuralism provides a unique lens for understanding international relations by highlighting the role of the international system's structure in shaping state behavior, distinguishing it from other approaches that focus more on internal state dynamics or individual decision-makers. 7.7    Glossary Anarchy: Anarchy in international relations refers to the absence of a centralized authority or governing body to regulate the interactions between states or other actors in the international system. In an anarchy, there is no overarching power or set of rules to enforce order and resolve conflicts, and states are left to navigate their relationships with one another on their own. OPEC: The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is an organization enabling the co-operation of leading oil-producing countries in order to collectively influence the global oil market and maximize profit. BOP( Balance of Power): Balance of Power is an equilibrium or a certain amount of stability in power relations that under favourable conditions is produced by an alliance of states or by other devices. Hegemony: Hegemony is the political, economic, and military predominance of one state over other states, either regional or global. 7.8    Answers to self check ExercisesExercise 1 1)    Real-politik 2) Bi-Polar 3) see 8.0,8.4 &8.5 Exercise 2 anarchic , hierarchical, 2 ) struggle for power, human nature. 3) relative distribution of power , war and peace, alliance politics, and the balance of power. Exercise 3 1)    Maximisers 2) military power, land power. 3) see 8.4 and 8.5 7.9    Suggested Readings laser, C. L. (2003). Structural Realism in a More Complex World. Review of International Studies, 29(3), 403–414. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097862 Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25(1), 5–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626772 BEN-ITZHAK, S. (2011). Realism and neorealism. In 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook (pp. 311-318). SAGE Publications, Inc., 7.10    Terminal Questions Q 1) Discuss the concept of Structural Realism. What are its assumptions and forms? Q 2) Critically evaluate Kenneth Waltz theory of Structural Realism in detail? UNIT 8 INDIAN TRADITION-KAUTILYA՚S REALPOLITIK Structure 8.1    Introduction 8.2    Learning Objectives 8.3    Kautilya's Arthashastra and his Contribution to International Relations Kautilya's Arthashastra Self-check Exercise 1 8.4    Kautilya's Saptanga Theory of state 8.4.1    Seven Elements of State 8.4.2    Mandala Theory .8.4.3Kautilya's Shadgunya Concept Self check Exercise 2 8.5    Summary 8.6    Glossary 8.7    Answers to self check Exercises 8.8    Suggested readings 8.9    Terminal Questions 8.1    Introduction Kautilya's Arthashastra holds intrinsic theoretical value in international politics, yet it has been largely overlooked both in India and abroad. This neglect is reflective of the Eurocentric dominance in the study of international relations. Kautilya, often regarded as the pre-modern founding father of the theory of Political Realism, presents a nuanced understanding of power, governance, and international relations that resonates with modern realist thought. Roger Boesche, in his book The First Great Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra (2002), argues that Kautilya was the first great and unrelenting political realist. His work emphasizes a pragmatic and strategic approach to statecraft, focusing on the harsh realities of political life. In this respect, Kautilya’s ideas prefigure many modern realist concepts in international relations. Max Weber, in his analysis of Kautilya, noted that the Arthashastra is devoid of ideological influence and is a clear-eyed examination of the political world. Kautilya's Arthashastra underscores concepts such as the supremacy of national interest, the anarchic nature of inter-state relations, and the centrality of power in international politics — ideas that echo the core tenets of Political Realism. Hans Morgenthau, a key figure in the development of modern realism, recognized the political philosophies of ancient civilizations, including Greece, China, and India, as the foundational starting points for his own theories. Morgenthau's identification of methods such as divide and rule, compensation, armaments, and alliances in managing the balance of power finds clear parallels with the strategies Kautilya outlined in his treatise, further reinforcing Kautilya’s place in the realist tradition. Furthermore, figures like Henry Kissinger have drawn comparisons between Kautilya and European thinkers, notably viewing Kautilya as a combination of Machiavelli and Clausewitz due to his emphasis on power politics and realpolitik. However, one often overlooked aspect of the Arthashastra is its frequent reference to dharma, a term signifying morality or righteousness. This inclusion complicates the view of Kautilya as merely a realist, as it suggests that his approach incorporates normative and ethical dimensions, grounding governance and political life in a broader moral framework. Kautilya’s Arthashastra thus emerges as a holistic blend of realism and idealism, emphasizing not only the importance of power and pragmatism in statecraft but also recognizing the role of moral and normative values in guiding political behavior. In this sense, Kautilya’s work offers a comprehensive perspective that integrates both idealistic and realistic elements, providing a rich and multifaceted understanding of international relations and governance. 8.2    Learning Objectives: After going through the Unit the students will be able: •     To define Kautilya’s Realism. •      To understand the contribution of Kautilya to International Politics. •     To understand Kautilya’s Theory of State in its Saptaang theoretical explanation. 8.3    Kautilya's Arthashastra and His Contribution to International Relations Kautilya's Arthashastra is an ancient yet timeless treatise on political realism, providing insights into the workings of the political world as it is, rather than how it should ideally function. Written over 2300 years ago, this work encompasses a wide range of topics crucial to statecraft, such as politics, law, economics, warfare, peace management, intelligence, foreign policy, and diplomacy. The very title Arthashastra reflects its focus on practical affairs—Artha, meaning "the earth inhabited by men," and Shastra, meaning a discipline or science. Therefore, the Arthashastra is a science dedicated to the acquisition and protection of power and resources, central to the functioning of any state. The Arthashastra is divided into fifteen Adhikaranas (books), each addressing different facets of governance and statecraft. The first five books deal with the internal administration of the state, focusing on law, justice, and the state's apparatus. The next eight books discuss the state's relations with neighboring states, including diplomacy, war, alliances, and strategic positioning. The last two books cover miscellaneous subjects like trade, economics, and practical statecraft. Together, these books comprise 150 chapters, 180 sections, and over 6000 verses (slokas). Scholars have approached the Arthashastra from different angles. For instance, Kangle termed it the "Science of Politics," while Basham referred to it as a "Treatise on Polity." Kosambi described it as the "Science of Material Gain," highlighting its economic focus, and Boesche referred to it as the "Science of Political Economy." Meanwhile, Dutt called it the "Science of Practical Life," emphasizing its pragmatic approach to governance and political affairs. Kautilya’s Arthashastra remains a monumental contribution to political thought, particularly in the realm of international relations. Kautilya, often regarded as one of the earliest proponents of political realism, was the first to theorize about the international system, balance of power, and the role of power politics. His thoughts on these matters predate Western thinkers like Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Thucydides, marking a significant milestone in the history of political thought. Kautilya’s approach to statecraft and international relations, however, is distinct from Western realism, particularly in its emphasis on moral pragmatism and its integration of both realist and idealist principles. Kautilya’s realism is rooted in a deeply pragmatic view of human nature, emphasizing the need for states to protect their interests, maximize their power, and secure their survival. In contrast to Western thinkers who often focus on the competitive struggle for power, Kautilya’s Arthashastra stresses the importance of maintaining stability, order, and balance in the international system. His approach to statecraft also incorporates a recognition of dharma (moral righteousness) as a guiding principle for governance, suggesting that morality and pragmatism can coexist in the pursuit of national interests. One of the most remarkable aspects of Kautilya's work is its relevance in the contemporary world. As our understanding of security evolves to encompass not just military might but also economic, political, and environmental factors, Kautilya’s ideas on statecraft, diplomacy, and war offer valuable insights into the changing dimensions of security. His focus on realpolitik, the manipulation of alliances, and the strategic use of intelligence and espionage remains crucial in understanding modern international politics. In the current global order, where states continue to navigate the challenges of anarchy and interdependence, Kautilya's theory of international relations offers practical tools for maintaining a balance of power and achieving national security. Kautilya’s role in the founding of the Mauryan Empire marks him as a key historical figure in shaping not only the political landscape of India but also the pragmatic theory of state governance that continues to influence thinkers worldwide. His ability to combine wisdom and practical knowledge in political economy and statecraft allowed him to guide the Mauryan Empire through complex political challenges, establishing a strong and enduring system of governance. Beyond his role as a statesman, Kautilya is also respected as a teacher, strategist, economist, and philosopher. His works are revered by both Indian scholars and Western academics, who recognize his unmatched contributions to politics, economics, warfare, and diplomacy. He was a ruthless administrator and a master strategist, admired for his ability to balance power dynamics, create alliances, and manage the intricacies of statecraft. Despite his reputation as a realist, Kautilya’s inclusion of dharma in his political theory suggests that he was not entirely divorced from idealistic principles. His balanced approach to politics, which integrated both ethical and pragmatic considerations, makes him a unique and enduring figure in the history of international relations. Kautilya's Arthashastra is not merely a historical document but a foundational text in the study of international relations and political theory. It provides a comprehensive blueprint for understanding the realities of governance, diplomacy, and power dynamics. As a precursor to modern political realism, Kautilya’s work remains highly relevant in the contemporary world, offering valuable lessons on the complexities of statecraft, power politics, and the balance of national interests. Self check Exercise 1 Q 1)_____________ was the principal architect of the Mauryan Empire. Q 2) Given the significant changes in the________, Kautilya's theory of statecraft, diplomacy, and war is significant. 8.5 Kautilya's Saptanga Theory of State Kautilya, the ancient Indian philosopher and statesman, is best known for his work Arthashastra, a treatise on statecraft, political theory, and governance. One of his most significant contributions to political theory is the Saptanga Theory of State, which outlines seven essential elements (or "prakritis") that constitute a state. These elements are fundamental to understanding how the state functions and maintains power. The Seven Elements of State (Saptanga Theory) Kautilya defines the state (Rajya) as being composed of seven critical components, which are interdependent and collectively shape its power and governance. These elements are: 1.    Swamin (The Ruler) - The leader or the king who provides direction, authority, and vision for the state. The ruler is the central figure in ensuring the well-being and stability of the state. 2.    Amatya (The Minister) - The administration and governance apparatus. This includes advisors, officials, and ministers who help the ruler in executing state policies and governance. 3.    Janapada (The People) - The population or citizens who constitute the state. This element emphasizes the importance of having a stable and productive population to support the state's goals. 4.    Durg (The Fortress) - The capital city or the central stronghold of the state. It includes physical infrastructure like fortifications, but it also refers to the state’s political and administrative center. 5.    Kosa (The Treasury) - The state’s wealth and economic resources. This encompasses the state's financial stability, income sources, and wealth management, all critical for sustaining its power and military capabilities. 6.    Danda (The Armed Might) - The military or defense forces that protect the state. Kautilya emphasized the importance of military power in securing the state's sovereignty and in asserting influence over other states. 7.    Mitra (The Ally) - The external relationships and alliances with other states or powers. Diplomatic alliances are necessary for strengthening the state's position in the international arena. The Role of Each Element Kautilya’s Saptanga theory stresses that the power and stability of the state depend on the integration and effective functioning of these seven elements. If one of these elements is weak or dysfunctional, it can jeopardize the state's overall power and stability. For instance, a weak ruler (Swamin) or a poorly managed treasury (Kosa) would directly affect the state's ability to defend itself or project power. Moreover, Kautilya’s theory reveals an understanding of state power as a holistic entity, where material and non-material factors, including military power, economic resources, and alliances, combine to form the overall strength of the state. This is similar to Morgenthau’s concept of national power, where various components such as population, agriculture, armed forces, raw materials, and diplomacy contribute to the total strength of a nation. Saptanga and Modern State Theory Kautilya’s Saptanga theory bears a partial resemblance to modern definitions of the state but also introduces additional components. For example, territory and population, which are often viewed as fundamental in modern state theory, are both captured in the concept of Janapada. Similarly, Kautilya's idea of government is encapsulated in the element of Amatya, which refers to the administration and machinery of the state. The theory’s organic view of the state emphasizes the interdependence of all seven components, highlighting how each element is essential for the health and survival of the state. As such, the theory stresses the importance of a balanced and strategic approach to governance, where no single element is neglected, and the overall system is strengthened. Mandala Theory Another of Kautilya's contributions to the field of international relations is the Mandala Theory, which offers a realist view of foreign policy. Kautilya believed in the concept of the balance of power and saw the international system as being composed of multiple circles of states. The state at the center of these circles is surrounded by neighboring states, which are classified as either allies or enemies. The Mandala consists of four concentric circles, each containing three states: •  The state at the center of the Mandala, its ally, and the ally of its ally. •  The enemy state, its ally, and the ally of its ally. •   The natural state (a state in proximity), its ally, and its ally's ally. •  The intermediary state, its ally, and its ally's ally. Kautilya's geographical determinism suggests that states view their immediate neighbors as enemies, while neighbors of enemies become potential allies. The theory underlines that states must continuously assess and reassess their alliances and adversaries, based on the shifting dynamics of international relations. Kautilya’s Mandala Theory emphasizes strategic calculations, power dynamics, and the importance of alliances in maintaining state security. Kautilya's Shadgunya Theory Kautilya’s Shadgunya Theory offers six foreign policy strategies based on the relative power dynamics between states. These strategies help determine the appropriate response in different geopolitical scenarios: 1.    Sandhi (Peace) - Opting for diplomacy and peaceful negotiation when the rival state is stronger. 2.    Vigraha (War) - Going to war when the rival state is weaker. 3.    Asana (Neutrality) - Maintaining neutrality when the power balance between rivals is even. 4.    Yana (Preparation) - Preparing for war and engaging in diplomacy when one’s own power is growing. 5.    Samshrya (Alliance Building) - Forming alliances when a rival state is becoming more powerful. 6.    Dvadhibhava (Double Game) - Playing a diplomatic game by engaging in different strategies with allies and enemies simultaneously. The Shadgunya theory further complements the Saptanga theory by providing a strategic framework for states to manage external relations based on the state’s internal power structure and the external environment. Kautilya՚s Intelligence and Grand Strategy Kautilya’s insights into intelligence and grand strategy are profound and remain relevant in contemporary international relations. He emphasized the importance of reality-based information and the scientific assessment of political actors' capabilities and intentions. He rejected superstition and astrology, advocating instead for empirical data and strategic analysis to inform decisions. His theory laid the foundation for modern intelligence studies and grand strategy, where multiple factors—military, economic, technological, and geopolitical—are assessed to inform statecraft. In conclusion, Kautilya's Saptanga Theory of State provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the structure and power dynamics of the state, both internally and in the international arena. His contributions to the study of statecraft, diplomacy, and foreign policy, especially through his Mandala and Shadgunya theories, offer enduring insights into the nature of power, strategy, and international relations. Kautilya’s ideas continue to resonate with modern political thinkers, making his work a timeless and invaluable resource for both contemporary political theory and practice. Self check Exercise 2 1)Kautilya is well known for laying out the so-called _____ of foreign strategy, which views close neighbours as adversaries. 2)Sandhi essentially signifies _________and____________. 8.6    Summary Kautilya, known for his intelligence and strategic thinking, is depicted in the classical Indian play Mudrarakshasa by Vishakhadatta, where his intelligence activities are central to his role. His intelligence services have often been compared to the intelligence operations of the Republic of Venice, the Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik), and Sir Francis Walsingham's services in Tudor England. The concept of "grand strategy," coined by B.H. Liddell Hart, aligns closely with Kautilya's approach in the Arthashastra. Kautilya’s concept of grand strategy emphasizes a holistic and comprehensive view of statecraft, where the state's resources and capabilities are assessed alongside those of external actors. His strategic thinking is often compared with the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu and his work The Art of War, as both are seminal ancient texts dealing with intelligence and strategy. Kautilya's Arthashastra remains one of the most important classical works on intelligence, statecraft, and grand strategy. 8.7    Glossary Diplomacy: The task of maintaining international relations National Power: National power is defined as the sum of all resources available to a nation in the pursuit of national objectives. Assessing the national power of political entities was already a matter of relevance during the classical antiquity, the middle ages and the renaissance and today. Alliance: An alliance is a partnership of individuals, organizations, or states that have come together for the sake of mutual advantage or to accomplish a common goal. Allies are those who are part of an alliance. Stategy: Strategy is 'the art of creating power',1 while statecraft is the skill of securing the survival and prosperity of a sovereign state. Statecraft demands the development and execution of strategies in the pursuit of national interests. 8.8    ) Answers to self-check ExercisesExercise 1 1) . Mauryan Empire 2) concept of security Exercise 2 1) . Mandala Theory 2) Non-aggression Pacts and Partnership. 8.9 . Suggested Readings Bell, Duncan. (ed.), Political Thought in International Relations: Variations on a Realist Theme, Oxford. Oxford University Press, 2008 Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, 2nd edition. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1946 Modelski, George, “Kautilya: Foreign Policy and International System in the Ancient Hindu World.” The American Political Science Review 58, No. 3 (1964): Kaur, K. (2010). KAUTILYA: SAPTANGA THEORY OF STATE. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 71(1), 59–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42748368 8.10    Terminal Questions Q. 1) What to you understand by Kautilya’s Shadgunya Concept of State? Q.2) Explain Kautilya’s Mandala Theory. Q.3) Discuss Kautilya’s Contribution to International Relations. -UNIT 9 Statecraft and International Relations: Contemporary Lessons from Kautilya Structure 9.1    Introduction 9.2    Learning Objectives 9.3 Holistic Statecraft 9.3.1    Diplomacy and Statecraft Self-Check Exercise 1 9.4    Realpolitik And Moralpolitik Self-Check Exercise 2 9.5    Kautilya's View on "Power" and Strategic Autonomy Self-Check Exercise 3 9.6    Summary 9.7    Glossary 9.8    Answers To Self-Check Exercises 9.9    suggested readings 9.10    Terminal questions 9.1    Introduction The field of International Relations (IR) has historically been Eurocentric, emerging from Western frameworks that emphasize great-power rivalry, and realist concepts of power, order, security, and national interests. These ideas were largely built upon Western Christian foundations of statecraft, sidelining the contributions from nonWestern societies. However, in contemporary global politics, driven by forces like globalization, multipolarity, and the rebalancing of power, the significance of nonWestern perspectives has become more prominent. This shift is particularly evident with the rise of countries like China and India, which have fostered interest in studying their distinct strategic cultures, deeply rooted in ancient traditions, to better understand their state behavior. Ancient Indian philosophy, exemplified by thinkers like Kautilya, provides unique cultural insights into statecraft. His theories, such as the rajamandala (the concentric, geopolitical conception of interstate relations), the saptanga (seven organs of state) theory of power, and matsya-nyaya (the law of the fish), predate and resonate with Western political theories. These include Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513), Hobbes’ state of nature (1651), Hans J. Morgenthau’s national power (1948), and Kenneth Waltz’s anarchy (1959), though with distinctive cultural nuances. Given the increasing global engagement of India, it is crucial to explore both the commonalities and differences between Western and Indian philosophical traditions in IR. This exploration becomes particularly relevant as India plays a pivotal role in addressing global challenges and opportunities, with both the capacity and will to significantly shape the global order. 9.2 Learning Objectives After reading this unit, the students will be able to: •     Comprehend Kautilya’s views on holistic Statecraft •      Describe the “Realpolitik” and “Moralpolitik” •     Examine Kautiliya’s Notion on Power and its contemporary relevance. 9.3    Holistic Statecraft In ancient India, statecraft encompassed both domestic governance and international relations. Kautilya's Arthashastra emphasizes the principle of yogakshema — the dual goal of action (yoga) and secure possession (kshema) — as central to state policy. This concept integrates the political and economic realms, focusing on ensuring both the security (raksha) and well-being (palana) of the people. Kautilya's political framework blends the principles of dandaniti (statecraft) and vartta (economics), highlighting the interdependence of domestic welfare and international power. Kautilya’s state is built on a comprehensive approach that includes the material well-being of the people, political legitimacy, and social cohesion. The king's role is central in achieving the goal of artha (wealth), which, while not the ultimate goal, is essential for achieving the higher goals of dharma (righteousness) and kama (sensual enjoyment). Wealth sustains the state, supports social welfare, and ensures the king's ability to secure both internal and external stability. In his ideal, the king is deeply involved in the economic well-being of the state, even engaging in public welfare, such as caring for the poor and educating orphans. Kautilya’s model is a welfare state, where the king’s happiness is inherently tied to the happiness of his people. This holistic view of statecraft—spanning political, economic, social, and religious spheres—forms a foundation for governance, ensuring a stable and prosperous society. In contemporary geopolitics, India’s approach to international relations reflects these principles, especially in the context of its role in the Indo-Pacific region. With one-third of the world’s trade and energy flow passing through the region, India recognizes the interconnectedness of domestic prosperity and regional security. India’s vision for a “free, open, and inclusive” Indo-Pacific aligns with the global idea of shared progress, underscoring the mutual dependency of nations in today’s interconnected world. Diplomacy and Statecraft: Kautilya’s insights into diplomacy and statecraft are crucial in understanding the conduct of relations with other states. In his framework, the enhancement and expansion of power are primary objectives of the state, and diplomacy serves as a tool to achieve these goals. The lack of advanced communication and transportation in ancient India led to a fragmented state system, with smaller states attempting to annex their neighbors. Kautilya provided strategic diplomatic methods, referred to as Upayas (devices or strategies), to navigate these complex relationships: 1.    Sama (Conciliation): Used when dealing with a stronger king, this strategy focused on peaceful resolution rather than direct confrontation. 2.    Dana (Concession or Gift): Aimed at appeasing a stronger king, this policy involves offering gifts or concessions to maintain peaceful relations. 3.    Danda (Force): Applied when dealing with weaker states, this strategy involves the use of force or intimidation to extract concessions or secure victory. 4.    Bheda (Divide and Rule): This strategy is used to sow discord among equally strong enemies, encouraging them to weaken each other. These strategies, while not adhering to traditional moral standards, were deemed necessary for state survival and success. Kautilya’s willingness to employ secret counsel, fraud, and deception underscores the pragmatic and often Machiavellian nature of his statecraft. These approaches allowed rulers to navigate complex international dynamics, ensuring the stability and prosperity of their states. Kautilya’s framework of diplomacy and statecraft remains relevant in understanding modern geopolitics, especially in a world where power, diplomacy, and statecraft continue to evolve in response to changing global dynamics. Self-Check Exercise 1 Q 1) The State according to Kautilya had ____________distinct objectives: Q 2) Kautilya stood for _______________devices for diplomacy and Statecraft? 9.4    Realpolitik and “ Moralpolitik” India’s foreign policy has long reflected a blend of both Realpolitik (pragmatic power politics) and Moralpolitik (moral considerations in international relations), drawing from ancient philosophical traditions and adapting them to contemporary global challenges. This synthesis speaks to India's distinct approach to international relations, which balances survival and power with abstract universal ideals such as lokasamgraha (social wealth), a concept emphasizing collective well-being. Kautilya’s teachings, particularly the concept of realpolitik, lie at the heart of India’s internationalist nationalist stance. His emphasis on state survival, strategic calculation, and the pursuit of power in a zero-sum world is mirrored in India’s foreign policy approach. However, India’s approach diverges from traditional Realpolitik by incorporating a more organic and holistic worldview that acknowledges the interconnections of humanity. This is seen through a variable-sum framework: the belief that cooperation, shared prosperity, and the preservation of humanity can benefit all parties, rather than the traditional win-lose dynamic of Realpolitik. This worldview can be traced to the ancient Indian cosmological concept of dharma, which is deeply embedded in the idea of relational existence. Unlike Western conceptions of sovereignty and self-interest, dharma, in the Indian tradition, emphasizes interdependence and the moral duty to act in ways that preserve balance and harmony. This understanding dilutes the sharp distinctions between ‘self’ and ‘other’, highlighting the diversity of life and the interconnectedness of all beings. The vision of India as part of Bharatvarsha, a region described in ancient texts as part of the four-petalled lotus of Jambudvipa, embodies this cosmological understanding of harmonious co-existence. This stands in contrast to the imperial or centralized visions of power seen in other civilizations, such as the Middle Kingdom concept in ancient China. India’s foreign policy, particularly in its current role in the G20, exemplifies its ongoing commitment to the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam— the philosophy that "the world is one family." This guiding principle upholds the idea of global interconnectedness and shared responsibility for the future of humanity. India’s approach to foreign policy after independence has often oscillated between realpolitik—focused on the strategic interests and survival of the state—and moralpolitik—aiming for peaceful coexistence, global cooperation, and the welfare of humanity. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) championed by Jawaharlal Nehru is an example of this dual approach. While it symbolized a commitment to moral ideals such as peace and cooperation among nations, it also took into account India’s security and national interests, demonstrating a nuanced form of political pragmatism. As Nehru famously stated, “Every nation places its own interests first in developing foreign policy. Fortunately, India’s interests coincide with peaceful foreign policy and cooperation with all progressive nations.” Kautilya’s vision for the political unification of the Indian subcontinent is another example of this blend of realpolitik and moralpolitik. Kautilya sought to establish a sacred geo-cultural space defended by natural barriers, a vision aimed at ensuring the region's security and stability. However, his theories did not suggest any imperialistic ambitions beyond the Indian subcontinent (chakravartin or sovereign’s region). This stance exemplifies the balance between securing one's own interests—realpolitik—and maintaining a moral and ethical framework of nonexpansion beyond one's natural borders, thus representing moralpolitik. India’s foreign policy, from its roots in ancient strategic thought to its contemporary global engagement, remains a unique confluence of realpolitik and moralpolitik. This approach reflects the country’s desire to secure its national interests and ensure its survival while simultaneously advocating for a world order based on shared prosperity, peace, and global cooperation. Self-check Exercise 2 Q 1) The Saptanga theory follow a _______________ hierarchy and together make a state’s comprehensive ____________. Q 2) Yogakshema in Kautilya’s Arthashastra means____________ and________ . Q 3) Kautilya refutes the __________notion of inside/outside with the dictum that the welfare of a state depends on an ____________active foreign policy.” 9.5    Kautilya's View on "Power" and Strategic Autonomy Kautilya’s conception of power, as articulated in his Arthashastra, is a dynamic and relational concept that goes beyond merely military strength or economic might. For Kautilya, power is a means, not an end. His saptanga theory of statecraft—which enumerates the seven constituent elements of the state—offers a comprehensive view of how power is constituted and exercised. These elements, which include both material (economic and military) and non-material (leadership, morale, efficiency of the ministers, etc.) factors, provide a nuanced understanding of a state's strength and capabilities. Four Key Deductions from Kautilya՚s Saptanga Theory: 1.    Amalgamation of Material and Non-material Factors: Kautilya emphasizes the combination of economic and military might with the political performance of leadership, the loyalty and efficiency of ministers, and the productivity of citizens. This reflects a holistic understanding of power, which goes beyond simple resource accumulation to include governance and leadership. 2.    Primacy of Political Leadership: The highest-ranking elements in Kautilya’s theory are the ruler (swami) and the council of ministers (amatya). This suggests that political leadership is of paramount importance in shaping a state’s power. The ruler’s wisdom and decision-making are seen as more significant than material resources such as the treasury or the army. 3.    Role of External Allies: Kautilya’s inclusion of the ally (mitra) as the final element in the hierarchy suggests that external assistance should be used strategically, and only when internal mechanisms have failed. External allies may bolster a state’s power, but Kautilya places a premium on domestic factors before turning to external support. 4.    Interconnectedness of State Elements: The components of the state are interrelated. For instance, successful governance (led by the ruler and ministers) enhances economic prosperity, which in turn strengthens the political legitimacy of the state, improves its military strength, and enhances its bargaining power in international affairs. This interdependence of factors highlights that power is fluid and shaped by internal dynamics, which constantly interact with the external environment. Dynamic Nature of Power: Kautilya’s view of power is dynamic and relative to other states, within the framework of his concept of rajamandala (the geopolitical concept of the "circle of kings"). The relative strength of a state, alongside its disposition or intent, can determine its foreign policy actions. The interaction between different states is constantly influenced by their relative power and strategic positioning. The sadgunyas (six measures of foreign policy), which include accommodation, dual policies, hostility, and neutrality, reflect Kautilya’s flexible and adaptive approach to foreign policy. These measures are employed based on the relative strength of other states and the specific circumstances at hand. For example, two equally strong states may opt for a peace pact (samdhi) to avoid unnecessary conflict. In contrast, when a stronger power is involved, a state may resort to force or a policy of divide and rule (bheda). The Role of Knowledge in Statecraft Kautilya places a strong emphasis on knowledge as the foundation of effective statecraft. Knowledge of geography, resources, and the strengths and weaknesses of other states is essential for making strategic decisions. His distinction between innate and contingent enemies—identifying long-term, untrustworthy adversaries versus temporary, opportunistic rivals—underscores the need for strategic flexibility and foresight in managing external threats. Strategic Autonomy and Self-Reliance The principle of strategic autonomy and self-reliance in India’s foreign policy can be traced back to Kautilya’s teachings. Kautilya’s statecraft emphasizes that while alliances and external support can be beneficial, internal balancing—through strengthening one’s own political, economic, and military resources—should be prioritized. This aligns with India’s modern policy of maintaining independence of judgment while engaging in international alliances. For Kautilya, external partnerships are considered only after securing internal stability. He suggests that strategic partnerships should be formed based on shared interests, strength, and reliability. Alliances, especially with equal or weaker powers, are preferred over partnerships with stronger states that may limit autonomy. The dual policy (dvaidhibhava), which involves allying with one power to counterbalance another, is a key strategy Kautilya recommends when dealing with competing powers. This perspective is reflected in India’s foreign policy, where it carefully navigates global alliances, balancing its relationships with major powers like the United States, while also building strong regional partnerships, such as in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), and Quad. This plurilateral approach is consistent with Kautilya’s advice to form alliances with multiple, reliable powers rather than relying on a single, potentially domineering ally. Case Study: India՚s Relationship with the United States India’s relationship with the United States has evolved significantly, particularly since the 1990s. In the early stages, there was uncertainty and cautious engagement, but over time, the relationship has grown stronger, particularly in areas like trade, defense, and strategic cooperation. This transformation reflects the application of Kautilyan principles, where India balanced cooperation with the U.S. while maintaining strategic autonomy. Despite aligning with the U.S. on many issues, India continues to resist full alignment, seeking to preserve its independence of judgment and its broader foreign policy goals, which include cooperation with other powers and regional stability. In conclusion Kautilya’s conception of power, as outlined in his Arthashastra, offers valuable insights into the strategic calculus of states, balancing internal and external elements of power. His emphasis on strategic autonomy and self-reliance in statecraft remains a defining feature of modern Indian foreign policy, particularly in its interactions with global powers and regional players. The application of Kautilyan principles allows India to maintain flexibility, form diverse alliances, and navigate the complexities of contemporary geopolitics while safeguarding its independence and long-term interests. Self- Check Your Exercise 3 Q1) What does Rajmandala mean to you? Q 2) Kautilya pays great attention to __________ and__________ at the highest level. 9.6    Summary The world is currently in a state of transition, marked by increased competition, mistrust, and shrinking global assurances, with more players engaging actively in global affairs amidst fractured multilateralism. To navigate this, a nuanced and visionary approach is necessary. Unlike other major global actors who are shifting their long-standing foreign policies, India remains anchored to its consistent national identity, shaped by its historical legacy. This identity is defined by three key factors: perception, principle, and pragmatism. These guide India in maintaining independence in decision-making, respecting mutual relations, and avoiding imposing its model on others. India's civilizational identity positions it uniquely to foster cooperation, moderate competition, promote inclusivity, reject bloc politics, and champion a democratic, rules-based global order. This approach aligns with India's desire to play a responsible international role, while also advancing its core national interests and multipolar worldview. 9.7    Glossary Raj Dharma: Raj dharma as enunciated in the past still holds value as orderly, peaceful and prosperous life for society and good ethical conduct in polity. Dandniti: Danda Niti is a concept in ancient Indian political philosophy, particularly in the works of Kautilya. It refers to the use of punishment and force as a means of maintaining order and achieving political goals. Matsya Nyaya: Matsya Nyaya is quite similar to the “law of the jungle,” which dictates that stronger and bigger animals feed on the smaller and weaker ones in a jungle. In Kautilya’s Arthshastra the term was used in the context of chaotic situation of the pre-political society which existed on the principle of ‘ Might is Right’. Statecraft: Statecraft is the skill of governing a country 9.8    Answers To Self-Check ExercisesExercise 1 1    )Three,Dharma, Artha, and Kama. 2) four Exercise 2 1)    hierarchy, national power. 2) Security, well-being of people. 3) Westphalian, active foreign policy Exercise 3 1)    See 9.3 &9.5   2) political leadership, decision-making 9.9    Suggested Readings Boesche, Roger. (2002). The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra. Maryland: Lexington Books. Mitra, Subrata K & Michael Liebig. (2017). Kautilya’s Arthashastra: An Intellectual Portrait – The Classical Roots of Modern Politics in India. New Delhi: Rupa Publishing India Pvt Ltd. Rangarajan, L.N. (1992). Kautilya: The Arthashastra. New Delhi: Penguin Books India (P) Ltd. Shahi, Deepshikha. (2019). Kautilya and Non-Western IR Theory. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Sihag, Balbir Singh. (2014). Kautilya’s Proactive and Pragmatic Approach to National Security. http://www.du.ac.in/du/uploads/events/20102014_Abstract.pdf URL: Singh, M. P. (2017). Kautilya: Theory of State in Himanshu Roy and M P Singh (eds). Indian Political Thought– Theme and Thinkers. Noida: Pearson India Education Services Pvt Ltd. 9.10    Terminal Questions Q 1) Critically analyse Kautilya’s conception of Power and its contemporary relevance? Q 2) Define the term Statecraft. Discuss the notions of Realpolitik and Moralpolitik as discussed by Kautilya? UNIT 10NEO-REALISM Structure 10.1    Introduction 10.2    Learning Objectives 10.3    Neo-Realist theory: Core ideas with particular reference to Kenneth Waltz Self-Check Exercise 1 10.4    Difference between Classical Realism and Neo-Realism Self-Check Exercise 2 10.5    Summary 10.6    Glossary 10.7    Answers to self -check Exercises 10.8    Suggested Readings 10.9    Terminal Questions 10.1    Introduction Neo-realism emerged as an attempt to modernize classical realism by applying the methods and language of modern social sciences, aiming to replace the normative approaches traditionally used by classic realists such as Hans Morgenthau. Influenced by the advancements in science and reasoning, scholars in the 1950s and 1960s started exploring new research methods such as game theory and quantitative analysis in the study of International Relations (IR). The end of the Cold War did not lead to general disarmament, an end to regional conflicts, or a reduction in small wars, which reinforced the idea that states remain focused on enhancing their power and security—concepts central to realism. In the post-Cold War era, these ‘reinvented’ realists, now known as neorealists, continued to emphasize the centrality of the state in world politics, rejecting the view that supranational institutions could replace the state. They acknowledged that while globalization has changed the state, it has not eliminated it; rather, the state has become more complex. During the 1970s, détente between the US and the Soviet Union led to a reduction in tensions between these superpowers, while new actors, such as the Non-Aligned Movement, international economic institutions, and non-governmental organizations, emerged as influential players in global politics. These developments revitalized pluralism and liberalism in the study of international relations. Neo-realism seeks to explain why states, despite their internal differences, behave in similar ways and why interdependence will not lead to lasting cooperation in international politics. The key reason behind this is the anarchic nature of the international system. Without a central authority, anarchy serves as the ordering principle of international relations. In such a system, the only way for states to ensure their survival is through self-help, which leads to a security dilemma: as one state builds its security, it inadvertently threatens the security of others. This creates an environment where egoism and anarchy hinder cooperation. States, as the primary units of the international system, share the common function of survival. Therefore, there is no functional differentiation between states, and their relative capabilities—primarily their power—determine their chances of survival in this anarchic world. A more powerful state is better positioned to secure its survival. 10.2    Learning objectives: After reading the Unit the students will be able : •     To define and explain Neo-Realism •     To elucidate the central arguments of Neo-Realism •     To distinguish between Classical Realism and Neo-Realism 10.3    Neo-Realist Theory: Core Ideas of Neo-Realism Neo-realism, or structural realism, emerged from a debate within classical realism, aiming to address its limitations by applying a more scientific, positivist approach to the study of international relations. Scholars like Kenneth Waltz, Robert Gilpin, Randall Schweller, and John Mearsheimer developed this framework to understand international relations in the contemporary world. At its core, neo-realism represents a scientific evolution of classical realist thought, adapting it to new challenges and circumstances. The foundations of neo-realism were established in 1979, a pivotal year that coincided with the Afghan crisis and the beginning of the Second Cold War. Although neo-realism shifted focus from the selfishness of human nature to the inherent conflictual nature of international structures, many of the core ideas from classical realism remained unchanged. The international system is still viewed as an arena of conflicting interests, where the pursuit of power remains central and war is considered the ultimate tool of policy. Peace and international cooperation are seen as distant, unattainable goals, and neo-realism essentially reinforces the realist view that the anarchic and conflictual nature of the international system persists. Consequently, relative peace can only be achieved by adjusting power dynamics among states. Neo-realism, therefore, does not radically depart from classical realism but reasserts its principles under new global circumstances. The theory finds relevance in the global events of the latter half of the twentieth century, particularly during the Cold War, when the world witnessed the continuing validity of classical realist ideas. The 1970s marked the rise of neo-realism, with Kenneth Waltz emerging as one of its leading figures. In his influential work Theory of International Politics (1979), Waltz sought to address the shortcomings of classical realism and offered a scientific explanation of the international system, influenced by microeconomic theories. Waltz likened the international system to a market, where states are akin to firms operating in an environment without a defined order. The primary goal of both states and firms is survival through competition in a system governed by self-help. Waltz identified two main factors that impede cooperation in the anarchic international system: insecurity and relative gains. States are constantly concerned about the intentions of other states, leading to insecurity. For example, arms control agreements cannot be independently verified, prompting states to engage in an arms race to ensure their security. Additionally, states will often consider whether their own gains in interdependence outweigh those of others, which further limits the potential for cooperation. To illustrate his arguments, Waltz analyzed the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union. Despite deep ideological differences and historical enmity, the US and USSR cooperated during World War II to defeat a common enemy—Nazi Germany. However, after the war, the two superpowers once again became adversaries, and the Cold War ensued. Neo-realists argue that this rivalry was driven by the structure of international politics, not domestic factors (though domestic issues may have intensified it). In a bipolar system, both superpowers viewed each other as a threat, leading to a balance of power. Therefore, the Cold War was a natural outcome of the bipolar structure. Waltz partially agrees with the "democratic peace" theory, which posits that democracies do not go to war with each other. However, he contends that even if all states became democratic, the anarchic structure of international relations would remain unchanged. There are no permanent friends or enemies in the global system of states, and democracies also fight wars, particularly when they aim to impose democracy on other states, as evidenced by US interventions. Waltz argues that interventions, whether in the name of democracy or human rights, often do more harm than good. Waltz firmly believes that the role of international institutions is to support the state system, not replace it. These institutions are shaped and limited by the states that create them and have little independent influence. International institutions exist as long as they serve the interests of the more powerful states that sustain them. Waltz's major neo-realist argument is that international politics reflects the distribution of "national capabilities." He argues that the balance of power theory will ultimately prevail, where order is a product of the continual process of balancing and adjustment among states in an anarchic system. In this system, internal balancing occurs through domestic mobilization, while external balancing occurs through alliances. The distribution of capabilities among states is crucial in understanding significant international outcomes, such as war, peace, alliance politics, and the balance of power. Thus, neo-realism underscores the importance of power dynamics, structural factors, and the inherent competition within the international system, making it a valuable framework for analyzing the behavior of states in an anarchic world. Self check Exercise 1 Q 1) ‘Neo-Realists’, lay emphasis on the continued ___________ of the state in world politics. Q 2) The anarchic international system's two primary obstacles in cooperation are __________ and ______________. Q 3) Kenneth Waltz’s major neorealist argument that the politics at international level reflects the distribution of ______________. 10.4    Differences between Classical Realism and Neo-Realism The differences between Classical Realism and Neo-Realism can be understood in several key areas: 1.    The Source of the Desire for Power: Classical Realism: Classical realists argue that states seek power due to human nature. Leaders, driven by personal desires and instincts, want to accumulate power and assert dominance over their rivals. This perspective sees the quest for power as a natural part of human behavior. o Neo-Realism: In contrast, neo-realism traces the desire for power to the structure of the international system. Since the system is anarchic (lacking a central authority), states cannot trust each other's intentions. As a result, states must be powerful enough to protect themselves in case they are attacked. Neo-realism focuses on the external environment, specifically the structure of international politics, rather than individual desires. 2.    The Role of Power: o Classical Realism: For classical realists, power is often seen as an end in itself. States pursue power because it is an inherent goal, and the accumulation of power is a sign of strength and influence. o Neo-Realism: Neo-realists argue that power is merely a means to an end, with the ultimate goal being survival. In an anarchic system, states need power not for dominance but to ensure their own security and survival in a potentially hostile environment. 3.    Methodology: o Classical Realism: Classical realism is based on subjective interpretations of international relations, often shaped by historical examples and philosophical reasoning. o Neo-Realism: Neo-realism, on the other hand, uses a more systematic and scientific approach, influenced by the behavioralist revolution of the 1960s and methods drawn from microeconomics. This approach aims to provide a more structured and empirical understanding of international politics. Self check Exercise 2 Q 1) What is meant by Neo-Realism? Q 2) Why international system is characterised by Anarchy ? 10.5    Summary Realism is a diverse approach to understanding international relations (IR), but realists share several core beliefs. They agree that international politics is primarily driven by power dynamics, with states being the central actors in the global arena. Realists also maintain that the international system is characterized by anarchy, meaning there is no overarching authority to regulate state behavior, which leads to a security dilemma where states must prioritize their own survival and security. While Classical Realism and Neo-Realism share many foundational ideas, they differ in their explanations of why states seek power and how the international system functions. Neo-realism is further divided into two camps: defensive realism, which focuses on security and the preservation of the status quo, and offensive realism, which suggests that states are inherently driven to seek power and dominance. Overall, realism plays a crucial role in cautioning policymakers against overly idealistic views of international relations. However, an excessive focus on realist principles can potentially lead to conflict, war, and aggression, highlighting the delicate balance between pursuing national interest and maintaining global peace. 10.6 Glossary Anarchy: The term anarchy explains a sort of disorder or lawlessness due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems. Hegemony: Preponderant authority or influence over others. In IR it refers to a state’s power relative to that of others. A state may be considered a hegemon if it is so powerful economically and militarily and is able to interfere and dictate in other states affairs. Balance of Power: A situation in which states of the world have roughly equal powers. 10.7    Answers to self-check Exercises: Exercise 1: 1)     centrality, 2) insecurity, relative gains. 3) national capabilities. Exercise 2 1)    see 10.3         2) see 10.1 and 10.2 10.8    Suggested Readings: Jackson, R, H., &, Sorensen, G., Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Waltz, Kenneth, Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis, New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. ___________Theory of International Politics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979 Williams, M. C., Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Baldwin, D, A., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. 10.9    Terminal Questions: Q 1) Discuss the meaning and core ideas regarding Neo-realism. Q2)What are the points of differences between Neo-Realism and Classical Realism? Q3) Describe the main distinctions between offensive and defensive realism. UNIT 11NEO-LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM Structure 11.1    Introduction 11.2    Objectives 11.3    Meaning of Neo -liberal institutionalism Self-check Exercise 1 11.4    Assumptions of Neo- liberal institutionalists Self-Check Exercise 2 11.5    Factors Responsible for Neo-liberal institutionalism Self-Check Exercise 3 11.6    Summary 11.7    Glossary 11.8    Answers to self check Exercises 11.9    Suggested readings 11.10 Terminal Questions 11.1    Introduction Neo-liberal Institutionalism (NLI) encompasses within its fold a large number of approaches pertaining to liberal school of thought in International Relations which regards the indispensability of institutions. Only institutions can help in bringing international peace and security. At the core, Neo-liberal Institutionalism argues that there is a close interdependence and mutual dependence between peace and international institutions. Both formal and informal institutional arrangements are the subjects of new liberal institutionalism. In the category of formal institutions we can include the various international bodies like the United Nations Organisation(UNO), The World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the European Union (EU). States create and voluntarily submit to such institutions which possess collective goals and establish mechanisms to achieve them. Informal institutional arrangements, or regimes, are also voluntarily created by states and constitute sets of implicit and explicit principles, norms, rules and procedures around which actor’s expectations converge in a particular issue area. A well-established regime exists in the issue area of capitalist free trade e.g. since both formal institutions and implicit collectively shared principles, norms, rules and procedures are foundational to such activity. The neo-liberal institutionalists are believed to place greater emphasis upon environmental and economic issues, with a specific focus on the latter. Keohane and Nye argue that interdependence, particularly economic interdependence, is now an important feature of world politics. They further argue that states are dominant actors in international relations; there exists a hierarchy among states and thus force can be an important instrument of policy. 11.2    Learning Objectives After going through the lesson students will be able to answer: •     Meaning of Neo-Liberal institutionalism •     The core ideas and assumptions of neo-liberal Institutionalism. 11.3    Meaning of Neo-liberal institutionalism: Liberalism revived itself under the rubric of neoliberal institutionalism since the 1970s. Neo-Liberal Institutionalism is a new liberal approach that aims to rule out the utopianism of previous liberalist theory. Neoliberals reject idealism while sharing classical liberal views on the potential for advancement and change. They also make an effort to develop theories and use novel and scientific techniques. According to neoliberal institutionalists, in the international system, governments collaborate even when there is anarchy. Neoliberal institutionalism examines how current international institutions help nation-states achieve collective goals and is predicated on the idea of interdependence and cooperation. Neoliberal institutionalists along with liberals believe in cooperation. But they give different reason for this. For classical liberals, cooperation arises when individuals create and modify institutions that facilitate cooperative interactions while preventing coercive behavior. In contrast, for neo-liberal institutionalists, cooperation develops through ongoing interactions between actors, with each acting in their own self-interest to cooperate. While institutions may be formed to influence the potential for cooperation, they do not ensure it. For neoliberal institutionalists, institutions provide a framework of interaction and suggest that there will be future interaction on international issues such as security, environment, immigration, economics and even human rights. Institutions help to make cooperation in these areas possible. According to neoliberals, anarchy does not make cooperation is not possible. This is where international institutions and regimes play a crucial role. Self check Exercise 1 Q 1) The chief focus of Neo-liberal Institutionalism(NLI) is on ____________. Q 2) The neo-liberal institutionalists are believed to place greater emphasis upon_________. Q 3) For neoliberal institutionalists both _____________ and ___________ are important. 11.4    Core assumptions of Neo-Liberal institutionalism:  Neo-Liberal Institutionalism rests on the following postulates: 1)    In International relations it is not only the States which play a significant and decisive role, but other actors are also important. States are rational entities focused on advancing their interests across all areas, aiming to maximize absolute gains through cooperation. This rational approach drives them to recognize the benefits of working together, with the main hurdle to cooperation being the risk of cheating by states. Although cooperation is never without problems, states will support institutions if these are seen as mutually beneficial and if they secure a state’s international interests. 2)    The neoliberal institutionalists see institutions as the means to achieve cooperation among actors in the system. Over the years, the areas of cooperation for neoliberal institutionalists have expanded beyond trade. There are number of issues at the global level that compel the states to come together and reach a consensus. Security occupies an important dimension in this. Issues such as environment, human rights, drug trafficking, terrorism, regional as well as global conflicts require coordination at the global level. 3)    Neo-Liberal institutionalism argues that both formal institutions and regimes have the potential to create lasting bonds between nation states. They do so by facilitating interaction, diffusing information, heightening transparency and lessening the ability of actors to defect from institutional arrangements. By standardizing rules and regulations, institutions foster a sense of trust, enabling nation-states to achieve a range of shared objectives. 4)    It belongs to the broader theoretical framework of Liberal thought in International Relations that relies on fundamental liberal principles emphasizing prudence, rationality, information, and institutional structures in achieving cooperative outcomes in international relations. Neoliberal institutionalism also constitutes renewed confrontation with realism-hence its “neo” status. It emerged in the late 1970s as a theoretical competitor to neo realism, Neoliberal institutionalism contends that significant constraints hinder the effectiveness of international cooperation in an anarchic world dominated by self-interested, egocentric nation-states. 5)Neo-Liberal institutionalism challenges the pessimistic conclusion of neo realist analyses,     by adopting similar analytical assumptions. Both Neo-liberal institutionalists and neo realist scholars agree that the international system is anarchic which means that there is no international authority or government to force states to comply with demands or cooperate with one another. Both theories focus on the state as the main actor in international affairs. While NLI and neo realist scholars recognize that other international actors do exist and can influence international affairs each theorical lens views the state as the primary mover of international politics. And both perspectives view the state as a rational utility maximizing and self-interested governing entity. 6)Both Neo-Liberal Institutionalism and neo realism differ, over whether the fear of relative gains is a primary inhibitor in international cooperation. For the Neo-Liberal Institutionalists the chief motive of the state to cooperate with each other is to have an upper edge in power or the absolute gains (or the totality of gains achieved by an actor regardless of the relative gains of the other) if their fears of being cheated by one another can be mitigated. The supporters of this approach argue that institutions mitigate the effects of anarchy, thereby making the realization of absolute gains, and hence the possibility of international cooperation, more likely. Institutions do so because they reflect mutually accepted rules and regulations that are created by the institutional actors themselves. 7)This Approach also stresses the importance of long-term gains. Neo-liberal institutionalists scholars note that institutions provide a forum for repeated and continuous interactions Self check exercise 2 Q 1) Neo Liberal Institutionalists scholars argue that institutions ____________ the effects of anarchy. Q 2) Both__________ and___________ institutional arrangements are the subjects of new liberal institutionalism. Q 3) Neo Liberal institutionalism also constitutes renewed ___________ with realism-hence its ___________status. 11.5    Factors Responsible for the Growth of Neoliberal Institutionalism 1)    The first was the development of complex interdependence. With the technological and industrial advances nation -states have become more entwined at almost every level and issue area. Thus multiple channels of communications have been created between state and non-state actors. 2)    Secondly with the United States playing the role of a hegemon after world war. Thus United States created and promoted a variety of multilateral institutions, thereby producing a period of hegemonic stability.David Mitrany (1966)) and (Ernst Haas (1968) were the earlier liberal institutionalists who believed that integration through international and regional institutions would help to solve common problems. Their work provided impetus for increased cooperation between the European states. The later liberal institutionalists such as Keohane and Nye emphasized the centrality of actors other than states and focussed on transnationalism and interdependence. The proponents of neo-liberal institutionalism like Axelrod, Keohane and Nye put forward their ideas in response to Kenneth Waltz theory of Neo-realism in his famous work Theory of International Politics(1979). Neo-liberal Institutionalists regards States as the most important actors in international system and the environment of international system is anarchic. But the neo-liberal institutionalists try to focus on the task of initiating and maintaining cooperation among states under conditions of anarchy. Self-check Exercise 3 Q 1) Why United States of America is regarded as a Hegemon? Q 2) Neo-Liberal Institutionalists regards international system as___________. 11.6    Summary: Thus for neoliberal institutionalists, institutions provide a framework of interaction and suggest that there will be future interaction on international issues such as security, environment, immigration and economics. Neo-liberal institutionalists view institutions as a mechanism for fostering cooperation among actors in the system, helping to mitigate the distrust between states and their mutual fears—issues traditionally linked to international anarchy. Over the years, the areas of cooperation for neo-liberal institutionalists have expanded beyond trade. There are number of issues at the global level that compel the states to come together and reach a consensus. Over the years, the areas of cooperation for Neo-liberal institutionalists have expanded beyond trade. There are number of issues at the global level that compels the states to come together and reach a consensus. 11.7    Glossary Formal institutions: include constitutions, contracts, and form of governments. Informal Institutions: socially shared rules, usually unwritten, that are created, communicated, and enforced outside the officially sanctioned channels. Trans-national: extending or operating across national boundaries. 11.8    Answers to self check Exercises :Excercise1 1)    Cooperative role of institutions. 2) environmental and economic issues 3)International Institutions, Regimes. Exercise 2 (1 ) Mitigate (2) Formal and informal, (3) confrontation, “Neo” Exercise 3 1)    See 11.5    2) Anarchic. 11.9    Suggested Readings Keohane, R., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Autonomy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984. Baldwin, D, A., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Baylis, J., ‘International and Global Security in the Post-Cold War era’. In: The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Elias, J., &, Such, P., International Relations: The Basics. London: Routledge, 2007. Jackson, R, H., &, Sorensen, G., 2007.Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Islam, A. K. (2009). CO-OPERATION UNDER ANARCHY NEO-LIBERAL INSTITUTIONAL EXPLANATIONS. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 70(3), 861– 872. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42742767 Grieco, J. M. (1988). Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3),    485–507. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706787 11.10    Terminal questions Q 1) What is meant by Neo liberal institutionalism? What are its basic assumptions? Q 2) Discuss neo liberal institutionalism as a means for international cooperation. UNIT 12THE ENGLISH SCHOOL Structure 12.1    Introduction 12.2    Learning Objectives 12.3    Meaning of the English School and its various postulates. Self-check Exercise 1 12.4    International Society according to Pluralist and Solidarist Account Self-check Exercise 2 12.5    Summary 12.6    Glossary 12.7    Answers to self-check exercise 12.8    suggested Readings 12.9    Terminal Questions 12.1    Introduction The term "English school" refers to a school of international relations (IR) that was distinct in two main aspects and operated in the United Kingdom during the Cold War. It emphasized the conventional method based on human understanding, judgment, conventions, and history while rejecting the behaviouralist challenge. Additionally, it disapproved of any clear differentiation between a rigorous liberal and a strict realist perspective on foreign affairs. The argument between neo-liberalism and neo-realism dominated the 1970s and 1980s. However, there was a shift in the perception of IR with the conclusion of the Cold War in the 1990s. The preponderance of the American scholars lessened, and this made way for assertion by IR scholars. It is a misnomer to assume that only people belonging to the United Kingdom were members of this school. Scholars belonging to the states of Australia, Canada, and south Africa also were members of this school. It is also known by the name of “International society.” is also used for the English school. Two leading international s Martin wright and Hedley Bull were the leading proponents of this school of thought. English School's perspective on international relations is based on the maxim that both Realist and liberal aspects coexist in international society. There are states and individuals; there is war and collaboration. It is impossible to reduce these disparate components to a single generalisation that focuses solely on power. 12.2    Learning Objectives: After reading the unit the students will be able to answer the following •     Meaning of English school or the International Society approach. •      Different Postulates of the International Society or the English School in IR. 12.3    Meaning of English School and its various postulates: •    The English School of International Relations is the oldest and, arguably, the most important alternative to the American mainstream International theories. It aims to provide a perspective on international relations that integrates theory and history, morality and power, as well as agency and structure.The English School profess to offer an account of international relations that combines theory and history, morality and power, agency and structure. This school of thought in International relations stands for the simultaneous presence in international society of both liberal and the realist elements. There is considerable degree of order and some degree of justice, in global politics sustained by its formal structure as an anarchical society of sovereign states governed by international law and other mechanisms and communicating among themselves through the institution of diplomacy. The “English School” of     International Relations offers a comprehensive perspective on the study of international and world history. It diverges from theories that focus on specific aspects of International Relations, aiming instead to view the world as a whole. This approach introduces three crucial concepts: international system, international society, and world society. By doing so, it bridges the gap between the opposing theories of Realist and the Liberal Theories.The logic of the English School holds that international politics involves three different domains, all of which function concurrently. They are the International system, International society, and World Society. Barry Buzan explains domain as follows: •    Realism in International system places the framework and course of international anarchy at the core of the theory of international relations, while Hobbes and Machiavelli's International System is about power politics between states. This viewpoint is well-developed and well-understood as it is generally comparable to  mainstream  realism  and structural  realism. Rationalism places the establishment and upkeep of common standards, regulations, and institutions at the core of international relations theory. •    Grotius's concept of international society focuses on the institutionalization of nations' shared interests and identities. Although this stance is more profound and has constitutive rather than just instrumental consequences, it shares some similarities with regime theory. •    World Society (Kant) views individuals, non-state organizations, and eventually the entire world's population as the focus of global societal identities and arrangements, while Revolutionism places transcendence of the state system at the center of IR theory. International society has been the primary focus of English School thought, and the concept is fairly well developed and clear. Universalist cosmopolitanism is the main focus of revolutionism. Though, as Waever points out, it is now typically understood to signify liberalism, it might also refer to communism. While there are some similarities between this perspective and transnationalism, normative political theory provides a far stronger basic relationship. Among the English School notions, it is the least developed and has not yet been expressed in a clear and organized manner. The English School mixes the idea of a human element arising from the home realm with realist postulates, such as the importance of states engaging in anarchic systems at the forefront. "International relations cannot be understood simply in terms of anarchy or a Hobbesian state of war," according to Kai Alderson and Andrew Hurrell. Since international society is the most significant component of the English School, it functions by drawing on the impact of both global society (revolutionism) and the international system (realism). Self -check Exercise 1 Q 1) There are__________ ways to explain how the world works using the English School, sometimes known as the society of states approach. Q 2) The 1970s and 1980s were thoroughly preoccupied with the__________ and________ debate 12.4    International Society according to Pluralist and Solidarist account Two separate factions within the English School itself have somewhat different interpretations of the norms and objectives of global society. The pluralist approach, which emphasizes a more Hobbesian or realist interpretation of the discipline, is the first and follows a more conventional definition of IR. According to Hidemi Suganami and Andrew Linklater, pluralists emphasize states' behavior under anarchy while also acknowledging that states collaboration despite the existence of self-interest. Although violence is limited by the pluralist framework, it is not prohibited and cannot completely be removed by the use of force. In addition to being a tool to a realist foreign policy, war is an essential means for defending against violent attacks on global civilization and threats to the balance of power. Minimalist regulations, the defense of national sovereignty, and the pursuit of international order are the cornerstones of the pluralist conception of international society. Such a close relationship to realist theory is what keeps the pluralist conception of the English School within a traditional IR framework. It is believed that the constraints placed on international society by the system of states and the condition of anarchy are the most significant factors in explaining and understanding the conduct of a pluralist society of states. The solidarist account is the name given to the second interpretation of international society. Many IR theories may be included into solidarityist views of international society, which are understood in different ways. The link between international society and world society, or third level, is usually the focus of solidarityists. Since the main focus of solidarism was on how the person inside the state influenced the behavior of the society of states, it was primarily centered on Kantian or liberal understandings of IR in its early articulations. This made it possible for concepts like peace, individual security, and human rights to seep into the normative underpinnings of the global community. Critical theorists that wish to preserve the state in their theory while finding a means to incorporate important, worldwide, or human problems have also used and interpreted the solidarist account of international society across time and since the conclusion of the Cold War. The emphasis on people, conventions, values, and even discourse has given liberal and critical IR projects a platform to employ the English School as a means of understanding and explaining the world from a viewpoint that deviates from realism without discounting the importance or necessity of the state in international affairs. The English School has undoubtedly gained prominence following the end of the Cold War, and Buzan and other well-known academics who use the international society approach have referred to the post-1990s era in English School thought as the School's "reorganization." The variety of theoretical affiliations and geographic locations of people who identify as members of the School, as well as the abundance of work completed under the Society of States banner throughout the past 20 years, are among the most intriguing aspects of the School. On one level, a middle-approach like the English School does include the realist parts of IR with a focus on the state, which is a big benefit. However, on a deeper level, the English School theory's global society component enables a diverse range of theorists to talk about different important aspects and how they affect state society. Critical thinkers who choose to use the English School approach are compelled to base their work on an understanding of the state or global society, regardless of whether these theories are emancipation theory, globalization theory, neo- or postcolonial theory, or even postmodern thinking. A crucial aspect of modern international relations is ensuring that any new attempts to study the global arena can preserve traditional components. Self -check Exercise 2 Q 1 )What do you understand by English School in International relations ? Q 2 ) Why English school is also known as International Society? Q 3) What is pluralist views regarding the notions of International Society? 12.5    Summary Thus by examining the interplay between three fundamental components— international system, international society, and global society—the English School adopts a very wide and diverse approach to world politics. One may argue that the English School embodies a deep and comprehensive comprehension of contemporary global       politics. The international system component is concerned with the power dynamics that arise from nations' regular contacts with one another; sharing laws or norms is not necessary for the system to be developed. On the other hand, international society consists of both a system of states that interact and the institutionalization of common laws and standards for state behaviour. The idea of a global civilization is     much more expansive. While governments provide the basis of the concept of an international society, the worldsociety component emphasizes individuals and non-state organizations as the primary players and looks beyond the state system. Thus it can be stated that the ‘English School’ tradition of IR is thus an approach to world politics that emphasises on international history, ideas, structures, institutions, and values. The basic assumptions and claims are the values such as independence, security, order and justice . world politics is not merely an international system but an ‘anarchical society’ with distinctive rules, norms, and institutions that states people are involved within their conduct of foreign policy. 12.6    Answers to self check exercisesExercise 1: 1)    Three 2) Neo-liberalism,Nneo-Realism debate Exercise 2 1)    see 9.0 2) see 9.1    3) see 9.4 12.7    Glossary International society: International is a society of states in which a number of states, mindful of certain shared interests and values, come together to establish a society for the purpose of sharing the operation of common institutions and being bound by a common set of norms in their interactions with one another. International system: It is a system of states in which two or more states interact with one another and influence each other's choices enough that each state's actions are taken into account when calculating the other. Anarchial Society: The term "anarchical society" blends idealism's focus on the shared interests, values, norms, institutions, and organizations of the international system with realism's assertion that no global government has authority over sovereign nations. 12.8    Suggested Readings Roberson, B.A., ‘‘Probing the Idea and Prospects for International Society’, International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory, London: Continuum, 2002 Buzan, Barry, ‘‘The English School: an underexploited resource in IR’, Review of International Studies 27:3, 2001. Alderson, Kai and Hurrell, Andrew, “Bull’s Conception of International Society’, Hedley Bull on International Society, Houndmills: Macmillan, 2000 Linklater, Andrew and Suganami, Hidemi, The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Wæver, Ole, ‘‘International Society: Theoretical Promises Unfulfilled?’’, Cooperation and Conflict 27:1, 1992 Copeland, D. C. (2003). A Realist Critique of the English School. Review of International Studies, 29(3), 427–441. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097864 12.9 Terminal questions Q 1) Discuss the genesis of the English School in International Relations. Q 2) What are the core elements of International Society approach? ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS UNIT 13 CRITICAL THEORY Structure 13.1    Introduction 13.2    Learning Objectives 13.3    Meaning of Critical theory in International Relations Self-Check Exercise 1 13.4    Various tenets of Critical Theory Self-Check Exercise 2 13.5    Contribution of Critical Theory Self-Check Exercise 3 13.6    Summary 13.7    Glossary 13.8    Answers to self check Exercises 13.9    Terminal Questions 13.1    Introduction A post-positivist perspective in International Relations (IR), influenced by Marxist ideas from the Frankfurt School, challenges three core assumptions of positivism: the existence of an objective external reality, the distinction between subject and object, and the notion of value-free social science. Critical theory emphasizes that knowledge is inherently political and aims to free humanity from the conservative forces and 'oppressive' structures within the dominant (US-led) global political and economic systems. Critical theorists share a similarity with idealists in their advocacy for progressive change and their use of theory to facilitate that transformation. Critical International Theory is grounded in an emancipatory politics spanning from Karl Marx to Jurgen Habermas, focusing on exploring ways to reshape international relations in order to remove unnecessary barriers to achieving universal freedom and equality. In essence, Critical International Relations theory operates under the belief that the era of globalization introduces new challenges for both thought and action, necessitating the development of a global perspective that incorporates a deep connection between knowledge and values. Critical theory stand for the creation /formation of a more enduring and a just world. This approach is of a post-positivist variety whose advocates like Robert Cox and Andrew Linklater who strongly believe that the objective of international relations should be oriented towards emancipatory politics having its manifestation in quest for global freedom, equality and justice. Extending from Kant and Hegel via Marx and Gramsci to Horksheishmer and Habermas, it explores to enquire into the possibilities of transforming international relations in order to remove undue constraints on achieving universal freedom, equality and justice.     The term critical theory was given by Max Horksheishmer in 1937 founder of the Frankfurt school. Critical theory is in the tradition of Marxist thought associated with the institute of social research established in Frankfurt in 1923. This school aims to question theoretically the ‘”intellectual, social, cultural, political, economic and technological trends in modern societies”. Leading leaders of the Critical tradition included Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse and Walter Benjamin. Scholars such as Richard Ashley, Robert W. Cox, Andrew, John Maclean and Mark Hoffman were associated with this theory. 13.2    Learning Objectives: After reading the unit the students will be able to: •      Understand the basic arguments of the critical theorists •     To make an attempt to understand how the understanding of critical theory influences international relations 13.3    Meaning of “Critical Theory in International Relations” Critical international relations theory is a significant advancement within the Marxist tradition, offering a critique of the dominance of the realist school. Its primary distinction from earlier Marxist approaches lies in its focus on philosophical issues, such as epistemology, ontology, and normativity, within the context of international relations. Critical theory established its position in the 1980s, with Cox, influenced by Habermas, criticizing conventional theories of international relations and politics as "problem-solving theories." He argued that these theories, due to their reliance on positivist methods, often serve to justify and maintain existing unjust social and political systems. Critical theory revolves around understanding contemporary international society, identifying contradictions within it, and analyzing programs and policies aimed at addressing those contradictions. It operates on the assumption that international political processes are shaped by political interests that require critical examination. Additionally, it acknowledges that different theories of international relations are influenced by social, cultural, and ideological factors. The primary goal of critical international theory is to uncover the impact of these influences.. The Critical theory is characterized by two features: positivist methodology and a tendency to legitimize prevailing social and political structures which are largely unjust. Positivism assumes that values and facts can be separated and, that subject and object can also be separated. Critical theory examines relations between and across national societies and reflect on the possibilities of extending the rational, just and democratic organizations of politics across the globe. Robert Cox draws a distinction between positivist or ‘problem-solving’ knowledge and critical or ‘emancipatory’ knowledge. Problem-solving knowledge, such as for example neorealist theory, is conservative in that it seeks to know that which exists at present: it takes the international system of sovereign states for granted. It is therefore biased towards an international status quo which is based on inequality of power and excludes many people. It cannot lead to knowledge of human progress and emancipation. The critical theory advocated by Cox is not confined to an examination of states and the state system but focuses more widely on power and domination in the world generally. Critical theorists seek knowledge for a larger purpose: to liberate humanity from the oppressive structures of world politics and world economics which are controlled by hegemonic powers, particularly the capitalist United States. They seek to unmask the global domination of the rich North over the poor south. Self-check Exercise 1 Q 1) Critical theory petains the tradition of __________thought. Q 2 Critical international theory rests on _____________politics of various hues in order to transform International relations. Q 3) Discuss the two main features of Critical Theory? 13.4    Various tenets of Critical Theory •      Firstly it involves bringing out to the fore latent interests, commitments, and in essentials the values that go into the working of a theory. Thus it is essentially normative in nature. •     Secondly the Critical theory brings forth the understanding of the contemporary international society, and an analysis of programs and policies promising the removal of those contradictions ensuring global peace and justice. Critical theory has not directly addressed international issues. The central focus of this theory has been on the individual and society, rather than on the relationships between or across different societies. The basic ground which differentiate critical international theorists similar to Marxists and dissimilar to realists is their involvement in emancipatory politics. •    Thirdly, the goal of critical international theory is to promote the reorganization of political communities, not only by expanding them beyond the boundaries of the sovereign state but also by deepening them. Critical international theory examines the global structure of power relations, questioning how this configuration was established, the costs it imposes, and what potential for improvement might be inherent in history. •    Fourthly, critical international theory seeks to explain how both individual actors and social structures emerge and are shaped by history. This involves analyzing how states formulate their moral and legal responsibilities and how these duties reflect specific assumptions about the structure and logic of international relations. The central aim of this approach is to advocate for the reconfiguration of political communities, extending beyond the boundaries of sovereign states by deepening them and proposing a more complex, multi-layered system of governance. •    Critical theorists argue that theory must be self-reflective, incorporating an understanding of its own origins and its relevance to society. They emphasize the inseparable connection between knowledge and society, a connection often overlooked in traditional theories. The role of theory, according to them, is not only to explain or analyse social reality but also to inspire change in order to eradicate all forms of injustice and domination. •    Critical international theory focuses on the interaction between social forces, the state, and global order. The state acts as a mediator between social forces and the broader world order. Self-check Exercise 2 Q 1) What is the main stress of Critical Theory in IR? Q 2) The critical international theorists are similar to Marxists and dissimilar to realists due to their involvement in___________. 13.5    Contribution of Critical Theory: Critical international theory has made a significant contribution to the broader field of international politics theory. It challenges the notion that theorists should remain objective bystanders. Moreover, critical international theory forces us to reassess the legacy of the modern state and political communities. While traditional theories often take the state for granted, critical international theory focuses on analyzing how the boundaries of communities are created, maintained, and transformed. Most crucially, this theory seeks to offer an alternative approach to both the theory and practice of international relations, one that moves beyond the limited dynamics of the state system. It envisions the creation of a network of cosmopolitan arrangements that can more effectively promote freedom, justice, and equality worldwide. By questioning the dominant views on the nature of the state and its central role, critical international theory opens up possibilities for reimagining international politics in a more progressive, cosmopolitan manner. This approach offers a way out of the deadlock created by contemporary realist theory. Ultimately, the primary goal of critical international theory is to advance the reconfiguration of political communities, not only by extending them beyond the boundaries of sovereign states but also by deepening them. Self-Check Exercise 3 Q 1) Critical IR theory deals with the ways in which the ________ of communities are____,__________ and__________ formed, sustained and transformed. Q 2) Comment on Cosmopolitanism in IR? 13.6    Summary: Critical Theory seeks to critically examine the intellectual, social, cultural, political, economic, and technological trends in modern societies. It operates on the assumption that international political processes are influenced by political interests that require careful evaluation. Theories of international relations are inevitably shaped by social, cultural, and ideological factors, and the primary task of critical international theory is to uncover the impact of these influences. This theory is not solely focused on the state; it also considers other factors that influence international relations. Critical theory begins with the understanding that theory is rooted in a specific time and place, and is influenced by ideological, cultural, and sociological forces. 13.7    Glossary Multitiered : having several levels or layers Positivism: Positivism is a fundamentally scientific approach which believes that there can be objective understanding the social and political aspects of the, and that this knowledge is obtainable through the careful development and testing of empirical propositions. Post-positivism: A methodology developed largely in reaction to positivist claims. Post-positivist methodology is based on the idea that individuals shape, create, and define the worlds they inhabit. 13. .8 Answers to self check ExercisesExercise 1 1)    Marxist 2) emancipatory Q 3) see 13.4 Exercise 2 1)    See 13.4   2) emancipatory politics. Exercise 3 1)    boundaries , formed, sustained and transformed. 2)    See 13.5 13.9    Terminal Questions Q 1) Highlight the various tenets of Critical Theory ? Q 2) Define briefly the meaning and relevance of Critical Theory(CR) in International Relations? UNIT 14CONSTRUCTIVISM Structure 14.1    Introduction 14.2    Learning Objectives 14.3    Meaning of Constructivism 14.3.1    Constructivism as a Challenge to Realism. 14.3.2    Constructivism as a space for Identities and Interests Self-Check Exercise 1 14.4    Core themes of Constructivism in International Relations Self-Check Exercise 2 14.5    Focus of Constructivism in “International Relations”. Self-Check Exercise 3 14.6    Summary 14.7    Glossary 14.8    Answers to self-check Exercises 14.9    Suggested Readings 14.10    Terminal Questions 14.1    INTRODUCTION Constructivism places a strong emphasis on human awareness or consciousness and its role in global affairs. It considers both the normative and material structures of international relations and examines how identity influences political action. Constructivism emerged as a response to the ‘third debate’ in International Relations (IR). This debate, which took place between Neorealism and Neoliberalism, aimed to make IR more scientific through a synthesis movement. It succeeded in establishing a shared ontological and epistemological stance between Neorealism and Neoliberalism. Both theories assert that "material resources" are key drivers of development in international relations, that the structure of the international system influences the behavior of nation-states, and that nation-states base their decisions on the logic of consequences. Epistemologically, both theories adopted positivism in their efforts to make IR more scientific. Positivism holds that both the natural and social worlds operate according to universal laws, with regularities governing their functioning. As a result, similar methods can be applied in studying both the natural and social worlds. Thus, research in social sciences should also be grounded in objectivity and value neutrality, and on the empirical verification and refutation of facts.Constructivism occupies a ‘middle ground’ between rationalism comprising the traditional theories of IR and relativism consisting of Post-structuralist approaches to IR. The timing of the rise of constructivism is quite striking. The abrupt conclusion of the Cold War, the collapse of the USSR, and the sweeping changes across Europe that followed highlighted the need for a new theoretical approach to understanding international eventsThe factors that stimulated the constructivist critique is that the predominant theories in IR failed to predict, and even recognize the possibility that such a dramatic change would happen in international politics. The other thing which became clear is that international relations is not static or fixed, and exists independently of human action and knowledge. Heavily influenced by sociological ideas, constructivism does not serve as a substantive theory of international politics in the same manner as neorealism does. In the IR discipline, constructivists generally seek to redress the lack of attention given to social factors in political life, which characterizes rationalist utilitarian models. Starting from the premise that world politics basically consist of social relations, constructivist scholars believe that international politics are not fundamentally different from other spheres of human activity, where practices are produced, reproduced, and changed. Thus international relations is a consequence of social construction. A constructivists analysis opens a space for greater reflexivity in the analysis of any situation or event in international relations where the actors can for a moment think how their own actions may contribute to the very problems they seek to address. 14.2    Learning objectives: After reading the unit the students will be able to •     To clarify the meaning of constructivism and why it is an important approach in international relations •     To emphasize the basic themes of constructivism •      To critically evaluate the impact of constructivism in international relations and reflections on the strength and weaknesses of the approach 14.3    Meaning of Constructivism: Constructivism is a theory in International Relations that posits many key concepts in the field are socially constructed. This implies that these concepts arise through social interactions and the meanings assigned to them in society, rather than possessing inherent or natural value. In the realm of International Relations, constructivism asserts that international relations themselves are socially constructed. States, alliances, and international institutions emerge from human interactions shaped by social values, identities, assumptions, rules, language, and more. Constructivism is a multi-layered approach to understanding international relations, encompassing metaphysics, social theory, and IR theory. Firstly, Constructivism serves as a metaphysical perspective. Metaphysics, a branch of philosophy, explores and interprets the nature of reality. Scholars who view Constructivism through this lens aim to examine and interpret the true nature of international relations. Secondly, as a social theory, Constructivism emphasizes the role of knowledge and knowledgeable agents in shaping social reality. In other words, Constructivists focus on how shared understandings and discourses contribute to the construction of international relations. Shared understanding refers to the perceptions of individuals or nation-states about each other and the broader social world. These perceptions are formed through interactions and views about others (whether individuals or nation-states), and these interactions help construct social reality. Therefore, our knowledge of social reality is built through our perceptions and interactions. Lastly, Constructivism as an International Relations theory aims to conduct research based on solid social ontological and epistemological principles. In other words, IR Constructivism asserts that international relations are socially constructed, and therefore, its study requires specific methodologies. Constructivism broadened the scope of International Relations by integrating ideational elements such as identity, norms, and rules. For example, IR Constructivism explores how identities and norms shape national interests and contribute to the social construction of both territorial and non-territorial transnational regions. The term ‘Constructivism’ in International Relations was introduced by Nicholas Greenwood Onuf in his 1989 book World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Since,1990 constructivism has emerged as a prominent theories in the domain of IR. Constructivism became popular with scholars like Alexander Wendt, Peter Katzenstein and Friedrich Kratochwil giving their valuable insights while contending neo-realists debates propounded by “Kenneth Waltz” in his famous work “Theory of International Politics”(1979. The centralist concept of ‘power politics’ has been shown as a product of social interaction by scholars such as Martha Fennimore, Kathryn Sikkink and Alexander Wendt. Their arguments have been uncritically accepted by the mainstream IR community. It states that power politics is not natural and, hence it is possible to transform human actions. Wendt formulated these ideas in his central work, Social Theory of International Politics. Constructivism mainly attempts to show that many central aspects of international relations are contrary to the foundational beliefs of neorealism and neoliberalism. These aspects are socially constructed. The glaring example in the recent international politics is the US war on terror. What started as a largely militarised response to the 9/11attack in the US, but later has assumed politicization of the US actions, and later the mission of remaking countries of Middle-east into liberal democracies involving human rights violations, disregard of international law and thus war on terror becoming a war of infinite duration. A constructivist perspective on the war on terror would focus more on how identities and human suffering are shaped through interactions, shifting away from a primary focus on states. Alexander Wendt highlights the core principles of constructivism, stating that "the structures of human association are shaped mainly by shared ideas, not material forces, and that the identities and interests of purposeful actors are formed by these shared ideas, rather than being inherent by nature." Martha Fennimore points out that the identities and interests are defined by international forces, that is by the norms of behaviour embedded in international society. 14.3.1    Constructivism as a Challenge to Realism. In constructivism’s formative period, neorealism-the dominant school of thought in IR and much of constructivism’s initial theoretical work- challenged certain basic neorealist assumptions. Neorealists are basically ‘casual structuralists’. For them , international politics can be understood by the ‘structure’ of the international system, an argument first put forth by Kenneth Waltz in his works, Man, the State and War and Theory of International politics(1979). International politics for neorealists, unlike constructivists and postmodernists, is chiefly determined by the fact that the international system is anarchic. Such anarchy, they reason, pushes states to behave in a manner which is based on complete self-reliance for security with deep distrust towards others. Constructivism challenges this assumption by showing that the constitutive powers ascribed to ‘structure’ by neorealists are in fact not natural or a ‘given’, but depends on the way in which it is constructed by social practices. Neorealism without the knowledge of the nature of identies and concerns of the actors in the system, and the meaning that social institutions have for such actors, reveals very little. Alexander Wendt writes, “ it does not predict whether two states will be friends or foes, will recognize each other’s sovereignty, will have dynastic ties, will be revisionist or status quo powers, and so on” . Since behaviour of actors cannot be explained by the structure of anarchy , and require instead the incorporation of evidence about the interests and identies held by key actors, neorealism’s obsession on the material structure of the system ( anarchy) is misleading. Wendt, on the other hand, argues that the way anarchy limits states is influenced by how states perceive anarchy, as well as how they define their identities and interests.The system of anarchy cannot be interpreted even as ‘self-help’ set-up. It only impels states to self-help if they conform to neorealist premises regarding how states view security as a competitive as well as a relative concept, wherein the benefit of security for one state implies the exit of security for a different state. In such a scenario where states hold alternative conceptions of security, such as a cooperative set-up, states can maximise their security without negatively affecting the security of another state. Neorealist conclusions depend entirely on uncritical assumptions about the way in which the meaning of social institutions are constructed by actors. 14.3.2    Constructivism as a space for Identities and Interests As constructivists disapprove neorealism’s conclusions a about the determining effect of anarchy on the behaviour of international actors and move away from neorealism’s underlying materialism, they create the required space for the self-concept and objectives of international actors to take a main place in theorizing IR. As actors are not purely controlled by the demands of a self-help system, their identities and interests become critical in analysing how they behave. Similar to the nature of the international system, constructivists argue that identities and interests are not grounded in objective material forces, but rather shaped by ideas and the social processes that construct those ideas. Martha Finnemore(1996) has examined the way in which international organizations are necessitated in these processes of the social construction of actor’s perceptions of their interests. She attempts to ‘develop a systemic approach to understanding state interests and state behaviour by investigating an international structure, not of power, but of meaning and social value’. ‘Interests’ she explains, ‘are not just “ out there” waiting to be discovered; they are retraced through social interaction’. Therein she provides three case studies of such construction- the creation of science bureaucracies in states owing to the influence of UNESCO, The role of Red Cross in the Geneva conventions and the World Bank’s influence of attitudes towards poverty. Studies of such processes are examples of the constructivist attitude towards state interests and identities. These identities and interests play a crucial role in shaping state behavior, making the study of their nature and formation essential to constructivist approaches in understanding the international system. There is no denying the fact that in spite of the refocus onto identities and interests-properties of states- constructivists are not necessarily wedded to focusing their analysis at the unit level of international politics, the state. Constructivists like Finnemore and Wendt emphasize that although ideas and processes help explain the social construction of identities and interests, these very ideas and processes also create a structure that influences international actors. Their central divergence from neorealists is to see this international structure as being primarily related to ideas rather than being material in nature. Self-check Exercise 1 Q 1) Constructivism is a___________ understanding of international relations involving ___________,_________and ______. Q 2) Constructivism takes into account the importance of both ________ and ___________ structures of international relations. Q 3) Constructivism was introduced to IR by ________. 14.4    The core themes of constructivism can be explained as under: 1.     International relations stands for social construction. Social phenomenon such as state or alliances or international institutions or any other phenomenon may build on the basic material of human nature, but they take specific historical, cultural and political forms that the outcomes of human interaction in a social world. 2 .There is a societal aspect of international relations. There is an importance of norms, rules and languages in this context apart from exclusive emphasis of realist theory on material interest and power. 3 .Interactions among actors bring historically, culturally and politically distinct ‘realities’ into being. This is because actors are not totally free to choose their circumstances and process of interactions make possible for them to determine their choices. 4 . International relations are shaped by social constructs rather than existing independently of human beings and action 5 .The idea of social construction suggests difference across context rather than a single objective reality. In place of regularities for the purpose of generalizations and theory construction constructivists have sought to explain or understood ‘change’ at international level. Self-check Exercise 2 Q 1) The idea of social construction suggests ___________context not a single ______reality. 14.5    Focus of Constructivism in “International Relations”. Constructivism in international relations (IR) encompasses a range of theoretical approaches that focus on three key analytical elements when examining world politics: intersubjectivity, the mutual shaping of agents and structures, and double hermeneutics (the process of interpreting interpretations). Intersubjectivity Intersubjectivity refers to the idea that meanings exist independently of any single perspective. Intuitively, ideas are often seen as belonging to individuals and residing in their minds. From this perspective, several scholars of international relations have highlighted the importance of perceptions in shaping global politics.But constructivism stresses a different (though related) kind of meaning- not subjective but intersubjective. Contrary to ideas held by individuals (e.g., a cognitive bias), intersubjective meanings define reality as something independent of our violation. IR constructivists have focused attention on a wide variety of social facts and some new creations in international politics. International threats, for instance, are not selfevident physical facts but socially constructed realities. Similarly norms, identities, institutions, rules, cultures, practices, languages, ideologies, and narratives are all forms of intersubjective meanings that shape world politics and guide action. States’ notional identities constitute foreign policies; international cultures of anarchy drive interstate relations; world structures of rules and norms determine appropriate behavior on the international stage. The Reciprocal shaping of Structure and Agency The reciprocal shaping of structure and agency refers to the dynamic processes through which actors and contexts coevolve and codetermine one another. Inspired by Anthony Gidden’s structuration theory and Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of practice, the notion stresses that the social world comprises neither freestanding individuals nor free floating structures. Instead, structures are made possible by agent’s practices, which are themselves constituted by their context. According to Wendt the idea can be simplified with two “truisms” about social life. Firstly human beings and their organizations are purposeful actors whose actions help reproduce or transform the society in which they live; and secondly society is made up of social relationships which structures the interactions between these purposeful actors. Taken together these truisms suggest that human agents and social structures are, in one way or another, theoretically interdependent or mutually implicating entities. In other words, structures out of agents practices and vice versa; neither is reducible to the other. To grasp the mutual constitution of structures and agents changes for the study of world politics, it is convenient to compare constructivism with rationalist frameworks in IR. The Double Hermeneutics Double hermeneutics refers to a methodology centered on the interpretation of interpretations. It is central to the constructivist approach in IR because world politics presents itself as a reality that is already interpreted by its actors Since human beings are meaning makers, their interpretations are the primary object of study for constructivists. Because of interpretation, scholars cannot understand their task as simply improving the match between the world and the knowledge about it (i.e., the correspondence theory of truth). As Patrick Jackson has observed, taking the double hermeneutics seriously entails that validity does not simply stem from matching the world with words because words partake in constituting the world. After all, most of the time, it is language that makes intersubjectivity possible by “detaching” the meaning from immediate expressions of subjectivity and representing them as “facts” external to agents. If discourse is constitutive of reality, then the social- scientific discourse, with its interpretation from afar of lay interpretations, also bears tremendous normative consequences. This is perhaps why the majority of IR constructivists exhibit a strong disposition toward reflexivity, trying to make strange what seems obvious, problematize the taken-for-granted, and denaturalize alleged universal truths. In this view, the task of IR scholars is not to define which international threats are “really real” and which ones are not, for instance; instead, they should document the political technologies that make certain threats look “really real” to various publics and should analyze the consequences that comes to affect the political systems. Self Check Exercise 3 Q1) Briefly mention the notion of Constructivism? Q 2) Highlight the three focal points in appraising world politics according to constructivists? Q 3) What is the impact of social factors on International Relations? 14.6    Summary The emergence of Constructivism in International Relations is often linked to the conclusion of the Cold War, a pivotal event that traditional theories like realism and liberalism struggled to explain. This inadequacy can be attributed to some of their fundamental assumptions, such as the view that states are rational, self-interested actors focused on power politics. In contrast, Constructivism offers a different perspective on International Relations, arguing that global developments are shaped through social processes influenced by ideational factors like identity, norms, values, and behavior. Thus, Constructivism represents a broad range of theories, distinguished by their shared focus on three key concepts in analyzing world politics: intersubjectivity, the mutual constitution of agents and structures, and double hermeneutics. In historiographical terms, constructivism has attained a degree of disciplinary legitimacy in IR by going through three stages of development: (1) an epistemological moment, which remains largely inconclusive to this day; (2) an ontological moment, which has been successfully incorporated by large sections of the discipline; and (3) a methodological moment, which is currently underway. One generation later, the “constructivist turn” has now been taken in IR, and while the approach remains far from dominant in the discipline, it cannot be relegated to the margins anymore. Constructivism is frequently viewed as an alternative to the two leading theories of IR, realism and liberalism, but is not inevitably inconsistent with either. 14.7    Glossary Hermeneutics:  it refers to the theory and practice of interpretation, where interpretation involves an understanding that can be studied. Constructivism:  In International Relations constructivism is a social theory that asserts that significant aspects of international relations are shaped by ideational factors, not simply material factors. Ideational view: In the ideational view held by social constructivists, ideas always matter. The material world is indeterminate; it needs to be interpreted. Without ideas there can be no context of meaning. Ideas define the meaning of material power. 14.8    Answers to self-check ExercisesExercise 1 1)    three-layered, metaphysics, social theory, and IR theory. 2)normative, material 3)    Nicholas Onuf. Exercise 2 1)    difference, objective Exercise 3 1)See 11.0 2)See 11.2.2       3) See 11.2.1 14.9    Suggested Readings Fierke, K.M(,2013). Constructivism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Third Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barnett, Michael (2011). ʻSocial Constructivismʼ, in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Fifth Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wendt, Alexander(1999 ) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge. Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood(1989).World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations: Columbia: University Of South Carolina Press. Jackson, Robert and George, Sorensen(1999) Introduction to International Relations-Theories and Approaches, Oxford University Press, London. 14.10    Terminal Questions. Q 1) What is meant by Constructivism. Examine the emphasis of constructivism in International Relations. Q 2) Analyze Constructivism as an approach to the study of International Relations? UNIT 15POST-MODERNISM Structure 15.1    Introduction 15.2    Learning Objectives 15.3    Meaning of Post-Modernism 15.3.1    Post-Modernism in International Relations Self-check Exercise 1 15.4    Post-Modernism and its features Self-check Exercise 2 15.5    Summary 15.6    Glossary 15.7    Answers to Self-Check Exercises 15.8    Suggested Reading 15.10    Terminal Questions 15.1    INTRODUCTION Postmodernism can be defined as de-construction and post- structuralism. The term ‘post-modernism’ connotes various things in various contexts. It refers to a wide and rather heterogeneous variety of phenomenon. Postmodernism is a historical term composed of two parts: "Post" and "Modern." The Latin word "Post" means "after," while "Modernism" refers to the modern era, signifying something current or up-to-date. As a result, postmodernism is a concept applied across various disciplines, including arts, music, architecture, film, literature, science, technology, and international relations. It emerged as both a continuation of and a response to modernity, which struggled to achieve a complete and objective understanding of world events. Postmodernism challenges and questions traditional ideas, often rejecting their legitimacy. In international relations, postmodernism marks a significant departure from modernist thinking. It introduces a more intricate and nuanced interpretation of global affairs, shaped by contemporary philosophical perspectives. This shift is characterized by a move away from rigid, objective interpretations toward an understanding of reality as relative and context-dependent. Postmodernism, therefore, arises as a reaction to the limitations of modernity, particularly its failure to provide a fully objective analysis of world events. Postmodernism is a historical concept derived from two parts: "Post," a Latin term meaning "after," and "Modernism," which refers to the modern or current period. As a term, postmodernism is applied across various fields such as arts, music, architecture, film, literature, science, technology, and international relations. Emerging as both a continuation of and response to modernity, postmodernism critiques modernity’s inability to fully comprehend world events through an objective lens. It challenges and questions traditional beliefs and established norms. In the context of international relations, postmodernism represents a significant shift from modernist thinking, introducing a more intricate and nuanced understanding of global issues shaped by interpretative approaches and informed by postmodern philosophical ideas. This shift highlights the limitations of modernity in interpreting world events solely through objective reality, advocating instead for perspectives grounded in the complexities and subjective conditions of human experiences. Post-modernism is regarded as one of the most influential but also the most controversial theoretical developments in the analysis and and an overview of international relations. 15.2    Learning Objectives: After going through the unit students will be able to : •     Understand the meaning and basic arguments of Post-Modernism •     To comprehend the contribution postmodernists in the realm of politics in general and international relations in particular. 15.3    Meaning of Post-Modernism The term 'post-modernism' denotes an approach that challenges the modernist claim that certain fundamental truths exist about human beings and their actions. Any perspective that disputes this notion is considered post-modernist. The body of literature on post-modernism is extensive, diverse, and complex, encompassing a wide range of themes such as philosophy, literature, economics, sociology, cultural studies, psychology, and anthropology. It is presented through various styles and viewpoints, reflecting the broad and multifaceted nature of post-modernist thought. In the context of international relations, postmodernism challenges the conventional view that global politics revolves solely around states, sovereignty, and violence. Prominent postmodernist thinkers include Foucault, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Guattari. Postmodernists reject the notion of universally accepted truths, remaining critical of any claim that asserts absolute validity. This theory remains one of the most contentious within the humanities and social sciences, often facing accusations of promoting moral and political irresponsibility. Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, some commentators even attributed blame to postmodernism, arguing that its perceived moral ambiguity or alleged sympathy toward terrorism was harmful during a period that demanded moral clarity. While such accusations were largely unfounded, they underscored a core postmodernist belief—that knowledge is deeply intertwined with politics and power. Furthermore, as James Der Derian (2002: 15) provocatively observed, despite the stark differences between then-U.S. President George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden, both figures shared a firm belief in the unquestionable righteousness of their moral and epistemological views. It is precisely this unwavering certainty that postmodernism challenges. However, it is important to note that considerable debate persists regarding the precise definition of ‘post-modernism.’. The definition of postmodernism is widely contested, not only between its supporters and critics but also among its advocates themselves. In fact, many theorists linked to postmodernism avoid using the term altogether, opting instead for alternatives such as 'post-structuralism' or 'deconstruction,' while some reject any form of labeling entirely. 15.3.1    Post- Modernism in International Relations(IR) Postmodernism in international relations emphasizes the influence of language, ideas, abstract concepts, and norms on political actions and activities. In this context, it challenges the traditional understanding of international politics as being centered on states, sovereignty, and violence. Postmodernism reflects the societal and cultural shifts that occurred in Western society following the Second World War. Modernity, by contrast, refers to a historical period in Europe marked by industrial expansion, the use of machinery to enhance productivity, and a focus on rationality and secularism as guiding principles. Postmodernism emerged as a response to and critique of modernist ideals. The term “post-modernism is applied to indicate the emergence of a new period emerging due to change in international relations by virtue of different social and political conditions. It thus represents a break up with the past memories, the emergence of a new times or period, characterized by qualitative transformation of society and a departure or movement in cultural sensibility and rise of advanced information technology”. A growing number of scholars have begun to identify as 'dissidents,' voicing their increasing discontent with dominant approaches in international relations that are rooted in realism, positivism, state-centrism, and masculine perspectives. Significant early contributions to postmodern thought in international relations are attributed to scholars such as Richard Ashley, David Campbell, William Connolly, Simón Dalby, Michael Shapiro, Der Derian, and Cynthia Weber. Postmodern approaches began to influence international relations scholarship during the mid to late 1980s, emerging within what is commonly referred to as the 'third debate.' The first major debate in international relations occurred during the interwar period, where liberalism and realism clashed over how best to confront the threat posed by Nazi Germany. The second major debate followed World War II, centering on methodological disagreements between behaviorists and traditionalists. Since then, various interpretations of these debates have surfaced, along with ongoing discussions about how international relations should be represented. The third debate focused on epistemological concerns, specifically questioning how we can understand and interpret the realities of global politics. Self-check Exercise 1 Q 1) Post-Modernism describes changes that took place in western society and culture after the_______________. Q 2) Post-Modernism are _______of any claim of an established truth valid for all. Q 3) Post-Modernism approaches joined the IR scholarship program in the middle to late_____ in relation to what is typically referred to as the _____________. 15.4    Post-Modernism and its features: The origins of Post-Modernism is used to describe a range of attitudes, stances, approaches, philosophies and practices that are sceptical regarding the assertion of modernity. If modernity is characterised by the worth of humanism, universalism and belief in progress definitely achieved by use of reason, postmodernism is understood to mistrust these values and the practical and intellectual energies they inspire. Because postmodernism is constitutively apprehensive of the modern knowledge claims, it is sometimes felt that there cannot be something called postmodernism, since assuming the form of an ‘ism’, or organized knowledge claim, would make it appear to belong to the family of modern knowledge claims like Marxism or realism. Yet, the term ‘postmodernism’ provides its subject matter a situational coherence and thus makes talking about it possible. After all, it is difficult to talk about something that doesn’t have a name. It is nevertheless important, especially for IR students, to not approach it as a concrete object but an abstraction conceptualized to serve intellectual purposes. Since the postmodern stance is sceptical of excessive certainty, scholars often talk about multiple origins of postmodernity as opposed to any one major point of its beginning. For some, tracing its origins may be an undesirable exercise since post-modernity, they claim, is not a question of history but of vision. They are wary of exercises which combines twentieth century history for signs that are new, different and indicate the beginnings of postmodern ideas and practices. They are uncomfortable with the linearity – in the sense of post-modernity being something that follows or comes after modernity – that gets attached with the growth and genesis of the subject subject through such attempts of anchoring the postmodern in history. This is because linearity suggests an affinity with teleology and progress – the very ideas that postmodernism seeks to problematize. Nevertheless, some familiarity with its historical origins is desirable. The Marxist scholar Perry Anderson traces the first textual occurrence of the term – postmodernism – to the 1930s Hispanic America. However, it is useful for students of IR to note the enrichment towards Western European, and particularly French, intellectual culture of the 1960s and 70s to its development. During this period, intellectuals like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, among several others, began suggesting through their work that knowledge about human beings is essentially unstable due to intricate intrinsic complexities – of language, consciousness, cultural contexts – that constitute such knowledge. Post-Modernism is Characterised by following features: 1)Post-modernists assert that knowledge is neither positive nor can it ever be positive. If we analyse International Relations, this assertion means that the knowledge produced about international politics with the primary focus on nation state system, war and conflict is not comprehensive because it leaves many other relevant areas of international behaviour. Post-modernists contend that knowledge should be safeguarded against the influence of power. Additionally, they emphasize that the study of international relations demands a deliberate detachment from values, interests, and power dynamics, relying instead entirely on the independent judgment of reason. 2)    Post-Modernism exposes modernism for its inherent contradiction emanating from the fact that, it not only recognises the supremacy of human reason but also permits the sovereignty inherent in the Westphalia system to be the focal point in studying International Relations. Thus the supremacy of human reason itself implies a readiness to break away from the tyranny of state system which ultimately has been responsible for all wars and conflicts’ 3)    Post-Modernism believes in the divergence of viewpoints. he postmodernist premise that there are always multiple viewpoints, each of which embodies a particular set of values, substitutes the modernist notion of an objective or allencompassing perspective. Therefore postmodernism insists that perspectives or interpretations are crucially integral to an understanding of the real world. States, sovereignty, and violence—all of which rely on long-standing traditions of international relations thought—must be considered in light of the ramifications of this postmodernist perspective. 4)    Post-Modernism seems to address a significant problem with state-centric approaches to readings and explanations of the sovereign state: its historical constitution and reconstitution as the primary driver of subjectivity in global politics. 5)    Post-Modernism seeks to take into account for the components which make possible the phenomena of the state as something which concretely influences the experience of everyday life. It also deals with those conditions that destabilise the state or deter its complete actualisation. A glance at postmodernism includes four major elements: state has its basis and genesis in violence; an assessment of the sanctity of state boundaries; a dissection of the state as explained by security and maintenance of relations; and a revised concept of statecraft 6)    Post-modernism reveals that violence plays a fundamental role in shaping modern political life. It challenges the modernist belief that illegitimate violence, such as tyranny and despotism, can be effectively restrained by democratic governance. Additionally, it questions the modernist view that reason, rather than power, determines the legitimacy of violence. Postmodernists lay great stress on the role of anarchy which prevails in global politics which is termed as the ‘’Anarchy problematique’’. This anarchy minimises the power and authority of the sovereign states. Post modernists differ both from the Idealists and the Realists. “PostModernism does not share the optimism about the eventual elimination of the state as the realists do, nor does it share the optimism about the eventual elimination of the state and its merger into a world federation as the idealists do.” It views anarchy as something more basic and endemic to international relations, which can be neither a justification or explanation for the continued strife and power struggle. 7)    Post-Modernism exposes the paradox that while the state is supposed to guarantee the protection of its citizens against violence, it is expected to provide that very protection through violence itself. The postmodernist perspective emphasizes that violence is not just a tool for protection but a fundamental element in the very existence and structure of states. In this view, violence is essential not only for maintaining states but also for their creation. Consequently, postmodernism focuses heavily on issues such as inter-state relations, violence, sovereignty, and security.It is not only the states which are important the other actors also play a crucial role. In a nutshell we can say that Postmodernism moves beyond sovereignty and territoriality thus transforming international relations. Self-check exercise 2 Q 1) The Marxist scholar ________________ traces the first textual occurrence of the term – Post-Modernism Q 2) Post-Modernism believes in the________ of perspectives. Q 3) Issues like relations between,______ ,____________,   ___________ and____________ becomes the major concerns of Post-Modernism. 15.5    Summary Post-Modernism is regarded as the most influential but also the debatable theoretical developments in the study of international relations. Postmodernists assert that knowledge is neither positive nor can it ever be positive. Applied to international relations, this assertion means that the knowledge produced about international politics with a primary focus on the nation-state system, war and conflict is not comprehensive because it leaves many other relevant areas of international behaviour. The most notable contribution of postmodernism to the theory and practice of International Relations is the indispensability for recognising the supremacy of the demands for global justice and condemning the inadequacy and unwillingness of the sovereign states to accommodate those demands. By justifying the importance of justice and peace, post-modernism tends to come close to idealism or neo idealism which views the arena of international relations as full of possibilities of international co-operation leading to universal peace and justice on the one hand, on the other, reject and realise a neorealist perspective which takes international relations as inherently conflictual and power ridden. 15.6    Glossary Post-Modernism: Is an approach to IR that rejects the modern enlightenment idea that ever-expanding human knowledge will lead to an improved understanding and mastery of the international system. Positivism: Positivism is a fundamentally scientific approach. Its proponents are firm in their conviction regarding the attainment of knowledge regarding socio-political aspect of the world. . Epistemological: the philosophical study of how one comes to know something, and what is ultimately ‘knowable’. Ontology: the philosophical study of the nature of the world and its components. 15.7    Answers to self-check ExerciseExercise 1 1) Second World War       2) critical              3) 1980s, ‘third debate’ Exercise 2 1)    Perry Anderson 2) plurality 3) states, violence, sovereignty and security 15.8    Suggested readings Badie, B., Berg-Schlosser, D., & Morlino, L. Postmodernism in international relations. In International encyclopedia of political science (Vol. 1, pp. 2096-2099). SAGE Publications,2011 Inc.,https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959636.n477 Bleiker, R. Postmodernism. In R. Devetak, A. Burke, & J. George (Eds.), An Introduction to International Relations (pp. 91-102). Cambridge, 2011 Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139196598.009 15.9 Terminal Questions Q 1) Define Post-modernism and its origin . Q 2) What are principles features of Post-Modernism? To what extent do you find this approach relevant for studying International Relations. UNIT 16 FEMINISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Structure 16.1Introduction 16.2    Learning Objectives 16.3    Meaning of Feminism Self-check Exercise 1 16.4    Tracing Feminist International Relations Self-check Exercise 2 16.5    The Feminist IR agenda 16.5.1    Gender and International Relations Self-check Exercise 3 16.7    Feminist International Theories 16 7.1 Liberal feminism 16.7.2    Marxist and Socialist Feminism 16.7.3    Radical Feminism 16.7.4 Maternal and Cultural feminism 16.7.5    Critical and Postmodern feminism Self-check Exercise 4 16.8    Summary 16.9    Glossary 16.10 . Answers to self- check Exercises 16.11    Suggested Readings 16.12 Terminal Questions 16.1    Introduction As an idea and as a concept, ‘Feminism’ has been identified as the main generator of women’s and gender studies and also as the chief force behind the various women’s movements all over the world. Feminist scholarship has been at the forefront of critical thinking in the last four decades, challenging and rethinking major theoretical and political formulations such as Marxism, and playing a leading role in the emergence of post-colonial, post-modern theories, among others. Although feminism had started in a variety of academic fields, including literature, psychology, and history, it wasn't until the late 1980s that it gained scholarly attention in the field of international relations. It became necessary to investigate how international relations has been gendered after the classic paradigm was reassessed in the 1990s following the Cold War. This can be explained by the fact that the studyof international relations has continued without mentioning gender because it focuses on sovereign states in the public sphere and has little room for women'sor feminism's intellectual interests. It was previously believed that the studyof international relations (IR) could be conducted without mentioning gender because it was primarily focused on the study of relations between sovereign states and that the issues raised by feminists did not align with the processes and structures of International                                                                    Relations.. 16.2    Learning Objectives: After reading the unit students will be able to answer •     To know and gain insight about feminism •      To perceive the tenets put forth by feminists in the discipline of International Relations. •     To examine different feminist approaches to the study and application of International Relations. •     To trace the genesis of feminist interventions in the realm of international politics and to look at contemporary issues that feminists are engaged with. 16.3    Meaning of Feminism The word feminism is derived from the French word ‘féminisme’. The Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines feminism as “a belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way”. A collection of movements that strive for gender equality are collectively referred to as feminism. It includes social movements, activism, ideas, and theories that support women's equal and particular rights. Additionally, it seeks to constructively critique the current system of discrimination against women in society. IR feminists concentrate on the fundamental disparities between men and women and how they affect global politics. In material terms as well as in terms of a value system that prioritizes men over women, it highlights how disadvantaged women are in the world. Gender construction in the social sphere is examined by feminism as an academic field of study. In order to comprehend the concept of power in politics, they employ gender as a crucial category of study. The primary analysis of gender differences that distinguish the sexes is based on the construction of gender rather than anatomical or biological distinctions. Because gender is a collection of socially and culturally determined traits that change across time and space. Socialization is the foundation for the distinctive characteristics of gender differences, which are socially formed. For instance, "real men" are strong, brave, chivalrous, and rational; women, on the other hand, are emotional, weak, and dependant. The males ones have been assigned more favorable values. It is believed that gender is a structure that denotes power dynamics. It has grown into a mechanism for the unequal allocation of costs and rewards in society. To put it another way, gender is a social order in which men are valued more than women. As a result, the gender perspective is now essential for evaluating world politics and the economy, especially when it comes to the ideas of social justice, inequality, and instability. Feminism holds that in order to eliminate unfair institutions, they must be made public. Feminism has mostly focused on the claim that women have historically been barred from both domestic and international political life due to state boundaries, which have viewed international relations as a responsibility of men and masculinity, which feeds off their dominance over women The feminist movement that questioned men's supremacy in the 1960s and 1970s gave rise to feminism as an academic field. Achieving political, social, and economic equality in both the public and private spheres was the goal of this movement. Feminist theory's primary objective is to explain women's subordination, which occurs in all civilizations to varied degrees. Self-check Exercise 1 Q 1) What is the main focus of Feminism? Q 2) The perspective of___________ is indispensable in analysing_______ specifically the concept of ___________,__________ and ______. justice 16.4 Tracing Feminist International Relations: Challenging the Masculine Bias Gender issues have received increasing attention in recent decades in many areas of the social sciences. IR feminists concentrate on the fundamental disparities between men and women and how they affect global politics. Gender refers to ʻsocially learned behavior and expectations that distinguish between masculinity and feminity. We presently live in a gendered world in which qualities associated with ʻmasculinityʼ (e.g., rationality, ambition, strength) are assigned higher value and status than qualities associated with ʻfeminityʼ(e.g., emotionality, passivity, weakness). Men are given preference over women in this system of power, which is equivalent to a gender hierarchy. The late 1980s saw the entry of feminist theorists into the field of International Relations The introduction of a seminar course on "gender and IR" at the London School of Economics in 1988 is sometimes cited as the official "breakthrough" for feminist viewpoints. The 1989 conference at the University of Southern California and the 1990 conference at Wellesley were two additional conferences that were convened to discuss and express the topic of feminist thinking on a global level. Since the outcomes of the Millennium Conference were published as a special issue titled "Women and International Relations," these conferences gave rise to the early feminist studies in IR. It later served as a framework for the primary arguments made in the book Gender and International Relations by Rebecca Grant and Kathleen Newland. In addition, Peterson, the primary conference organizer, published the volume of the Reader as Gendered States in 1992, which included the collection of papers delivered at Wellesley. Several early works in the topic of feminism in IR have gone on to become classics. Among these are Cynthia Enloe's Bananas, Beaches, and Bases (1989) and Jean Bethke Elshtain's Women and War (1987). The study of feminism in international relations in the early 1990s was further developed by J. Ann Tickner's Gender in International Relations: Feminist perspectives on achieving global security (1992), V. Spike Peterson and Anne Runyan's Global Gender Issues (1993), and Christine Sylvester's Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era (1994). In addition to examining the concepts of war and peace, feminist studies also examined the broader societal concerns and their impact on the global stage, including "patriarchy" and conflict. It has frequently been stated that IR theories like realism endorse patriarchy because they believe it is necessary to uphold the state and its social order. Women are thus left out of many widely held beliefs of the state. Even though the other authors have taken distinct tacks in their analysis of the problem, they are all working toward rethinking the fundamentals of IR. Despite the persistent efforts of feminist scholars, the field of peace research, such as the study of IR, is still dominated by men. Because men have a connection to the state and hence exclude women, the study of IR and its theory favors men. The subject matter of IR research changed during the 20th century, with the emphasis on global issues. It examines the origins of war and conflict, the evolution of international law and diplomacy, and the growth of trade and commerce around the world, with a particular focus on public domain concerns that affect women. The patriarchal system, which has persisted from absolute to modern states, from feudalism to capitalism, or from nature-state to global governance, perceives women as being a part to the personal domain of domesticity and family, which is inevitably dominated by men. The theory and practice of Feminism criticises the mainstream theories of International Relations such as Realism and have brought to the forefront the gender bias as the key concepts of International Relations. They have demonstrated that inter-subjective comprehension of a complicated social and political environment which creates "reality." Imagination and symbolism are also used in the process of meaning building. The formation of knowledge is closely linked to power, and "our reality" have been built through the use of categories and notions. As you all know, that the gendered perspective has been utilized to address and bring to light the traditional problems of the field of international relations, such as political identity, ideas of political communities and citizenships, the nature of power, the state, violence, peace and security, global political economy, and development. This has not only provided an exhaustive perspective but also broadened the field of international relations. The focus of the Feminism in International Relations feminist IR's primarily is not on how the different genders impact international politics, but rather on how the discipline's foundational ideas—such as those of war and security—have been applied and are strongly gendered. Their primary goal is to highlight the gender perspective in the contemporary global political economy, in addition to the conventional focus of IR on states, including the idea of wars, diplomacy, and security. Even in international policy communities including the World Bank and the United Nations, feminist and women-centric approaches are becoming more and more prominent. However, this is because liberal feminists have placed an intense emphasis on women's equality of opportunity. Self check Exercise 2 Q 1) Feminist IR examines a vast range of issues covering________________ from different social, political and economic backgrounds. Q 2) “The formal breakthrough for feminist perspectives is sometimes connected with the establishment of a seminar course on ‘gender and IR” at the_______________in 1988. 16.5    The Feminist IR Agenda Feminist IR examines a vast range of issues covering women (and men) from different social, political and economic backgrounds. The first agenda includes the three key issues: firstly, it highlights and examines cases of “gender disparity between men and women”, (such as the disparities in political representation); second, it looks at issues that disproportionately affect women but have remained largely neglected by IR scholars(such as the human trafficking of women for the purposes of sexual slavery); third, it explores the ways that key issues in IR (such as conflict) differently affect men and women. In doing so it examines men and women’s experiences of war, peace, democracy, governance, economics, development, justice, security and health. A focus on these topics, both gender in mind, promotes a rich agenda of important issues that are often neglected by more mainstream approaches to IR. For example, by considering gender equality in politics at international level we can reveal the fact that there is persistent discrimination against women.. The UN’s Commission Report 2010 regarding the status of women revealed that in the preceding year women held only 18.8 per cent of parliamentary seats while only fifteen women were heads of states or governments (UNESC2010: 45–6). In the developing world women the condition of women is far from satisfactory. They face discrimination at multiple levels. Most of the unpaid work is on their shoulders, (such as caring, subsistence farming and agricultural work) while in developed world women earn less than men for the same work. This discrimination is also reflected in access to education, health care, land ownership and legal rights. Feminists emphatically assert that the discrimination are structural and institutional. For instance, there are many reasons why women are not landowners. These reasons could include discriminatory laws relating to land ownership, lack of access to credit, inheritance or divorce settlements, or there could be social and cultural practices which inhibit women’s abilities to access land rights. The feminist IR agenda therefore involves identifying patterns of discrimination and seeking to explain their causes. Secondly, the feminist agenda includes a consideration of issues that disproportionately affect women. An example of this is the global campaign to stop violence, including sexual violence, against women, particularly during times of conflict. Feminist scholars have spent decades documenting the violence committed against civilian women during conflict. The reason it is considered to be genderbased violence is that it specifically targets women. Feminists have argued that violence perpetrated to women is often a deliberate strategy of war which can be used to fulfil achieve a range of political or military goals. These might be to humiliate a nation, to enact policies of ethnic cleansing and genocide, to punish communities for supporting an enemy, to gather intelligence, or to ensure the compliance of a community. Research by feminist IR scholars on this topic has raised awareness and increased understanding of the conditioning of women in conflict which, in turn, also contributes to our overall understanding of conflict. For example, these arguments have been accepted by the global for a, and have led to the prosecution of war rape as a crime against humanity and a crime of genocide at the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (established in1993) and Rwanda (established in 1994). Thirdly, feminist IR scholars are interested in how the same global challenges affect men and women in different ways. For example, pandemics, climate change and natural disasters will affect men and women differently. This is usually because of their different levels of social, political and economic power as well as their premediated behaviours. For instance, while HIV/AIDS affects both gender but women are two to four times more vulnerable to infection than men. This is because they often have less social, cultural and political power to negotiate safe sex and to access redress for rape and sexual abuse (UNIFEM 2009). Similarly, while the 2010 Pakistan floods devastated the lives of men and women throughout the country, it affected them differently. In some cases women had less mobility to evacuate from floods as they were caring for the young and elderly, were unaccustomed to travelling independently, had not been taught to swim, and had less awareness regarding early warning systems. It is also the case that the aid efforts were ‘gendered’. NGOs at the preliminary level found that aid was often delivered to men, because men traditionally occupy public spaces, without ensuring that women had appropriate access toit. In other case the specific needs of women’s health (such as maternal health) and women’s safety (such as protection from violence in the displaced persons camps) were not adequately addressed (see UNIFEM 2010). Feminists are interested in studying these differences to ensure that the needs of both the gender are met. Fourthly,the role of women in development is a concern for IR's feminist scholars. Feminism challenges the logic of gender-blind multinational organizations such as the World Bank, which view males as the development agents and distributors while ignoring the role that women too can play in achieving these objectives. In contrast to the earlier idea that development was a means of promoting women, recent advancements indicate that women's involvement makes development possible. Since women have historically worked in the home and are the bearers of ideas and knowledge that are frequently overlooked and undervalued, women and work are essential to the advancement of civilization. It is indispensable to promote and acknowledge the unique characteristics of women's knowledge, labor, objectives, and responsibilities. Feminists argue that the social and economic split of society has widened due to globalization, which has led to a gap between men and women. The gendered international division of labor and poverty are the two most significant manifestations of this polarization. Furthermore, the worldwide demands of export revenue, financial issues, and comparative labor costs have come to dominate both national and international economic policies. . 16.    5.1 Gender and International Relations Feminists have frequently claimed that the study of international relations (IR) is heavily gendered. Stated differently, it is not neutral as represented by the fundamental ideas of IR. Because IR as a topic of study is situated in the public arena, which is again a male domain, and women are perceived as belonging to the private sphere, gender relations have been silent as a result.For this reason, the fundamental ideas of International Relations are patriarchal and viewed through the prism and lenses of the masculine gender. Studying and analyzing how power and politics are decided in the modern world while taking into account the roles that men and women play in the decision-making process is the essence of feminism in international relations. This allows one to see how female perspectives have influenced international relations in general and foreign policy in particular. • Because the current social standards are founded on the social norms of male hierarchy, which have shown themselves in the military and economy, they have been criticized and questioned for this reason.By its very nature, international relations (IR) encompasses the historical experiences of men, who are perceived in the public sphere, whereas women are perceived in the private sphere. This is because IR assumes that contacts between nations are situated within the public domain. Thus, as will be addressed below, the main ideas of IR theory have been conceptualized from the viewpoint of the masculine gender without considering the alternative viewpoints of women, including those of man, power, sovereignty, anarchy, and security. •    “Man” •    The two primary schools of thought in IR, liberalism and realism, have assumed that "man" is a self-maximizing, rational being. However, feminists have seriously questioned the basis of this fundamental assumption since they perceive men's reflection in their theoretical notions of the model they construct. They observe that these theoretical models are predicated on behavioral assumptions about how certain men behave in a specific setting of gender relations. •    “Power” The ability of A to persuade B to do something that B would not have done on their own is how power is conceptualized in the majority of International Relations theory. Because it is predicated on the male-centered premise that autonomy equates to being free from the direct influence of others, feminist IR scholars view this viewpoint as strongly gendered. The goal of feminist IR theory is to provide a different and more comprehensive perspective on power, where the rules are set up before "power-over." •     The “State” According to several theoretical notions, the state is a mirror of sovereignty, and while men are sovereign, women needs the protection of sovereignty. According to feminist IR, these beliefs are highly problematic because they give rise to the innate presumption that men are associated with the public sphere as the messengers of order, while women are connected with private thought or anarchy. Therefore, in realist and liberal ideology, any feminist power is viewed as the primary principle that poses a threat to the world system. •     “Security” The fundamental conceptual instrument in the study of international relations is security, which is also the primary driver of a stable world order. In order to relate to not only individuals but also nations, the theories of international relations (IR) have been immersed in the topic of security. As a result, they have an impact on both domestic and global politics. Feminist IR viewpoints, however, transcend beyond the problems of national and global security to encompass issues such as rape, poverty, gender subjugation, ecological degradation and domestic violence. They are concerned about those who are positioned on the outside and edges of society because of the state's security practices, which make them feel insecure. “Rationality” •    The pragmatic reasoning of IR is considered to be rationality by the Realists in IR. To put it another way, international relations are viewed as a means to an end, just as the connections that are formed between states are. For Realists, therefore, international collaboration and cooperation are always a means to an end. However, this interpretation of rationality is strongly gendered in the eyes of feminist IR theorists. due to the fact that it is disembodied, has detached masculine perspectives, and their worldviews have been abstracted from historical context. This is not the way that the feminist IR approaches rationality. Self-Check Exercise 3 Q 1) Enumerate the various issues in IR feminist agenda? Q 2) Feminists argue that “________ has intensified social and economic division of the society which has aggravated the ____________ between men and women”. 16.7 Feminist Theories of International Relations Like all political theories, feminism in international relations can be explained by divergent viewpoints.  . Even if two people identify as feminists, they may still hold different views on fundamental issues pertaining to men, women, and the global system. Gender analysis is used by international relations feminists to address global political issues and the reason behind women's varied levels of subordination in different societies, even in the modern era. The economy and international politics both exhibit the subordination of women. Even when they work for pay, women perform the majority of unpaid labour. Any type of conflict whether it is regional, national or international it is the women only who have to face the maximum suffering. The suffering pervades the whole aspects of social, economic, cultural and political domains. Even in times of wars, insurgencies or terrorist activities women face the double hardship. Developing an understanding with practices that could assist towards achieving political, social, and economic equality for women is the primary objective of intellectual exploration for a feminist theory in order to better the lives of women. Feminist theory's primary objective is to understand women's subordination and look for remedies to eradicate it. Due to these reasons only the feminist theorists have developed a variety of approaches. While they all of them agree on the fundamental question of what feminism aims to postulate in the changing nature of international relations, they take different approaches so as to International Relations, or what is known as the various feminist strand in the theory of IR. Within the language of feminism, these divergent streams of feminism give rise to varying discussions. A brief account is as follows: 16.7.1    Liberal feminism This strand of feminism rests on the principle of Liberal notion of rationality and equality . It believes that men and women are not only equal in rights but they share the same responsibilities. They contend that because humans are rational creatures, they must use reason and wisdom to respect others rights and hold them are as important as their own, they have an intrinsic right to pursue their self-interests and find fulfilment. The liberal tradition of feminist thought found its expression in the 18th century with the work of Olympe de Gourges. Likewise in the year 1972 a leading Feminist Mary Wollstonecraft’s famous work “Vindication of the rights of woman”. was published. Another member of the Liberal Feminist School of Thought is the French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. All these liberal feminists are of the view that women were not granted the opportunity to reach their full potential as human beings in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries due to unequal practices in society and culture and distinct socialization processes. Because of this, women were restricted to the house to take care of their husbands and kids, and they had little time to use their brains or acquire skills beyond those thought to be required for doing household duties. The Liberals stand for the laws that ensure equity in Parliament or on the Board of Directors because they think that men and women are equal and stress for gender equality in both the workplace and in politics. Women as political leaders, female warriors, and other women who operate outside of traditional norms are examples of the type of women they would like to see included in the study. Feminists continue to argue that sex-based discrimination deprives women of equal rights and the right to pursue their socio-economic self-interest. 16.7.2 . Marxist and Socialist Feminism The Marxist feminist not only opposes liberal feminism's reformism but also challenges ideologies that emphasize how males oppress women in general. They are of the opinion that the political, social, and economic systems connected to capitalism are the root causes of women's oppression as a social group, not discrimination, ignorance, or conscious human behaviour. Stated differently, the class structure is the cause of women's discrimination and oppression.. Marxist feminism has its roots in Frederick Engel's 1884 book The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, in which he argues that the advent of private property was the spark for women's subjugation. A typical division between the "public" and "private" spheres resulted from the male members' introduction of private ownership, which also established a class system. Production was moved from the home to the workplace with the development of industrialization and capitalism, and the workplace was viewed as the public domain, which was empty or closed to women, who were considered to be part of the "private" realm. . Women were viewed as the private property of men and later denigrated as second-class citizens, while production was seen as an integral part of the world of freedom because it was in the "public" sphere along with what was regarded as valuable. The pre-industrial era, when the labor of women consisted of providing for basic needs and was valued equally to men's, despite the patriarchal nature of the society, was substantially different from the arrival of industrialization. Marxist feminists highlighted how women help sustain capitalism by serving as a valuable "reserve army" of labour that can be employed to keep male labor cheap or exploited amidst labour shortages. Women help maintain the upkeep and sustenance of an exploitative economic and social structure in each of these ways. For this purpose, they dispute the idea that women's equality can be attained through formal rights advocacy in a world that is inherently unequal, exploitative, and hierarchical. Marxist feminists assert that because sexual and social-economic disparities are inextricably linked women cannot accomplish parity in class society. For this reason, they maintain that a struggle against an exploitative capitalism system must include the freedom of women. The oppression of women existed in pre-capitalist societies and continues to exist in socialist states, according to socialist feminism. They developed a second fundamental cause for the inequitable treatment of women, that differentiated them out from Marxist feminism. Capitalism is is most important oppressor in this patriarchal framework of male supremacy. For socialist and Marxist feminists, worldwide politics revolves on the same trends that have resulted in women's systemic disadvantage in comparison to the males due to the global capitalist system and the patriarchal power structure. 16.7.3    Radical Feminism Radical Feminists focuses on the significance of generating a "women-centered" analysis in order to go against all institutions and values that are defined by males. Considering that they believe that both liberal and Marxist feminism present a concept of women's liberation that is founded on male ideals and hence motivates them to strive for what are fundamentally patriarchal values, they are critical of both schools of thought. This is due to the radical feminist's belief that the patriarchal social structure of society, rather than capitalism, is the main reason of women's oppression. Radical feminists emphasise the necessity of establishing a "women-cantered" approach in order to overthrow all male-defined institutions and regulations. They are sceptical of either of the schools of thought because they think that both liberal and Marxist feminism offer a conception of women's liberation that is based on male ideals and hence inspires them to work toward what are essentially patriarchal objectives. This is because radical feminists hold the view that women's oppression is primarily brought about by the patriarchal social structure of society rather than capitalism. 16.7.4    Maternal and Cultural feminism Maternal and cultural feminist put forth the contention argue that there is an inherent relatedness between women and peace and that this connection should be exploited and emphasised to create a better world. This kind of feminism includes, first, those who believe that women are ‘biologically’ more peaceful than men and, second, those who argue that women are socialised into being more peaceful than men. These feminist raise the contention that in the private domains women as mothers, carers, moral guardians and nurturers link them to peace. Such arguments have been put forward by Sara Ruddick (1989) and Jean Bethke Elshtain (1982) and were a powerful organising tool in women peace activism. 16.7.5    Critical and Postmodern Feminism Critical and Postmodern Feminism overcomes the boundaries of liberal and radical Feminism. The post-modern feminism has incorporated two theoretical traditions: postmodern and post-structuralist thought. It has criticized the values of the Enlightenment since they championed human freedom and progress, whereas they were accompanied by massive authoritarianism of people under the arguments of "freedom," "progress," and "advance of civilization." Under the underlying assumptions and presuppositions that exist in attempts to construct a single, "true" narrative about human conditions is the primary objective of postmodern feminism. It questions overarching notions of human autonomy and independence that are founded on an assumption of "universal truth." When such supposed truths are stated, postmodern feminism attempts to reveal how these grand narratives frequently exclude or stifle different voices, particularly those of underrepresented or oppressed groups. Highlighting and amplifying the viewpoints of these "others" whose experiences have been dismissed or repressed is the purpose. Theorizing is so closely associated to power, according to postmodern philosophers, that it has the potential to see the whole process as an instance of dominance in which theorists understand and appropriate the objects of knowledge. The term "otherness" refers to a manner of being, thinking, and speaking that enables openness, plurality, diversity, and a distinction rather than merely being oppressed or in a position of inferiority. Feminism emerged due to the inherent entrenched structures of dominance and exclusiveness which pervaded the whole aspect of society. The cultural arrogance and discrimination of "universalist" beliefs have been revealed by feminism. Postmodern feminism perceives gender mainly in terms of discourse than it approaches it in respect of personal identities or social structures. They generally think that gender discrimination is outside of history because it cannot be thought of as "natural" or "universal." However, in rhetoric that dismisses the harsh realities of sexual inequality and difference, gender is considered as a process by which the "body" is objectified. It is believed that the "body" is cultural rather than "natural" and is created by power avoids the issues that arise when essentialist explanations of gender—those that imply a direct correlation between gender and biological sex—are advanced. One example of post-modern textual analysis is Charlotte Hooper's 2001 book Manly States, in which she argues that understanding international relations requires an understanding of the implications of the fact that it is primarily handled by men. Men are as much shaped by international relations as men are by them. Regardless of the publishers' or authors' intentions, a daily newspaper study of masculinity can be deciphered, and this is how gender politics permeates our impression of international politics.A large number of Feminist writers belonging to to post-cold war period bring the argument that there is a dire necessity to separate the experiences of the western and the third world countries. This is made even more justified by the fact that international organizations like the UN are keeping an eye on advances made by women and analyzing modernity to be advanced and traditions as primitive; this calls for an in-depth understanding of the customs that determine gender roles in developing nations. Chandra Mohanty a Feminist argues, “ women’s subordination must be addressed within their own cultural context, rather than through some universal understanding of women’s needs”. The very depiction of the third world developing country as meek, submissive, without resources and unaware has been dealt seriously. he central claim of post-colonial feminists is that the subordination of women ought to be construed differently depending on the agents in question, particularly race, class, and geography. This school of thought contends that all women ought to be considered to be agents rather than dependents. For instance, some of the traditional customs of women, like wearing scarves, may be regarded as outdated and unappealing by Westerners, but they may be a means for them to rebel against Western ideas of culture and convention. Thus, enforcing western standards may be viewed as desirable, but it may also cause social unrest. The role of women in development is one of the main concerns of feminist researchers of international relations. Feminism challenges the logic of gender-blind multinational organizations such as the World Bank, which view males as development agents and distributors while ignoring the role that women can play in achieving these objectives. In contrast to the earlier idea that development was a means of promoting women, recent advancements indicate that women's involvement makes development possible. Since women have historically worked in the home and are the bearers of ideas and knowledge that are frequently overlooked and undervalued, women and work are essential to the advancement of civilization. It is necessary to promote and acknowledge the unique characteristics of women's knowledge, labour, objectives, and responsibilities. Feminists contend that the social and economic split of society has widened due to globalization, exacerbating the gap between men and women. The gendered international division of labour and poverty are the two most significant manifestations of this polarization. Furthermore, the worldwide demands of export revenue, financial issues, and comparative labour costs have come to dominate both national and international economic policies. Self-Check Exercise 4 1)    As Feminism transcends the divisions of liberal and radical feminist, postmodern feminism has integrated two theoretical traditions: _____________ and _____________. 2)    What is now widely considered to be the core realization of feminist thought_____________was originally expressed by radical feminists. 3)    The Marxist feminist critiques schools of thought that emphasize the rampant oppression of women by males, while at the same dismissing the reformism of 1 6.8 Summary The various Feminist Theories in their own ways tries to justify as to how women have been subjected to discrimination in the socio-economic and political order. Since males from patriarchal social and political backgrounds have historically and continue to be the main protagonists in Iternational relations (IR), including diplomats, policymakers, heads of state, and academic professionals, feminist theory has focused on social relations in general. As they were never taught to value and accommodate women's perspectives, the discussions within IR have always been primarily dominated by individuals who neglect to take consideration of women's involvement in global politics. One of the best examples of patriarchy has always been found in the theory and practice of IR. It has frequently been called the "last bastion of the social sciences," a reference to how inflexible it has been and how it requires re-examination through "gender lenses”. In their analysis of how women have been excluded from the world of international politics, feminists have also used the concepts of "gender" and "patriarchy." For instance, a man's military experience is viewed as an additional qualification when seeking political positions, something that no female candidate can do. In a sense, this restricts a woman's opportunities in matters of national security and defence. The marginalization of women from worldwide politics and international relations in both theory and practice is a topic covered by feminist researchers of international relations. They maintain that despite gender has always been prominent in international relations, it has been overlooked by the male-cantered orientation of international relations theory. Given this, feminism emphasizes how gender shapes international relations and how both men and women play crucial roles in world events. 16    .9 Answers to Self check ExercisesExercise 1 1)    see 16.3     2) gender, global politics and its economy, inequality, insecurity and social justice Exercise 2 1)    women (and men) 2) “The London School of Economics” 2)    3) globalization Exercise 3 1)See 16.5 &16.5.1     2) globalization, inequality. Exercise 4 1) The theories of postmodernism and poststructuralism 2) the personal is political 3)    liberal feminism 16.10    Glossary Gender:     Gender is     the     range     of     characteristics     pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them. Depending on the context, this may include sex-based social structures (i.e. gender roles) and gender identity Identity: Identity is the qualities, beliefs, personality traits, appearance, and/or expressions that characterize a person or group. Capitalism: an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. Rationality: the quality of being based on clear thought and reason, or of making decisions based on clear thought and reason: Science relies on the ideals of objectivity and rationality. Globalization: The term Globalisation tries to justify as to how trade and technology have made the world into a more connected and interdependent place. Globalization also captures in its scope the economic and social changes that have come about as a result. 16.11    Suggested Readings Lee-Koo, K., Feminism. In R. Devetak, A. Burke, & J. George (Eds.), An Introduction to International Relations (pp. 76-90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2011. Pettman, Jan Jindy, Wording Women: A Feminist International Politics, Routledge Publication, 1999. Steams, Jill, Gender and International Relations: An Introduction, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1998. Sylvester, Christine, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1994. Tickner, J. Ann, Gender in International Relations, Columbia University Press, 1993. Enloe, Cynthia, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. 16.12    Terminal Questions Q 1) Define Feminism. Why should International relations consider gender issues? Q 2) Discuss in brief the various theories of Feminism? Q 3) What are major arguments of criticism against Liberal Feminism by Radicals ? -UNIT 17 CONCEPT OF STATE Structure 17.1    Introduction 17.2    Learning Objectives 17.3    Meaning of State Self-check Exercise 1 17.4    Nation -State and its Characteristics Self-check Exercise 2 17.5    Development and Change in the State System 17.5.1    The Pre-Westphalian World 17.5.2    The Roman Empire 17.5.3    The Medieval Europe: 17.5.4    The Late Medieval Period: 17.5.5  Treaty of Westphalia: Emergence of Modern State System Self- Check Exercise 3 17.6    Modern Nation-state and its Elements: Self-check Exercise 4 17.7    Setback to Nation-State System Self-check Exercise 5 17.8    Summary 17.9    Glossary 17.10    Answers to self-check Exercises 17.11    Selected readings 17.12    Terminal Questions 17.1    Introduction: The 'State' can be defined as a territorial nation-state emerged as a result of momentous developments in Europe between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries. In today's world, there are around 192 states who are members of the United Nations, and 6 other such as Kosovo, Palestine, Western Sahara, Turkish Cyprus, Taiwan and the Vatican City, who are non-members of the U.N.O. Alongside, there has been a parallel increase of other kinds of actors besides the states, who are also challenging the might of the state. It is due to an increase in interdependence among all these actors that the global framework has now become more extensive and is not just limited to states and their activities. Being the most prominent political organization, the state has the power and capacity to accumulate all of the domestic resources required to conduct foreign relations, perhaps through war or its pursuit of diplomacy and peace. Because states and the state system are such fundamental aspects of contemporary politics, it is simple to believe that they have always existed and always will. That's not true. It is crucial to note that the state system is a historically significant institution.It is neither preordained by nature nor ordained by God. It is an organization of society that was established by a certain group at a specific point in time. The nation system has advantages and disadvantages that vary with time, similar to any other social framework. Although the fact that the state system may have provided many benefits for improved living conditions, nothing about it is essential to human survival. . 17.2    Learning Objectives: After reading the Unit, an insight will be gained by the students regarding: •     The Concept and meaning of “State” and “Nation” •     The State system •     A brief historical overview of the “state -system” •     Elements of Statehood 17.3    Meaning of the ‘State՚ Since times immemorial some primitive type of political organisation existed which emerged from traditional “ social organisations like the ‘family’, the ‘city -states’ the ‘Roman Empire’ etc but the origin of State as it exists today is relatively modern. The Justification for such an organisation was the limited population, lack of commercialisation in agriculture and more or less simpler life styles Machiavelli was the first political scientist of the 16th century who gave a modern definition of the State.He defined the State t as ‘'the power which has authority over men'’. This was a significant notion because it characterizes the origin of the state, not the death of the state which was primarily a topic for political philosophy, not political sociology or political science. Numerous contemporary thinkers have pointed in particular to this strange property of the state. A well-known German sociologist Max Weber tried to develop a 'sociological' definition of the state: Sociologically, a definition of the state cannot take place in terms of the ends which it aims to achieve... In the end, the state can be defined as the “State is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”.R.M. Maclver, in his famous work The Modern State (1926), “sought to distinguish the state from other kinds of associations in that it embraces the whole of people in a specific territory and it has the special function of maintaining social order. It performs this function through its agent, the government 'which speaks with the voice of law”. In the words of R.M. Maclver and C.H. Page "The state is distinguished from all other associations by its exclusive investment with the final power of coercion." Laski, in his work “An Introduction to Politics” rightly states that “Whereas all other associations are voluntary in character, and can bind the individual only as he chooses membership of them, once he is a resident of some given state, legally he has no choice but to obey its commands”. A community of politically organized individuals residing on a specific region under a sovereign government is referred to as a "state" in the liberal paradigm. The State has a monopoly on the lawful use of force and is sovereign both inside and without. In a way, the state is the pinnacle of the current social order, and what sets it apart is its authority and control over all other social institutions and organizations. In political science, a state is typically described as a group or society that is politically organized under a single, independent government within a defined region and free from outside influence. Without its members, a community cannot exist, and without a defined space to live in, a shared existence cannot be accomplished. Therefore, it is undeniable that "Man is a social and a political animal," as Aristotle put it. The state is a natural institution that is omnipresent necessary, and natural. since it is founded nature on the gregarious and survival instinct of human nature. Aristotle contends that "the state comes into existence originating in the bare needs of life and continuing in existence for the sake of good life," which makes it indispensable. The state is necessary for man to be what he wants to be and to meet his numerous demands. He is unable to reach to he maximum of his abilities as a human without the state. In actuality, society cannot be kept together without such a governing and controlling power, and chaos and anarchy will result. The state is to man what food is to the human body. Both are essential to his development and existence. Everywhere and anytime people have lived and established societies, there has been a state. Although the word "Nation" is used frequently, its precise meaning is still unknown. A concept of a nation is not clearly defined by any international agreement. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933) has a definition of the term "state." "As a person of international law, the state should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) the capacity to enter into relations with the other states," states Article 1. These logical qualifications are solely characterised and demonstrated. However, what are the responsibilities of states? Five essential functions will be discussed in this analysis of the interaction between the state and its people which are as follows: 1. Developing capacity for inclusiveness by enabling the citizens to take part in political -decision making. 2.    To safeguard the life and liberty of the citizens. 3.    To ensure that the end of justice is met out without any fear or favour and without bias; 4)    Offering fundamental social services that allow people to live honorably; 5)    To build the essential infrastructure to support economic activity and establishing regulations to ensure that it is equitable. 5)Establishing regulations to ensure economic life is equitable and building the necessary infrastructure to support it. Self-check Exercise 1 Q1) A Nation is considered to be ___________cultural and ethnic, but a State is considered to    __________and________. Q2) ___________ is credited with originating the modern notion of the state, defining it as_____________ around the beginning of the sixteenth century. 17.4    Nation State and its characteristics: A nation-state can be defined as a type of state that combines the political and cultural entities of a nation. It attempts to determine its political legitimacy to rule and, if accepted, its status as a sovereign state. A sovereign nation is a cultural and ethnic entity, whereas a state is specifically a political and geopolitical one. The phrase "nation-state" suggests that the two are related, since a state has decided to accept and support a certain cultural group that is linked to it. It is possible to compare and contrast the notion of a nation-state with that of the multinational state, city-state, empire, confederation, and other state structures that may have similarities. The connection of a people with a polity inside the nation-state is the primary difference. Among scholars and historians there have been a divergence of opinion as to the origin of the Nation or the State. Some political scientists and historians have proposed the idea that the nation-state was an accidental byproduct of the 15th-century discoveries in political economics, geography, mercantilism, political geography, and capitalism, as well as in mapping and mapmaking technology. While diverging from this view another group contends that the origin of he Nation-State can be accounted to the demands of national self-determination. According to certain "modernization theories," nationalism is the result of government initiatives to modernize and unite an existing state. According to the majority of ideas, the nation-state is a contemporary European phenomenon made possible by advancements like widespread literacy, state-mandated education, and mass communication, especially print. Others, on the other hand, search for the ancient origins of nation-states. The concept of a nation-state is most frequently linked to the emergence of the contemporary state structure, which is frequently referred to as the "Westphalian system" in reference to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). That system's efficacy relied on the existence of distinct, autonomous, and centrally governed entities—whether empires or nation-states—that acknowledged one another's territorial integrity and sovereignty. Although the nation-state did not originate from the Westphalian system, it satisfies the requirements for its constituent states. Since nation-states evolved differently from pre-national governments, they all had traits that are now considered to be important in forming the modern-day state. They view their land as non-transferable and semi-sacred. In economic, social, and cultural spheres, nation-states use the state as a tool encourage national unity. Because nation-states are smaller and less diversified than their imperial ancestors, they usually have a more centralized and uniform governmental administration. Following the European nation-state's victory in the 19th century, national identification typically took precedence over regional identity. The central (national) government frequently had authority over the provincial administration as well. Since the 1970s, when historically centralized governments (like France) began implementing different types of regional autonomy, this pattern has been largely reversed. Compared to its non-national antecedents, the nation-state's most evident influence is the establishment of a unified national culture through state policy. According to the nation-state paradigm, a nation is made up of its people who are bound together by a common ancestry, language, and many aspects of shared culture. They have a felling of cultural solidarity. The nation-state frequently attempts to establish the implied unity . The spread of nationalist narratives is typically associated with the establishment of national systems of compulsory primary education. Around the world, mythologized versions of national history are still often taught in elementary and secondary schools. Self-check Exercise 2 Q 1) The Nation-State system created a _________________by means of a state policy Q 2) The idea of the modern state or the nation-state system is traced to the 17.5    Development and Change in the State System States and the state system are so fundamental to modern political life that it's easy to assume they have always existed and will always be present. However, although global politics is constantly evolving, states and the state system have adapted to significant historical changes over time. Before the sixteenth century, clearly defined states did not exist, and it was during this period that they began to form in Western Europe. For the past few centuries, states and the state system have structured the political lives of a growing number of people worldwide, becoming universally accepted. Today, the system is global. The era of the sovereign state has coincided with the modern age, marked by expanding power, prosperity, knowledge, science, technology, literacy, urbanization, citizenship, freedom, equality, and rights. While the sovereign state originated in Europe, it spread to North America in the late eighteenth century and to South America in the early nineteenth century. As modernity spread globally, the state system followed suit. Conversely, the state system also helped spread modernity because it was inherently modern. The spread of the state system was gradual, with Sub-Saharan Africa remaining outside this growing system until the late nineteenth century and only becoming part of the regional state system in the mid-twentieth century. The modern state system in Europe began with the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years' War. We will first examine the pre-Westphalian world, then move on to the postWestphalian world, nineteenth-century Europe, and finally the major transitions of the twentieth century. This historical overview aims to trace key trends in the evolution of the state and its sovereignty over time. 17.5.1    The Pre-Westphalian World:Greece and the City-State System: The first clear historical manifestation of a state system can be traced to ancient Greece (500 BC – 100 BC), which consisted of numerous small city-states. These were not modern sovereign states with extensive territories but were still distinct political entities. The Greek city-states engaged in classic power politics, with their military forces vying for dominance. Despite the conflicts, they also developed significant economic relations and trade, which were unprecedented in their scope. This environment fostered the flourishing of Greek philosophy, with figures like Plato and Aristotle contributing to a strong intellectual tradition. 17.5.2    The Roman Empire As many Greek city-states were absorbed into the Roman Empire (100 BC – 400 AD), the empire served as a precursor to larger political systems. The Roman emperors imposed order and unity across vast territories, spanning much of Europe, the Mediterranean, Asia, the Middle East, and northern Africa. The Roman emperors were focused on maintaining control over various regions, tribes, kingdoms, and states within their empire, ensuring its borders were secure. The term ‘empire’ itself originated from the Roman experience, derived from the Latin word imperium. The Romans administered their empire through various forms of government, including proconsuls and local bureaucrats, ensuring effective governance across their vast territory. 17.5.3    Medieval Europe: After the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century AD, Europe became politically decentralized, but other forms of interaction, such as trade and travel, flourished. By 1000 AD, three main civilizations had emerged from the remnants of Rome. The largest of these was the Arabic civilization, which stretched from the Middle East and Persia to North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. This civilization was unified under the religious and political rule of the Islamic Caliphate, with Arabic becoming the dominant language and significant advancements in mathematics and science. The second civilization was the Byzantine Empire, centered in Constantinople, which continued the Roman legacy and was united by Christianity. The third civilization was Western Europe, where, after the collapse of Rome, central authority disappeared, leading to the spread of languages and cultures and the breakdown of Roman communication and transportation networks. Much of Western Europe fell into feudalism, where power was decentralized and controlled by local lords who taxed and governed their vassals. Feudalism was a response to the chaotic conditions of the time, and authority was spread across various overlapping levels, with the church being the most prominent institution. However, the church's desire for universalism often clashed with the reality of a fragmented political landscape, leading to confusion, disorder, and conflict throughout the medieval period. 17.5.4    The Late Medieval Period: During the late medieval period, trade and commerce expanded across wider areas as merchants traded along safer routes. Communication and transportation improved, and new technologies, such as water mills and windmills, made daily life easier while providing the infrastructure for agrarian economies. These economic and technological changes also led to shifts in social relations, with a new group emerging—an international business community whose interests extended beyond local regions. This cosmopolitan group gained experiences that were increasingly outside the direct influence of the church. 17.5.5    Treaty of Westphalia: Emergence of the Modern State System The Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) devastated Europe, with armies ravaging Central Europe, battling, and causing widespread suffering among civilians. The conflict eventually ended with the Treaty of Westphalia, which not only concluded the war but also significantly influenced the development of international relations. First, the treaty introduced the concept of sovereignty. The Holy Roman Emperor's power was diminished, and European monarchs recognized the need to stop religious conflicts. They agreed not to fight for Catholicism or Protestantism but instead allowed each monarch to choose the version of Christianity for their people. This shift meant that religious authority over the population was now held by the monarchs, not the church. This development emphasized the idea of sovereignty, where a sovereign ruler has exclusive rights within their territory. With the power of both the pope and the emperor reduced, the territorial state system was established. Secondly, leaders recognized the destructive and chaotic effects of mercenary armies. In response, following the Treaty of Westphalia, monarchs moved toward establishing permanent national armies. The growth of these forces required centralized control, as the state had to collect taxes to fund the military, and leaders gained absolute control over their troops. This marked the emergence of a state with a national army, an acknowledged sovereignty, and a solid secular foundation. The Treaty of Westphalia solidified a group of dominant states—Austria, Russia, Prussia, England, and France—that held power until the early 19th century. The transition from medieval to modern politics involved consolidating these changes within a unified framework: the sovereign state. European rulers freed themselves from the overarching religious-political control of Christendom and liberated themselves from the military power of feudal barons. Kings began to assert their sovereignty, defending their territory against both internal disorder and external threats. Sovereignty eventually evolved into state sovereignty. Over time, peasants moved from depending on local feudal lords to becoming direct subjects of the king, later evolving into citizens. This political shift from medieval to modern was essentially the creation of independent territorial states across Europe. The state secured its territory, turning it into state property, and transformed its population into subjects and, later, citizens. In essence, the state not only consolidated its territory but also unified and centralized its control under a sovereign government. All institutions were now subordinated to state authority and public law. The emerging state system had several key features. First, it was made up of neighboring states that mutually recognized each other’s legitimacy and independence. Second, this recognition did not extend outside Europe; political systems in Asia and Africa were considered inferior by Europeans and were eventually brought under European imperial control. Third, relations between European states were governed by international law and diplomatic norms, meaning they were expected to follow established rules of conduct in their interactions. Lastly, there was a balance of power among states designed to prevent any one state from becoming too powerful and attempting to dominate the continent, thus reestablishing an empire. Self- Check Exercise 3 Q 1)The primary and most obvious illustration of a state system in antiquity is that of_____________. Q 2) A state system's earlier and most evident ancient form is that of ___________, which were characterised by__________. Q 3) Up to the beginning of the 19th century, the ___________ created by the Treaty of    Westphalia    regulated    the    world    and    gave    rise    to ______,________,__________,___________ and _______ strong powers. 17.6    Modern Nation-state and its Elements: The contemporary nation-state system does not fundamentally deviates with the nineteenth century variants of the state system. As Prof. Holsti has observed “ Despite the great cultural contexts in which relations between states occur today, some important characteristics of the system represent merely an extension into new areas of the diplomatic, economic, ideological and military traditions of the Europeans”. What sets off the contemporary international system from its European predecessors is the rise in number of states, great capacity for destruction, subversion and predominant position of influence that has been achieved by three essentially non-European states, the Soviet Union, Communist China and the United States of America. The Nation States are characterised by three chief elements ,which also formed the basis of the states system in the earlier centuries also, are sovereignty, territorial integrity and legal equality of the states. Sovereignty is the first important element of a nation-state system. Sovereignty implies that the governments are the supreme law making authorities not only in their domains but also among other organisations. The “Treaty of Westphalia” led to the supremacy and consolidation of the Nation State System. It could not conclude treaties with other states or become members of international organisation or claim any other rights available to the sovereign states under international law. At present times also a political unit lacking sovereignty has no legal standing among other states. Palmer and Pekins have rightly observed that sovereignty “gives the state unique and virtually unlimited authority in all domestic matters and in relation to other states’’. In international relations, the conception of state sovereignty implies the equality of all nations, big or small, great powers or small powers. The second important feature of a nation-state system is territorial integrity which is logical corollary of the first. Since a sovereign state dislikes interference from external parties in its internal issues, it must refrain from intruding in other states' internal problems. The state may influence behaviour of each other through established diplomatic channels and must respect each othe’s territorial integrity. Thirdly, all the nation states irrespective of their size, population, military capabilities, economic resources, etc are not only based on the principle of sovereign equality but in terms of their worth they are regarded equal in the comity of nations The principle of’ “equal rights of all the nations large and small” has been accepted by the charter of the United Nations Organisation.. It may be noted that this principle of equality of different independent states was recognised almost at the same time when the nation-states made their appearance. Under the UN charter the 190 nation-states are regarded equal and have equal rights. This very principle finds acceptance in not only the membership to the general Assembly but also treated equally. This formal assertion of equality of all the sovereign states by the UN charter did not deter the great powers from asserting their greatness and special status. The great powers managed to secure a permanent seat in the UN security council, thus acquiring the right to veto important decisions of the security council. Self-check Exercise 4 Q 1) Which is the most indispensable element of a Nation State? 17.7    Setback to Nation-State System: In the post world war 2 period the concept of Nation-State system suffered a setback and its basic features underwent a change. The rise of several non-state actors and constraints due to spread of nuclear weapons and inter-dependence among the states, was responsible for weakening of the nation-state system. In the changed context while the role of states considerably declined the non-state-actors started playing more important role. The factors which contributed to the weakening of the traditional state-centric system is as follows: •     Firstly, the growing interdependence of the states due to communications revolution and increased mobility of the people all over the globe, compelled the states to have greater international interaction, and enhanced their dependence on each other. While the rich nations were dependent on the poor states for raw materials, the poor states were dependent on the rich and advanced nations for finished products which were badly needed by their growing population. In view of this growing inter-dependence the states were often compelled to modify their national interests. •     Secondly, States were forced to balance their national interests and objectives with those of other countries as a result of their increasing interdependence. The nation-states were forced to articulate their national interests and ambitions in a way that did not impede the accomplishment of internationally recognized goals. •     Thirdly, the nation-states to achieve quicker development willingly adopted towards regional and international integration. This is evident from the emergence of several regional organisations like EEC, ASEAN, SAARC etc. These organisations tried to promote greater co-operation among states in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, This in turn greatly facilitated the regional integration and dilution of the nation state system. •     Fourthly, the rat race towards arms manufacturing, stock piling and pilferage has greatly weakened the nation state system. In the interest of their national security, the non-nuclear states have tended to look towards the nuclear states, which has certainly given set-back to the concept of the equality of the states. •      Fifthly, the growing role of public opinion, in recent years has also affected the character of the “nation- state” system. There have been several instances where the states were forced to make adjustments in their policy goals and methods due to pressure of public opinion. •    Sixthly the idea of nation-state equality, which did not exist even during the classical era of the nation-state system, has become even less applicable in the years following World War 2. •    Furthermore, the nation state system has weakened significantly as a result of the expanding role that multinational corporations have played in the postWorld War II era. Despite not being officially affiliated with the government, these multinational corporations are largely focused on economic operations and have a significant influence on the economic policies and practices of third-world nations. All the above factors have greatly undermined the notion of nation-state system. The critics go to the extent of suggesting that the “nation-state” system has become obsolete. For example Herbert Spire says “International politics today is not conducted between or among nations, nor in its most important phases even between states”. But this view is refuted by Palmer and Perkins who hold that “ the nation state system still forms political basis and political framework of international life.” Friedman has also expressed similar views and observed, “ The nation-state still means political and legal sovereignty, including the right to solve conflict with other nations by war ; it claims the loyalties of its citizens to an extent incompatible with allegiance to humanity at large and it means a host of economic, social and cultural frontiers in a world which desperately needs understanding among the ordinary citizens of different nations…” Self-check Exercise 5 Q 1) In the present context the role of____________ has considerably declined and the __________ play an important role. Q 2) The rise of_____________ nuclear weapons has also greatly weakened the nation state system. 17.8    Summary The state system was created by humans and is a historical institution. The world's population has not always resided in independent nations. People here have lived under various forms of political organization for the majority of recorded human history. Political power was unpredictable and distributed during the Middle Ages. The majority of people were reliant on numerous authorities, spanning from the local landlord and ruler to the king in a far-off capital city, each with a variety of duties and powers. Some of these authority were political, while others were religious. People live under the conventional laws of the contemporary state, which is centralized in a single, legally supreme government. The modern state's evolution greatly aided in the rational and national organization of political authority and power. 17.9    Glossary Nation State: a group of people with the same culture, language, history, etc. who have formed an independent country. Westphalian System: The Westphalian state-centric system relied on some new principles, including the sovereignty, sovereign independence and power parity of the nation states, territorial integrity, non-intervention in others' domestic affairs, and the conduct of inter-state diplomatic relations. Sovereignty: Sovereignty is the supreme authority of the State. Sovereignty entails hierarchy within a state as well as external autonomy for states. 17.10    Answers to Self- Check Exercise UNIT 18 POWER Structure 18.1    Introduction 18.2    Objectives 18.3    The idea of National Power Self-check Exercise 1 18.4 Elements of national power Self check Exercise 2 18.5    Means for Exercising National Power Self check Exercise 3 18.6    Limitations on National power Self check Exercise 4 18.7    Summary 18.8    Glossary 18.9    Answer to Self-check exercises 18.10    Suggested readings 18.11    Terminal questions 18. INTRODUCTION Power is a fundamental and inseparable aspect of the state system. It is the means through which states enforce their policies, both domestically and internationally. While all states possess power, the amounts and types of power they hold can vary significantly. Power plays a central role in international relations, especially within realist theory, where it encompasses various dimensions such as influence, authority, force, and coercion. Power is the capacity to compel others to act in ways they otherwise would not. The concept of power is often discussed in the context of political action. Morgenthau defines power as "man’s control over the minds and actions of other men." Thus, political power represents the relationship of control between those who hold public authority and the people. According to Morgenthau, political power is a psychological relationship between those who wield it and those upon whom it is exercised. Power is inherently relational, meaning it is exercised not in isolation but in relation to other individuals or states. It is not just the absolute power of a state that matters but rather its power position relative to other states. Every state strives to enhance its national interest by increasing its power. However, problems arise when a state focuses solely on its own interests at the expense of others’ security. When each state prioritizes maximizing its national interest, it often leads to disruptions in international peace and stability. 18.2    Learning Objectives : After reading the unit the students will be able to answer: •     The meaning and concept of Power and National power. •     The various Elements and the Means for exercising National Power. •     Limitations on National power. 18.3    The Idea of National Power Machiavelli in The Prince (1513) and Hobbes in Leviathan (1651) both highlight the concept of ‘power’ as a central element in both national and international politics. Whether in domestic affairs or international relations, whether driven by religious motivations, humanitarian efforts, or geopolitical ambitions, politics fundamentally revolves around power. National power plays a key role in international politics. In the absence of a central, regulatory international authority, every state must secure its national interests by asserting its own power. Hans Morgenthau defines national power as "a psychological relation between those who exercise it and those over whom it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter, through the influence that the former exerts over the latter’s mind." Morgenthau further emphasizes that "International Politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim. Statesmen and peoples may ultimately seek freedom, security, prosperity, or power itself. They may define their goals in terms of religious, philosophical, economic, or social ideals, and may hope that these ideals will materialize through divine intervention, natural developments, or non-political means, such as cooperation with other nations or international organizations. But whenever they strive to realize their goals through international politics, they do so by striving for power." George Schwarzenberger elaborates on this by stating that "Power is the capacity to impose one’s will on others by reliance on effective sanctions in the case of noncompliance." Here, Schwarzenberger introduces the idea that power also includes the capacity for punishment when others fail to comply. A.F.K. Organski defines national power as "the ability to influence the behavior of others in accordance with one’s own end." Charles Schleicher describes power as "The ability to make a man do what one wants and not to do what one does not want." William Ebenstein offers a broader definition, stating that national power is "more than the sum total of population, raw materials, and quantitative factors. It includes its civil devotion, the flexibility of its institutions, its technical know-how, and its national character—elements that determine the total strength of a nation." In summary, national power is the ability or capability of a nation to achieve its national goals and objectives in relation to other nations. It encompasses the capacity to use force, the threat of force, or influence to secure the nation’s interests. The national power of a country is determined by a variety of factors. Frankel refers to these as "capabilities" or "capability factors," and they are often termed as the "determinants of national power" or the "elements of national power." Self check Exercise 1 1)    The ability to force one's_____________ on another is known as Power. 2)    A nation's capacity to safeguard the aims and objectives of its_______________ is known as its national power. 18 .4 Elements of National Power Hans Morgenthau has categorized the elements of national power into permanent and temporary factors, while Organski distinguishes them as natural and social determinants. Natural determinants include geography, resources, and population, whereas social determinants comprise economic development, political structures, and national morale. Additionally, Palmer, Perkins, and other scholars make a distinction between tangible and intangible elements of national power. Tangible elements can be quantified, such as economic development, resources, geography, population, and technology, while intangible elements involve psychological and ideational factors like ideology, morale, leadership, and diplomacy. The primary elements of national power include the following: geography, natural resources, population, economic development, industrial capacity, technology, ideology, leadership, government quality, national character, morale, and diplomacy. Let's explore these in more detail: 1)    Geography Geography is a stable, tangible, and permanent element that plays a significant role in determining national power. Geo-political theorists like Mackinder, Haushofer, and Skyman have emphasized geography's importance in shaping a nation's power. Napoleon Bonaparte famously stated, "The foreign policy of a country is determined by its geography." Key aspects of geography include: •    Size: A large nation can defend its borders, utilize natural resources, accommodate larger populations, and develop essential industries. However, large countries may face challenges such as inhospitable climates or lack of resources. Size alone doesn't determine power—countries like the USA are powerful despite their smaller size compared to Russia, while Israel remains strong despite its small territory. •    Location: A nation's location significantly impacts its strategic importance. For example, England's location enabled it to become a naval and imperial power, while the USA’s geographic isolation allowed it to follow an isolationist policy. Canada’s proximity to the US has prevented it from becoming a superpower. •    Climate: Climate influences food production, the economy, and the health of the population. Extreme climates, such as the Arctic or the Sahara, hinder development. •    Topography: A nation's physical terrain can affect its defense capabilities. For example, the USA's Atlantic and Pacific Oceans provide strategic protection, while India's Himalayas safeguard its northern borders. •    Boundaries: Stable, natural boundaries promote friendly relations between countries, while unsettled boundaries can lead to conflict and weaken national power. 2)    Natural Resources Natural resources are essential for a nation's self-sufficiency and development. A country rich in natural resources can develop its agriculture, industries, and military strength. Morgenthau divided natural resources into raw materials and food. Raw materials include minerals, natural products, and animal products, while food selfsufficiency is crucial for ensuring national security and avoiding dependence on foreign aid. For instance, India's Green Revolution in the 1970s helped establish food security, strengthening its national power. 3)    Population A well-educated, healthy, disciplined, and skilled population drives national development. A country with a poorly educated or ill-equipped population faces significant challenges to growth and national power. Investing in human resource development demonstrates a nation's commitment to strengthening its position. 4)    Economic Development A nation's level of economic development is a key determinant of its national power. A robust economy enables a country to build military strength and provide for its citizens’ welfare. Economic development allows a state to leverage aid, loans, trade, and other tools of international influence. Strong economies like the United States use their financial instruments to affect global policies. On the other hand, underdeveloped nations face constraints on their national power. 5)    Industrial Capacity Industrial capacity, supported by technological advancement, is critical for transforming raw materials into goods and military resources. Nations with strong industrial sectors can harness their resources to achieve significant global influence. Countries like the USA, Germany, China, and Japan have established themselves as superpowers because of their robust industrial capacity. In contrast, India's underdeveloped industrial sector has limited its growth despite having abundant raw materials. 6)    Technology Technological expertise is essential for a nation’s progress in various sectors, including industry, military, and infrastructure. Advancements in fields like information technology, nuclear technology, space exploration, and missile development have become important sources of national power. Nations that are technologically self-sufficient and capable of developing cutting-edge technology are positioned to exert greater influence on the world stage. 7)    Ideology Ideology plays an intangible but crucial role in national power. An ideology embraced by a state can shape its internal and external policies and influence its relations with other nations. For example, ideologies such as Nazism in Germany and Fascism in Italy led to international condemnation and weakened national power. During the Cold War, the ideological divide between communism and capitalism shaped global alliances, with India pursuing Non-Alignment (NAM) to resist superpower domination. 8)    Leadership Effective leadership is crucial for a nation's progress. Strong leadership directs the efficient utilization of resources and ensures that the country pursues its goals with determination. Competent leadership enables a nation to achieve its national interests, while weak or inefficient leadership hampers growth and reduces national power. 9)    Organization and Quality of Government A well-organized, efficient, and responsible government contributes significantly to national power. A corrupt or inefficient government wastes resources and reduces a nation's influence on the global stage. For example, Pakistan's weak civilian government has impeded its economic development and global standing. 10)    National Character and Morale National character refers to the collective traits, attitudes, and values of a nation's people. National morale, as defined by Morgenthau, reflects the degree of determination with which a nation supports its government’s foreign policy in both peace and war. Strong morale, boosted by national pride and resilience, enhances national power. India's national morale, for example, was bolstered by its achievements in the 1965 and 1971 wars, as well as its progress in technology and economic growth. 11)    Diplomacy Diplomacy is an essential tool for transforming available resources into national strength. Effective diplomacy enables a country to project its influence, secure allies, and manage international relations. The UK, despite losing its imperial status, has used diplomacy to maintain global influence, while the US has employed successful diplomacy to solidify its superpower status. 12)    Industrial Capacity and Resource Utilization Merely possessing raw materials isn't sufficient for national power; a country's industrial capacity is necessary to convert these resources into energy and industrial products. A nation’s ability to establish a solid industrial base, along with its resource utilization, is key to its economic and geopolitical strength. 13)    Military Preparedness A nation's military power is a crucial element of its overall power. Military preparedness, which involves a capable military establishment and the capacity to support foreign policy objectives, strengthens national power. Innovations in military technology, the quality of military leadership, and the size and quality of armed forces determine the extent of a nation's military power and, by extension, its national power. In conclusion, national power is determined by a complex interplay of tangible and intangible factors. Geography, resources, population, economic development, industrial capacity, technology, ideology, leadership, government quality, morale, diplomacy, and military preparedness all play crucial roles in shaping the strength and influence of a nation on the global stage. Self check Exercise 2 1)    A Nation’s_____________determines         its         foreign         policy. 2)Germans are known for their ____________ and_________. 3)    The United States is able to portray itself as the only superpower because to its effective ____________. 18.5    Means of Exercising National Power National power refers to the ability of a state to influence or control the behavior of other states in order to achieve its desired national interests. To exercise this power, states utilize various methods, which can be broadly categorized into four primary means: persuasion, rewards, punishments, and force. 1)    Persuasion Persuasion is one of the most common and effective tools for exercising national power in international relations. It involves convincing other nations to adopt a particular viewpoint or solution to a problem, dispute, or issue. The key to successful persuasion lies in presenting logical arguments, evidence, and reasoning that influence the other nation’s perspective on the matter at hand. This approach is especially important for smaller nations, which may lack the direct power or resources to impose their will through other means. Persuasion allows states to foster cooperation and alignment with their national interests without the need for force or punishment. 2)    Rewards The offering of rewards is another significant method for exercising national power. Rewards can be material, economic, or psychological in nature. Material rewards may include economic aid, grants, or loans that help support another nation, particularly in times of crisis or economic difficulty. Offering favorable trade terms or providing technological or military assistance can also be considered rewards. Psychological rewards, such as recognizing a nation’s leaders, scholars, or public figures by granting honors, awards, or recognition, serve to build goodwill and strengthen diplomatic ties. Rewards encourage positive behavior from other nations and induce them to align their policies with the rewarding state’s interests. 3)    Punishments Punishment is a more coercive method of exercising power, where a stronger nation may impose adverse measures on a weaker nation to compel it to alter its behavior. Such punishments can include the withdrawal or reduction of aid, imposition of trade restrictions, the cutting off of diplomatic relations, the expulsion of diplomats, or the levying of high tariffs and duties. While punishment can be a means of enforcement, nations often rely on the threat of punishment rather than its immediate imposition. The threat alone can be sufficient to force a nation to comply with the demands of a more powerful state. Punishment is often seen as a tool for deterring undesirable behavior, though it is less frequently used than persuasion or rewards. 4)    Force The final means of exercising national power is the actual use of force or physical violence. This involves military intervention or direct action to compel a change in the behavior of another state. The use of force can range from limited military strikes to full-scale military engagement. It is a more extreme and direct form of power, typically reserved for situations where other methods—such as persuasion, rewards, or punishment—have failed to yield the desired result. The use of force is often accompanied by the threat of further escalation or retaliation, and it can sometimes lead to long-term consequences, such as conflict or destabilization in international relations. In practice, force is generally used after diplomatic means have been exhausted, though the mere threat of force can be a powerful tool in itself. In international relations, states exercise national power through a variety of means, each with different levels of intensity and impact. Whether through the persuasive art of diplomacy, the strategic offering of rewards, the imposition of punishments, or the use of force, nations seek to secure their national interests. The choice of method depends on the specific situation, the relative power dynamics, and the desired outcome. Ultimately, the effective exercise of national power allows states to influence the global order and pursue their strategic goals on the world stage. Self check Exercise 3 Q 1) What are the various types of rewards for depicting National Power? 18.6    Limitations on National Power While national power enables a state to secure its interests and exert influence over other nations, there are several factors that limit the exercise of this power. These limitations help maintain order, peace, and stability in international relations. Let's explore the key limitations on national power: 1)    Balance of Power The balance of power refers to the distribution of power among nations to prevent any one state from becoming too dominant. Just like checks and balances in domestic politics, the balance of power in international relations ensures that no state can impose its will unchecked. When one nation becomes too powerful, other nations or groups of nations use their own power to counteract that dominance and maintain equilibrium. This system aims to prevent the rise of a hegemon or empire that could destabilize the global order. 2)    International Morality International morality acts as an ethical limit on the pursuit of power. If power were to operate without any moral constraints, the international system would resemble a "state of war," as described by Hobbes, where might would make right. Such unchecked power would lead to societal disruption, enslavement, and potentially the extinction of individual freedoms. Thus, international morality provides a set of codes and norms that regulate the behavior of states, ensuring that the quest for power is restrained by principles of justice, fairness, and respect for human dignity. 3)    World Public Opinion World public opinion serves as a powerful limitation on national power. While this concept is more abstract and harder to quantify, it plays a crucial role in shaping the behavior of states. No nation can freely pursue its interests if doing so goes against the sentiments of the international community. Public opinion, whether expressed through protests, media coverage, or diplomatic pressure, can prevent nations from acting unilaterally in ways that are seen as unjust or harmful to global peace and security. This form of opinion transcends national borders and unites countries on issues of universal importance. 4)    International Law International law provides a framework of moral and legal norms for the regulation of states' conduct on the global stage. Just as laws govern behavior within a society, international law sets rules for how nations interact, resolve disputes, and protect human rights. Violating international law can result in sanctions, diplomatic isolation, or loss of legitimacy in the eyes of other states. These legal norms limit the ability of states to act according to their own interests if doing so infringes upon the rights of others or breaches international agreements. 5)    Disarmament Efforts toward disarmament, particularly through organizations like the League of Nations and the United Nations, have sought to limit the national power that comes from military might. Through various conventions and treaties, such as nuclear nonproliferation agreements, the international community has attempted to control and reduce the availability and use of weapons of mass destruction. These efforts seek to prevent the potential for catastrophic warfare and curb the destructive power of military force, placing limitations on states’ ability to use force to achieve their objectives. 6)    International Organizations International organizations, such as the League of Nations and the United Nations, are designed to limit national power by fostering cooperation, preventing conflicts, and addressing global challenges. These organizations work to resolve disputes peacefully, promote human rights, and prevent the escalation of military confrontations. The very existence of such organizations restrains unilateral action by states, as they are often required to work within these frameworks when seeking to achieve their goals. Additionally, decisions made within these organizations often limit a state's ability to act independently, as cooperation with other states is necessary to address global issues. While national power is an essential tool for states in pursuing their interests and securing their goals, it is not without its limitations. The balance of power, international morality, world public opinion, international law, disarmament efforts, and international organizations all serve to constrain the exercise of power in the global arena. These limitations ensure that no state can act unilaterally without consideration for the broader international community, maintaining peace and stability in the international system. Self check Exercise 4 Q 1) What role does U.N.O plays in the maintenance of peace? Q 2) International public opinion transcends_________ and unites different nations with regard to___________. 18.7    Summary National power can be defined as the ability or capacity of a nation to achieve its goals and secure its national interests in relation to other states. It encompasses the use or threat of force, as well as influence, to safeguard these objectives. Essentially, national power is the ability to shape and control the behavior of other nations in alignment with a state’s own will. In the realm of international relations, national power serves as a critical tool for securing a nation's interests. The key elements that constitute national power include geography, natural resources (such as raw materials and food), population, economic development and industrial capacity, technology, military preparedness, ideology, leadership, the quality of government, national character and morale, and diplomacy. These elements collectively determine a nation’s strength and ability to influence the global order. 18.8    Glossary •  Power: In social science and politics, power refers to the capacity of an individual or state to influence the behavior or conduct of others. •  Force: Force refers to the actual use of strength or power to achieve a particular goal or objective. •    Geo-Politics: Geo-politics deal with the impact of geography, both human and physical on politics and international relations. •    Diplomacy: Diplomacy is the practice and art of managing negotiations and relations between representatives of different states. •    Tangible Elements: These are elements that are measurable, quantifiable, and can be assessed, such as resources, population, and industrial capacity. 18.9    Answers to self- Check ExercisesExercise 1) 1)    Will 2) National Interest Exercise 2) 1)    geography. 2) discipline and industriousness 3) diplomacy Exercise 3) 1)    see 18.5 Exercise 4) 1) see 18.6    2) national boundaries, fundamental issues. 18.10    Suggested Readings Laswell, H.D, World Politics and Personal Insecurity. New York: Free Press, 1965. Claude, M.L jr., Power and International Relations. New York: Random House, 1962. Morgenthau, H.J., Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace(4th Ed). New York: Alfred Knopf, 1966 Norman D. Palmer and Howard C. Perkins, International Relations, CBS Publishers and Distributers, 2001. Kumar, Mahendra, Theoretical Aspects of International Politics, Shiva Lal Agrawal and Company, Agra, 1967. Schleicher, Charles P, Introduction to International Relations, INC N. Jersy 1963. 18.11    Terminal Questions Q.1What do you understand by National Power? Which is the most essential component of national power? Q 2) Explain about the idea of national power. Which restrictions apply to National Power? UNIT 19NATIONAL INTEREST Structure 19.1    Introduction 19.2    Learning Objectives 19.3    Meaning and Definition of national interest Self-Check Exercise 1 19.4    Elements and Classification of National Interest Self-Check Exercise 2 19.5    Methods/Instruments for the Promotion of Securing of National Interest Self-Check Exercise 3 19.6    Formulation & Significance of National Interest Self-Check Exercise 4 19.7    Summary 19.8    Glossary 19.9 Answers to Self-check questions 19.10    Suggested Readings 19.11 Terminal Questions 19.1    Introduction The notion of ‘National Interest’ emerged with the evolution and arrival of the “Nation-States” on the world scene during the modern period of world history. What the states wish to protect or attain in regard to other states is commonly referred to as the national interest. Different countries set their priorities based on their national interests and steer international relations in their particular ways. Every country's foreign policy is developed based on its national interest and is always working to achieve the goals it sets. The problem with national interest is that it constantly clashes with universal principles. Every state has the widely acknowledged right to protect its national interests. Every state seeks to use the national interest as an explanation for its actions. A state's national interests always have an impact on its course of action. . Nations chart their courses in international affairs in accordance with their priorities, which also reflects their stakes in international politics-security, power, prestige, economic sufficiency and self preservation. Hence, an understanding the meaning and content of national interest is vital. A person's stance between a variety of extremes, such as ideals vs self-interests, idealists versus realists, short-term and long-term concerns, and conventional and individual concerns, decides what is considered as national interest. The task of defining national interest is rendered difficult also because of the fact that there is a very thin boundary between the domestic and international activities of a state. The national interest at times comes into conflict with the interest of other states. 19.2    Learning Objectives: After reading the Unit the students will be able to answer. •    To understand the meaning, nature and purpose of National Interest. •     To analyse the various components and means for achieving National Interest. 19.3    Meaning and Definition of National Interest: The realist approach to the study of international relations gives the idea of national interest a significant role. The term "national interest" is ambiguous and not clear, and its meaning differs depending on the circumstances at hand. It has always been employed by statesmen and policymakers in ways that fit them and their goal of upholding the policies of their governments. All major powers in the first and the second world war period justified their actions in the name of national interest. Hitler and Mussolini glorified their actions in the guise of German and Italian national interest respectively. International Politics is replete with examples justifying “National Interests”. In the name of "US national interest," US presidents have continually defended their choices to go after the creation of ever-more-destructive weapons. In an effort to confront the challenge posed by the former USSR and to safeguard US interests in the Indian Ocean, the USA justified the setting up of a powerful nuclear base at Diego Garcia. he (former) USSR used "Soviet national interests" as justification for its operations in Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989. China used efforts to protect its national interests as justification for its border disputes with the Soviet Union and India. The P-5 nations now discuss arms control and non-proliferation in terms of each country's national interests. It is possible to cite all of these and numerous other instances to highlight the uncertainty around the idea of national interest. Even the unabated Ukraine-Russian war is being justified in the name of National Interest. The process of developing a generally agreed-upon definition of national interest is hampered by this uncertainty. The concept of National Interest has been defined differently by different scholars. According to Hans J Morgenthau, “the meaning of national interest is survival—the protection of physical, political and cultural identity against encroachments by other nation-states”. In the words of V.V. Dyke National Interest are the “The values, desires and interests which states seek to protect or achieve in relation to each other” “desires on the part of sovereign states”. In the words of Charles Lerche and Abdul, “ National Interest can be defined as the general, long term and continuing purpose which the state, the nation, and the government all see themselves as serving.” According to Joseph Frankel National interests “ amounts to the sum total of all the national values- national in both meanings of the word, both pertaining to the nation and to the state”. In the words of Robert Cantor, “The concept of national interest implies that there can be a coherent foreign policy representing interconnected national concerns”. These national concerns represent broader goals of the country's citizens as a whole and not the restrictive interests of the states. According to realists, a state’s position in the international system determines is determined by its foreign policy which in turn is based on the particular specific “National Interest”. In the opinion of liberals, national interests depends on the state’s domestic society and its culture. Nations arrange their priorities on the power of their resources. Security has been seen to be the most important of these priorities. Powerful nations with worldwide political, economic and military activities, like that of the United States and the Soviet Union , placed high priority on security, while smaller nations with limited interests and limited resources, such as Switzerland and Sweden, pursued their own interests and diplomatically protected them. These limited resources compel the nations to reorder priorities. No nation has unlimited resources, so priorities have to be ordered. For example, a nation threatened by its neighbours puts security on the top of its agenda, but a nation which is relatively secure, may concentrate on its economic development. Great Britain sacrificed much of its power and territories to concentrate on its economic problems after the Second World War. General Charles de Gaulle concentrated on nuclear weapons development programmes to restore Fance to the status of one of the most powerful nations it once had been. Therefore, countries set their objectives so that reasonable predictions about both home and international politics can serve as the foundation for foreign policy decisions. The elements of national interests are these priorities. All nations have their minimum acceptable level of economic sufficiency. Obviously, the protection and improvement of that standard becomes a part of that national interest. The Arab states’ use of oil as a diplomatic weapon in their conflict with Israel forced many nations to reassess their foreign policy priorities. In the aftermath of the Arab oil embargo, many nations, normally friendly to Israel, decided that their national interests were better served by having access to oil. States work to preserve or advance their interests as a nation. These are foreign policy goals as well. These objectives can be further subdivided into goals. In terms of the time frame they cover, goals and objectives are not the same. Considering a number of explanations, the states' national interests are likely to shift. It could be due to change in governments or interests of the most influential groups or a general change in the international situation, like the onset of globalization or the shift from bipolar to a multipolar world. National interest is neither “the desirable best” nor “ the possible best” only.it is both and yet something more. It is, in fact, a guide which continuously asks policy-makers to keep in view “ the desirable best” and try to achieve “the possible best” and thus seek a closer approximation of one to the other Self-check Exercise 1 Q 1) A state’s position in the international system is depended on its______________ and thus predicts its_________. Q 2) _____________was a way to protect the National interest by the Arab Staes against Israel. 19.4 : Elements of National Interest Two categories are typically used to describe the national interests that countries aim to protect: (1) Vital or Necessary Components of National Interest and (2) Variable or Non-Viable Components of National Interest. (1)Essential or Required   Elements: According to Morgenthau, identity or survival are essential elements of the national interests that a foreign policy aims to protect. He breaks down identity into three components: physical characteristics. both cultural and political identities. Territorial identity is a component of physical identity. A politicaleconomic system is a component of political identity. The historical values that a country upholds as part of its cultural history are represented by its cultural identity. These are referred to be vital components since they are easily recognized and analyzed and are necessary for the country's survival. In order to secure or safeguard its critical interests, a nation may even choose to go to war. A country's foreign policy decisions are always made with the goal of securing and enhancing its security. Nations are currently undertaking efforts to ensure international peace and security since, in the modern world, national security is inextricably tied to global peace and security. Therefore, a key element of national interest is security. The U.S intervention in Vietnam, West Asia and Afghanistan were regarded as necessary for the protection of its vital interests. The interests that are considered as less vital or secondary are those for which they would not go to war but want to see them fulfilled , such as improvement in trade or cultural contacts. The vital nature of national interest changes under the impact of various factors. Sometimes, a change in the values of leadership or people brings about a change in the concept of the vital national interest. Sometimes, an interest, which may not have any intrinsic importance, may become vital if it assumes symbolic value or it involves the question of national prestige. In deciding the vital nature of national interest of the states it is also necessary to take into account the capabilities and the costs required for its protection. (2)    Non-vital or Variable Components of National Interest: The elements of national interest that are not essential are those that are dictated by the need to secure the essential elements or by external factors. Individual states' aspirations that they would undoubtedly like to see realized but for which they will not wage war are regarded as less important or secondary. The decision-makers, public opinion, party politics, sectional or group interests, and political and moral folkways are some of the many elements which influence these. “These variable interests are those desires of individual states which they would, no doubt, like to see fulfilled but for which they will not go to war. Whereas the vital interests may be taken as goals, the secondary interests may be termed as objectives of foreign policy.” In the words of Prof Dyke these include: “Prosperity, Peace, Ideology, Justice, Prestige, Aggrandisement and Power. Though each state defines these objectives in a manner which suits its interests in changing circumstances, yet these objectives can be described as common to almost all states.The national interest is the perceived needs and desires of one sovereign state in relation to other sovereign states comprising the external environment”. These “ National Interest”may be divided into four basic needs or requirements which account for all of a country's foreign policies. These basic national interests are: 1. Defence interests: the protection of the nation-state against the threat of physical violence directed from another state, and/or an externally inspired threat to the political and economic system of government. 2.    Economic interests: the enhancement of the nation-state's economic well being in relations with other states. 3.    World order interests: the maintenance of an international political and economic framework in which the nation-state may feel secure, and in which its citizens and commerce are protected abroad. 4.    Ideological interests: the furtherance in the external environment of a set of values which the nation-state believes to be universally good. Self-check Exercise 2. Q 1) How will you distinguish between concepts of national interest that are considered to be vital and those that are not? 19.5 Classification of National Interests: Thomas W. Robinson offers a six-fold classification of interests that nations attempt to obtain in order to be more specific in analyzing the interests that a nation has in mind. 1.    The Primary Interests: The Primary interests are the indispensable interests without which no nation can survive as well as compromise. These interests deals with preserving physical integrity, political stability and cultural identity. At no cost the State can let these interests fall in jeopardy. 2.    Secondary Interests: Although Secondary interests are not as vital as the Primary but they too play an important role in the very survival of the States.These interests add value to the primary interests.These are less important than the primary interests. Secondary Interests are quite vital for the existence of the state. These interests includes safeguarding the citizens overseas and providing diplomatic immunity to diplomatic personnel. 3.    Permanent Interests: Permanent interests are relatively stable with long term gains for the State. They are not dynamic. Promotion of territorial sovereignty is the permanent interest of every nation state. For example the US's desire to protect its sphere of influence in the Indian Ocean during the cold war was its permanent interest. 4.    Variable Interests: These are the national interests that, under certain conditions, are deemed essential for the welfare and well-being of the country. These may deviate from both main and long-term interests in this way. The variable interests are mainly influenced by “the cross currents of personalities, public opinion, sectional interests, partisan politics and political and moral folkways.” 5.    The General Interests: General Interests pertain to the whole world irrespective of its power. Positive circumstances that apply to many countries or in a number of specific areas, including trade, economics, diplomatic relations, etc., are referred to as a nation's general interests. All countries have a common interest in preserving world peace. The same is true for arms control and disarmament. 6.    Specific Interests: These are characterized in terms of time and place and are the logical extensions of the broad interests of the states. For example the demand to establish and implement New International Economic Order (NIEO) is specific National Interest. Three international interests—identical interests, complimentary interests, and competing interests—are also mentioned by T.W. Robinson in addition to these six kinds of national interest. Interests that are shared by many states fall into the first category; those that are not complementary but can serve as the foundation for consensus on certain particular issues fall into the second category; and those that are neither complementary nor identical fall into the third This classification is neither exhaustive nor absolute, though. Conflicting interests may eventually turn into complementary ones, while complementary interests may eventually become identical. All of these essential and non-essential elements of national interest are examined when a country's national interest is studied. We can analyze the national interests of all nations with the help of T. W. Robinson's six-fold classification approach. We can analyze how countries behave in international relations with the aid of such a study. Self-Check Exercise 3 Q 1) Permanent interests are___________ constant____________ interests of the state. Q 2) The nation-states' primary and permanent interests are not the same as their________________. 19.5    Methods for the Securing of National Interest Every Nation has a fundamental privilege and responsibility so as to protect its Every national interests. Nations employ a variety of strategies in their persistent attempts to uphold their national interests.Five common strategies or tools that a country typically employs to protect its interests in international relations are the following: 1.    Diplomacy as a Means of National Interests: Securing national interests is accomplished through diplomacy. A country's foreign policy is communicated to other countries through diplomacy. It aims to protect the interests of the country. In order to accomplish the intended goals and objectives of their country's national interests, diplomats negotiate with other countries' diplomats and decision-makers.Presenting national interest aims and objectives in a way that can convince others that they are legitimate and just demands of the country is a key component of the art of diplomacy. In order to exercise authority and achieve national interest goals as determined by their country's foreign policy, diplomats employ persuasion, threats, rewards, and threats of denial of benefits. The best way to resolve disputes and balance the state's conflicting interests is through diplomatic negotiations. Diplomacy attempts to achieve the intended goals and objectives of national interest through compromise, accommodation, and reconciliation. Diplomacy is the most widely accepted and commonly employed method of ensuring national interest. According to Morgenthau, the most important tool is diplomacy. However, diplomacy cannot guarantee all of the national interest's aims and objectives. 2.    Propaganda: Propaganda is the second crucial strategy for maintaining national interest. To give voice to your specific concern by generating a vast public appeal is the art of propaganda. It is the art of persuading people that the aims, objectives, or outcomes that are sought to be achieved are just. It entails making an effort to convey to countries the importance of safeguarding the objectives that they hope to accomplish. In the words of Frankel“Propaganda is a systematic attempt to affect the minds, emotions and actions of a given group for a specific public purpose.” The intention of propaganda is always to always to safeguard self-interests, which are completely influenced by the propagandist's national interests, and it is aimed directly to the citizens of foreign states.The use of propaganda to garner support for national interest objectives has expanded in recent years due to the groundbreaking advancement of the Internet as an instrument of communication. 3.    Economic Means: Rich and developed countries disburse loans and economic aid to protect their interests in international affairs. The existence of a very large differences between affluent and poor countries gives the former a significant opportunity to advance their interests in relation to the latter.The role of economic tools of foreign policy has been strengthened by the impoverished and less developed countries' reliance on the wealthy and developed countries for the sale of raw materials, the importation of arms, technological know-how, industrial goods, and foreign aid. Conducting international economic relations has become a crucial tool for developing national interests in this age of internationalization and globalisation. 4.    Alliances and Treaties: Two or more states participate into alliances and treaties in order to safeguard their shared interests. The main purpose of this tool is to protect complementary and identical interests. Even conflicting interests, though, might result in treaties and alliances with like-minded nations against common antagonists or rivals. The members of alliances and treaty signatories are legally obligated to act toward the rapid development of mutually agreed-upon objectives. Alliances can be formed to secure a variety of shared interests or to enhance a specific interest. The type of interest that is being pursued determines the character of an alliance. As a result, the relationships are either economic or military in character. Military alliances like NATO, SEATO, CENTO, ANZUS, and others were established in response to the necessity to protect the security of capitalist democratic states against the growing "communist menace." Similarly, the conclusion of the Warsaw Pact among the communist nations was prompted by the necessity to confront the challenge to socialism. The creation of the European Common Market (now known as the European Union) and numerous other financial institutions resulted from the necessity of rebuilding Europe's economy following World War II. The Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation with the (former) Soviet Union was concluded in 1971 in response to the needs of Indian national interests. Thus, alliances and treaties have become prevalent ways to protect national interests. 5.    Coercive Means: There is no denying the fact that power plays a part in international relations. The use of force by states to protect their national interests is an unwritten rule of international relations. Coercive means, short of war, are also recognized by international law as tools that governments can employ to achieve their intended aims. The most common coercive methods that a country can use to make others accept a certain behaviour or refrain from a behaviour that the nation deems harmful are intervention, non-intercourse, embargoes, boycotts, retaliation, retortion, severance of relations, and pacific biocides. Despite being deemed unlawful tactics, governments nonetheless employ aggression and war in the real course of international affairs. These days, countries understand that the best ways to advance their national interests are through diplomatic and peaceful dispute resolution techniques like diplomacy and talks. However, these still employ coercive methods whenever they deem it necessary and convenient. A nation frequently uses its military might to achieve its intended aims and purposes, and it is still considered a significant component of national power. It is now widely acknowledged that using military force to combat international terrorism is a reasonable and natural way to combat the threat. The use of war and other coercive methods to eradicate international terrorism is now accepted by the general public. Every nation uses these methods to protect their national interests. Countries have the freedom to select the necessary tools for securing their national interests, as well as the right and obligation to do so. They are free to employ peaceful or coercive methods as needed or desired but, the countries are supposed to abstain from utilizing coercive methods, especially war and aggression, in the cause of global peace, security, and prosperity. It is anticipated that they will rely on amicable methods to resolve conflicts and protect their interests. All countries must sincerely try to align their national interests with the global interests of peace, security, environmental preservation, human rights protection, and sustainable development when establishing their aims and objectives. All nations have a common interest in peaceful coexistence, peaceful conflict resolution, and intentional mutual cooperation for growth. Therefore, in addition to advancing their own national interests, the nations must work to safeguard and advance shared interests for the benefit of the entire international community. Because of all of this, it is imperative that each country base its foreign policy and international relations on its own national interests, as understood and defined in a way that is consistent with the interests of all people. Securing the stated objectives of national interest through the use of national power is the goal of foreign policy. Self check Exercise 4 Q 1) The most common, traditional, and successful method of resolving disputes and balancing the___________ of the state is through ___________. Q 2) ) How treaties and alliances support and advance national interests during times of crisis. Give appropriate instances. 19.6    Formulation & Significance of National Interest Although its precise definition may differ from country to country and from time to time, Broadly, there are four interconnected and interdependent principles that determine a nation's national interest.Each proposition has four objectives and each objective, in turn, may have several goals (SMART goals-specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound). Elected officials create a comprehensive national policy framework by means of administrative approvals and legislative enactments including a variety of political and socioeconomic measures in order to accomplish these aims. One such element of this national policy is foreign policy. Once approved, these policies are handed over to the concerned civil servants by the cabinet/ministers in charge of the respective ministries for implementation. Here enter the civil servants who make strategies on how best to implement these policies and achieve the goals and objectives laid down in these policies most efficiently and effectively. The following are the four propositions and the national interest goals: 1)Territorial Integrity and National Sovereignty The preservation of a nation's geographical integrity is the primary element of its national interest in the sense that in case of any aggression from outside or internal subversion, the country can defend itself. The preservation of the state's sovereignty is related to the aforementioned since it allows the state to make all decisions without external pressure or direction. There cannot be two opinions about the overriding importance of promoting and maintaining territorial integrity and preserving national sovereignty in the formulation of the national interest of a State. To exist as an independent, sovereign nationstate, the country tries to achieve the following four objectives 1.    Amicable settlement of any territorial dispute it has with the neighboring country particularly if it is so vital that you must fight a war if necessary 2.    Maintaining well-trained and well-equipped defense forces by providing them with state-of-the-art training and equipping them with modern weaponry. 3.    Building credible indigenous defense armaments capability to attain selfsufficiency in the production of conventional arms and ammunition and acquiring an effective nuclear, strategic and tactical, capability to compensate it for the lack of adequate strategic depth and comparatively inadequate resources against its adversary. 4.    Cultivating friendly relations with global powers to help it with the requisite diplomatic support in case of external aggression.For this reason, a mediumsized nation like Pakistan has been fostering cordial ties with nations that can support its defense requirements. Joining American-sponsored defence pacts like SEATO and CENTO and concluding Mutual Defence Pact with the USA in the 1950s by Pakistan was precisely for this reason. When the USA imposed an embargo on the supply of military equipment during the 1965 War with India, Pakistan had no option but to court China. At the same time, Pakistan has been maintaining friendly relations with its neighbours and the Muslim countries for diplomatic support in case of external aggression. 2) Wellbeing of its Citizens 1.    The well-being of people in general is the second element of a nation's national interest, which is achieved by making sure the nation has the resources needed to raise the standard of living for the average citizenry by providing for their fundamental requirements at a reasonable price. This in turn depends on a nation expanding at a pace that matches its demands for growth and survival. A state strives to accomplish the following four goals for this aim. 2.    Achieving sustainable and inclusive growth whose gains are distributed equitably among all the regions and to all the sections of the society. 2.Having access to international markets allows it to sell its exportable surplus at competitive prices in addition to guaranteeing a continuous supply of vital resources, including technology. 3.    Attracting Foreign Direct Investment to develop its human and natural resources, modernization of its economy, and upscaling its technology base. 4.     Obtaining foreign economic assistance from bilateral or multilateral sources to bridge the resource gap 5.    When a state is unable to provide for the fundamental needs of its citizens, it loses legitimacy and poses an existential threat to the nation. History is replete with instances of states breaking due to economic shortfalls. After all, one of the main reasons for the breakup of the former USSR was its inability to provide its citizens with the basic goods of daily use. 3)Maintaining Internal Cohesion and Harmony Thirdly, the National Interest of the country can be maintained by means of harmonization of varied diversities and doing away with divisive tendencies. With few exceptions, all modern nation-states are multi-ethnic entities in which the different communities compete for scarce resources. This is a healthy competition if it remains confined within the constitutional limits. But if certain groups go beyond those lines, it might undermine the state's fundamentals and pose an existential threat to the nation. Therefore, rather than enhancing national cohesion, the country's interest rests in suppressing that turmoil. It has four goals for this purpose: Formulating a shared vision of a just and prosperous country enshrined in a duly formulated with consensus and formally approved constitution 1.     Ensuring that this shared vision is implemented by well-functioning vibrant institutions to create stakes for everyone to feel satisfied in a united nation-state. 2.    Main-streaming the marginalized sections and disgruntled elements of society by ensuring good governance at different levels of interaction and taking affirmative action on a selective basis where needed 3.     Strengthening the democratic process by promoting true political culture (of tolerance and accommodation), strengthening its democratic structures (of parliaments, election commissions,) and letting the various democratic processes (of holding elections at federal, provincial, and local levels) continue uninterruptedly Nation-building has been one of the biggest challenges almost every post-colonial state has been facing since its independence. Its national interest demands building a nation with a vision of common destiny out of a multitude of culturally distinct nationalities having years of rich heritage, languages, and culture into a nation that is at peace within and peace without. It strives to mainstream the marginalized sections and disgruntled elements of society by ensuring good governance at different levels of interaction and taking affirmative action on a selective basis where needed. It strengthens the democratic dividends by promoting true political culture (of tolerance and accommodation), strengthening its democratic structures (of parliaments, election commissions,) and letting the various democratic processes (of holding elections at federal, provincial, and local levels) continue uninterruptedly 4)    Regional Peace and Stability Last but not least, maintaining regional peace and stability in the area in which a nation is located or has significant interests constitutes the fourth key element of that nation's national interest.While reserving its right to defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity, every peace-loving nation-state, acting responsibly in global and regional affairs, believes in peaceful coexistence. Consequently, regional peace is the cornerstone of the national interest of every state for which it has four objectives; 1.    Preserving cordial ties with all of the neighboring nations in the spirit of mutual respect, non-interference, and peaceful resolution of unresolved conflicts. 2. Installing the state's writ throughout the nation to ensure that terrorists have nowhere to hide and can cause trouble both inside and outside the nation 4.    Striving for the establishment of a regional broad-based framework of counterterrorism to obviate the possibility of its spill over into your country 5.    Promotion of regional cooperation, development, and trade to reap the benefits of economies of scale and comparative advantage of natural endowments 5.No nation, no matter how strong, can develop and live in peace if there is unrest just outside its boundaries. A civil war in a neighbouring country can cause internal unrest if some members of the populace begin to participate in the external conflict, crisis, or war out of religious or ethnic affinities, in addition to the influx of refugees and the ensuing repercussions. It is impossible to overstate how crucial it is to precisely define a nation's national interest in terms of long-term goals and objectives that are founded on an unbiased evaluation of the existing circumstances. Such a proclamation serves a number of important purposes. Firstly, it is a consensus document, stated explicitly in both official doctrines and unofficial publications such as foreign policy or national security doctrines, concepts, or strategies. It, therefore, provides clear cut guidelines to those responsible for policy formulation and its implementation, establishing a hierarchy of national priorities to avoid the ineffective or inefficient use of scarce resources Secondly, as a manifestation of long-term higher-order collective wisdom, it overrides the manifestos of political parties if they are not in synchronization with the dictates of the national interest. Consequently, national interest disciplines politicians and significantly restrict the freedom of their action. Thirdly, besides restraining opposition, a clearly-defined national interest puts reasonable constraints on the government to obviate the possibility of misusing this consensus document by misinterpreting its any part to gain political advantage over the opposition. Fourthly, clearly stated national interests provide the citizens, civil society organizations, and the media with strict criteria for evaluating the policy conducted by those who make national policy decisions. Fifthly, it also helps in avoiding the “policy capture” whereby the powerful elements in the state or society can hijack the policy formulation for their vested interest instead of pursuing the achievement of objectives of national interest. Even in highly developed democratic countries, big corporations particularly those dealing with arms manufacturing, and oil are known to push their interests to the national level and garner government support Finally, by publicly pronouncing its national interest it not only creates confidence in the public about the nation's continued existence and development but also gives clear signals to the outside world about its intentions, and its capabilities to defend those interests.From the above discussion, one can realize how important it is to have a comprehensive set of national policies for safeguarding the national interest. These policies to be effective should not only be individually internally consistent but should also be externally consistent in the sense that no two policies should conflict with each other. Every policy must be a part of a comprehensive whole creating what is called a synergistic effect. Self-Check Exercise 5 Q 1) Is it accurate to say that every Nation-State's National Interest is based on regional peace? Q 2) What do you understand by SMART goals of foreign policy? 19.11    Summary Throughout history, every nation-state has been facing multifarious challenges, big or small. Ranging from survival and security to economic growth and global image, these challenges can stem from any source- internal dynamics or external situations, or a combination of both. Some of these may be due to their own historical and structural contradictions or just due to global fault lines, threatening their very existence. A timely, appropriate and adequate response to these challenges is the ultimate worth of National Interest. 19.12    Glossary Legitimacy: It is the belief that a rule, institution, or leader has the right to govern. Political culture: means a set of shared views and normative judgments held by a population regarding its political system. Nation-building: Nation building means the process of growth a nation-state by organizing social groups within a defined territory under common political institutions and an effective government. Aggrandisement: The act of aggrandizing, or the state of being aggrandized or exalted in power, rank, honor, or wealth; exaltation; enlargement 19.12    Answers to Self-Check exercises Exercise 1 1)    national interest, foreign policy. 2)Oil Diplomacy Exercise 2 1)    See 19.4 Exercise 3 1)    relatively, long-term 2) variable interests. Exercise 4 1)    divergent interests, Diplomatic negotiations     2) See 19.5 Exercise 5 1)    see 19.6    2) see 19.5 and 19.6 19.13    Suggested Readings: Frankel, Joseph, International Relations in a Changing World, Oxford. 1979 Coulumbus, Theodore A. and Wolf, James H., Introduction to International Relations: Power and justice, New Delhi, 1986, Morgenthau, Hans J., Dilemmas of Politics, University of Chicago Press, 1958 Robinson, Thomas W., National Interest, in James N. Rosenau, ed. International Politics and Foreign Policy, New York, 1961 Palmer, Norman D. and Perkins, Howard C., International Relations The World Community in Transition, Calcutta, 1970. 19.14    Terminal Questions Q.1 What do you understand by National Interests? Discuss its meaning definitions in the light of various definitions. Q.2 What are the methods of Securing National interests? Q.3 In the anarchical world order how national interests are formulated? UNIT 20 Security: Traditional and Non-Traditional Structure 20.1    Introduction 20.2    Learning Objectives 20.3    Meaning and Definition of Security Self-Check Exercise 1 20.4 . History of Evolution as a concept Self-Check Exercise 2 20.5    Salient features of Traditional notions of Security: 20.5.1    Traditional Notions: External 20.5.2    Traditional Notions: Internal Self-Check Exercise 3 20.6    Non-Traditional Notions of security 20.6.1 New Sources of Threats 20.6.2    Cooperative Security as a way to mitigate threats Self-check Exercise 4 20.7    Summary 20.8    Glossary 20.9    Answers to self-check exercises 20.10    Suggested readings 20.11    Terminal Questions 20.1    Introduction We commonly come across the terms "security" or "national security" when reading about international politics. Do we understand the meaning of these terms? They are frequently employed to stifle discussion and debate. We hear that something is critical to the nation's well-being and that it is a security concern. It is implied that it is too hidden or significant to be openly discussed and argued. It appears that the average citizen has no business dealing with security. .      In a democracy, surely this cannot be the case. As citizens of a democracy, we need to know more about the term security. What exactly is it? Security has posed a major cause of concern to almost all states in the world in the last few decades. Everyday people are faced with tough choices of survival, even more significant ones collectively as a group, as insecurity has plagued eventually every part of the world today. In the whole world, in diverse ways and for many different reasons mankind is faced with a period of terror, torture and destruction and people are killed, starved, raped, imprisoned, displaced etc., with the third world states as the most vulnerable and with little or no hope of stability in the nearest future. The United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP) annual report makes this clear year after year, even though the ratio may not remain the same. The idea of security is always evolving and growing in some significant ways. The idea is now so wide that it may be used to describe anything and anything. Paul Williams is correct when he states that the idea of security pervades modern civilizations everywhere, which makes it an intriguing and significant subject of conversation. Although policymakers use the phrase "security" frequently, there isn't a single, widely agreed-upon meaning. According to a 1986 assessment by the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs, security is when governments believe that there is no threat of military assault, political pressure, or economic pressure, allowing them to freely pursue their own growth and development. . The argument concerning as to what security means reflects the changed political landscape brought up by increasing globalization. Peace researchers, international relations scholars, and the occasional defense-strategic studies expert are examining the conventional representations and understandings of the concept of security from an interdisciplinary perspective in the wake of the Cold War. There are numerous competing visions of new geopolitics being articulated. The idea that security is a subjective, versatile, and fundamentally contentious notion is becoming more widely recognized. As such, it should be examined in a way that at least takes into account socioeconomic and environmental factors in addition to political and military ones. According to the conventional perspective, the state is the sole security referent and the military is the primary tool. The idea that security is the absence of existential challenges to the state coming from another state has, however, come under heavy fire in the post-Cold War era. A brand-new field known as "security studies" has arisen, recognizing it as a broad idea. In the past, recognized, sovereign, independent nations used to be involved in the disputes, and the threats were caused by violent activities by state actors. The situation has changed, though, with the rise of non-state actors; today's more pressing concerns are non-military in nature and include things like food shortages, infectious diseases, climate change, natural disasters, irregular migration, drug trafficking, human smuggling, and other transnational crimes. The definition of security has been reevaluated in light of the events of September 11, 2001, and November 26, 2008, as well as the ensuing views of terrorist threats. The goal is still to safeguard the safety and welfare of a country's people, but the risks are more covert and possibly even "unthinkable" than they would be from military sources. The concept of security is evolving as a result of these new difficulties, which are being referred to as "non-traditional security" (NTS) issues. Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that while the conventional threats posed by interstate conflicts have lessened in relative importance, they have not entirely vanished. Economic and social threats, interstate conflict, internal conflicts, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, terrorism, and transnational organized crime are the six main areas of security challenges that the UN Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenge, and Changes (2004) identified following extensive discussion on security issues or threat agendas.Thus the notion of security need to be comphrensive taking into account the collaboration at all levels.A brand-new field known as "security studies" has arisen, recognizing it as a broad idea. In the past, recognized, sovereign, independent nations used to be involved in the disputes, and the threats were caused by violent activities by state actors. The situation has changed, though, with the rise of non-state actors; today's more pressing concerns are non-military in nature and include things like food shortages, infectious diseases, climate change, natural disasters, irregular migration, drug trafficking, human smuggling, and other transnational crimes. Thus the definition of security has been reevaluated in light of the events of September 11, 2001, and November 26, 2008, as well as the ensuing views of terrorist threats. The goal is still to safeguard the safety and welfare of a country's people, but the risks are more covert and possibly even "unthinkable" than they would be from military sources. The concept of security is evolving as a result of these new difficulties, which are being referred to as "non-traditional security" (NTS) issues. 20.2    Learning Objectives: After reading Unit the students the students could gain insight regarding: •      The meaning and definition of security •     The genesis of security since ancient times to the present. •      Traditional and non-traditional notions of security •     The various threats to security 20.3    Meaning and Definition of Security The traditional security paradigm belongs to a realist construct wherein nation-states are the referent object of security, and are motivated by the appropriation of military and economic power rather than by the pursuit of ideals or ethics. In order to meet the needs of the institutions and values of the nation-state rather than the interests of individuals, traditional security is obviously state-centric, primarily dependent on the military and other agencies for authority or mankind as a whole. This situation consequently leads to disputes between states. However, non-state entities are the players or sources of insecurity or dangers in the non-traditional security context. Security concerns are more expansive and cover the environment, drug trafficking, pandemics, and terrorism, all of which occur through some action deliberately instigated by nonstate actors. Under this paradigm, the spread of pandemics like AIDS, SARS, MERS-COV or Ebola, though having humans as usual conduits, are not the result of direct action from the state. The exception to this would be if a state, acting as a rogue, were to employ diseases in its arsenal of weapons (i.e. bacteriological or biological warfare). Non-traditional security issues are rarely confined to a single locality. They transcend or ignore political boundaries. Environmental problems, living resources challenges and acts of nature, especially, as they turn out to be very violent, massive or fatal in their effects may be categorized as non-traditional security issues Fundamentally, security is not being threatened. A nation's life and human existence are fraught with dangers. Does that imply that all threats are considered security threats? Every time someone leaves their home, their existence and way of life are in danger to some extent. If we adopted such a broad perspective of what is threatening, our world would be overrun by security concerns. As a result, security experts typically argue that only issues that pose a danger to "core values" should be considered relevant in security talks. But whose fundamental principles? The fundamental principles of the entire nation? The fundamental principles of regular men and women on the street? Are the fundamental values that governments uphold on behalf of their constituents always the same as those of the average citizen? Furthermore, how serious should the threats be when discussing threats to basic values? Almost every value we cherish is threatened, in one way or another. Is it possible to incorporate all of those risks within the concept of security? Every action or inaction by another nation has the potential to undermine one's own fundamental principles. The safety of regular people going about their daily lives is compromised each time someone is robbed on the street. However, adopting such a broad perspective on security would paralyze us since there would be threats everywhere we looked. This leads us to the conclusion that security only applies to dangers that are exceedingly dangerous—threats that, if we do nothing, could jeopardize our essential values to the point that they are irreparably ruined. Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that security is still a hazy concept. Has the idea of security, for example, always been the same in societies? Since so much in the world around us changes, it would be unexpected if they did. And do all societies have the same idea of security at any point in history? Once more, it would be incredible if the 650,000 people who are spread throughout almost 200 nations shared the same understanding of security. Nowadays, in disorganized and occasionally failing regimes, security is a local issue. National security and national defense are no longer the main issues. More than ever, security is a concern that affects both the global society and individual people, making it both cosmopolitan and local. The perspective regarding Security has been defined by different scholars differently. Ian Bellamy “Security itself is a relative freedom from war, coupled with a relatively high expectation that defeat will not be a consequence of any war that should occur”. Walter Lippmann defined it as “a nation is secure to the extent to which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice core values if it wishes to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war.” Josef Balazs says that “International security is determined basically by the internal and external security of the various social systems, by the extent, in general, to which system identity depends on external circumstances. Experts generally define social security as internal security. Its essential function is to ensure the political and economic power of a given ruling class or the survival of the social system and an adequate degree of public security”. In all the above definitions, the key things emphasized as objectives to states are the protection of the state territory which involves military aggression, values of states against foreign imposition, the timing and the intensity of threats and the political nature of the subject matter. All these can do more damage than good as it gives off an unnecessary appearance of strength and masculinity which it does not worth. The word security gives an “absolute condition” of peaceful condition and well-being. According to Booths, “security is always relative”, as it gives individuals or groups some choice to become what they aspire to be, not merely existing on the earth surface. Yet arousing too many unanswered questions; is war the only form of threat common to a state? Is there really security in national security? Who exactly is a secured, particular dominant group or citizens? What right does the state have to implement security values within its state, which may likely extend outside his territory to influence beyond its jurisdiction? These are evident that these definitions are not adequate enough to cover the scope of security, yet notwithstanding provides political power. Even though it has no generally accepted definition, it does not prevent constructive discussion as security depicts the ability of states and individual societies to maintain their substantive identity and functional integrity. However, Booth introduces his own definition after the consideration of all other definitions; “Security in world politics is an instrumental value that enables people(s) some opportunity to choose how to live. It is a means by which individuals and collectivities can invent and reinvent different ideas about being human”. Self-check Exercise 1 Q 1.It is obvious that traditional security is ___________and mostly depends on the military and other institutions   for________. Q2) The ___________ and________ of the different social systems essentially determines international security. 20.4    History of Evolution as a Concept The concept of Security occupies a pivotal position in the dynamics of International Relations. Although the idea of security is vast, its main goal is to increase our comprehension of it; this only means that people may make inferences about what politics entails based on various methods or schools of thinking.Security is usually associated with “threat to survival” according to security means, “the absence of threats”, meaning the probability of being secure from any sort of external or internal threat. In today’s time the concept of security ids not to be taken in a literal sense, this domain of security encompasses the various aspects like epidemics, global warming, biological warfare, energy crisis, genocide, the various ethnic cris and above all the resource mobilisation crisis. In the post cold war period the issue of security has assumed alarming dimensions.. National security is crucial because each state sets its own security conditions, which are considered to be the most significant reference point. Despite this, states struggle to live in complete harmony with one another, which they attempt to achieve through military force. Every year, numerous dangers and emergencies are predicted, bringing in the attention of states. The notion regarding security expands beyond the traditional idea of military security, which essentially means defending the borders of a sovereign state and legitimate use of force/coercion for the defence of national sovereignty and territory. Barry Buzan et al. (1998) captured the idea of a broadened security when he identified five segments of security: political, military, economic, societal, and environmental. In this idea of broadened security, Barry Buzan made two profound observations: one, changes which take place in the ‘centre’ (developed countries) countries) affect more profoundly the ‘periphery’ (the developing world); and, secondly, although all the five elements are interwoven, each highlights a particular dimension. Once closely interwoven, these elements pose acute challenge to the very survival humanity and the sovereign state. The problem of security at various levels-individual, subnational, national, regional and international are closely interwoven. They are different points along a continuum, and are integral to security as a whole. If security at any point is endangered, the other point cannot remain unaffected. Self-Check Exercise 2 1)Security is the main focus of international relations, due to the aftermath of the massacre of the__________. 2 ) Security became a more contemporary problem , particularly since___________. 2 0.5 Salient features of Traditional Notions of Security: The traditional definition of security in international politics involves the protection of both the territory and against any sort of external coercion. Ken Booth defines security as ‘ an instrumental value that enables people some opportunity to choose how to live. It is a means by which individuals and collectivities can invent and reinvent different ideas about being human. Smith has provided the following propositions of the conventional perspective on security in international relations: •    The main players in international politics are states. •    States are situated inside a framework of international anarchy, which produces a self-help system that is different from state politics. •    States' foreign conduct is seldom influenced by domestic issues. •    The primary factor influencing state conduct is international anarchy; non-state entities have a minor role in global politics and, even in such cases, must operate under laws established by governments. •    States that disregard their essential interests are at a loss due to international anarchy. •    States have armed forces to safeguard their most important interests. •    States often operate as unitary, instrumentally rational agents. •    States face a security conundrum in which striking a balance between defensive capabilities and without endangering one's enemies is difficult. •    Governments are often cautious regarding international collaboration, even when they share interests, since they are uncertain of the intentions and motives of other governments. •    As nations attempt to mould international institutions to fit their interests, they have a negligible impact on cooperation and serve as arenas for state-to-state disputes rather than being independent players. 20.5.1    Traditional Notions of Security: External According to the conventional perspective on security, the majority of dangers to a nation's safety originate far beyond its boundaries. This is because there is no central authority that can regulate behaviour in the anarchic international system. The government, a recognized central authority, controls the danger of violence inside a nation. There is no recognized central power in international politics that is superior to all others. A government can respond to the threat of war in three ways: either by surrendering; by promising to make the costs of war unaffordable; or by defending itself when war does break out in order to deny the attacking nation its goals and to defeat the attacking forces completely. When faced with conflict, governments may decide to surrender, but they won't promote this as the nation's stance. As a result, governments are very sensitive to the distribution of power inside and between their nations. They put a lot of effort in keeping the balance of power in their favour with other nations, particularly those that are nearby, with whom they disagree, or with whom they have previously clashed. Increasing one's military might is a good way to keep the balance of power in place, but as military might is based on economic and technical might, these factors are equally crucial. Building alliances is a fourth and related aspect of conventional security policy. A coalition of governments that work together to prevent or defend against a military assault is called an alliance.The majority of coalitions are founded on a pretty clear assessment of the danger and are formalized in legal treaties. In order to gain more effective strength in comparison to other nations or coalitions, nations join alliances. National interests serve as the foundation for alliances, which are subject to change when those interests shift. For instance, when Osama bin Laden's organization, Al Qaeda, conducted terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, the United States targeted the Islamic fighters in Afghanistan that it had supported against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. It is easy to believe that the UN is such a body or has the potential to be such an organization. The UN, as it currently exists, is a product of its members and only has power to the extent that those states grant it and submit to it. Therefore, each nation must be in charge of its own security in international politics. Conventional perspectives on security do not exclude other types of collaboration. Among these, disarmament, armaments control, and confidence-building are the most crucial. 20.5.2    Traditional Notions: Internal Internal security must also be a concern of traditional security. Because it appeared that domestic security was more or less guaranteed to the world's most powerful nations following World War II, it is not given as much weight as it deserves. As everyone is aware, it was crucial to consider scenarios and settings earlier. Although governments have always been concerned about internal security, there was a period and circumstance following World War II when internal security did not appear to be as important as it previously was. Following 1945, there seemed to be unity between the US and the USSR, there were no significant threats from populations or organizations residing inside such boundaries to the majority of European nations, especially the strong Western European nations. As a result, these nations concentrated mostly on external dangers. What external dangers did these strong nations face? Once more, we highlight circumstances and scenarios. We are aware that the Cold War, which pitted the Soviet-led Communist alliance against the US-led Western alliance, lasted from the end of World War II. The two coalitions' greatest concern was that the other would launch a military assault. Additionally, several European countries were still concerned about colonized people who desired independence due to frequent acts of violence in their colonies . The British battling in Kenya in the 1950s and early 1960s, or the French fighting in Vietnam in the 1950s, are only two examples. As a result, they had to be concerned that the Cold War would turn into a hot war and drag them into conflict, either against their neighbors who might have switched sides, against the alliance leaders (the US or the USSR), or against any of their other allies. About one-third of all wars in the years after World War II were caused by the Cold War between the two superpowers. The Third World saw the brunt of these conflicts. Some colonial people feared that their former colonial masters in Europe would attack them once they gained independence, much as the European colonial powers dreaded violence in the colonies. As a result, they needed to get ready to fight an imperial war. There were two ways in which the security issues confronting the recently independent nations of Asia and Africa differed from those in Europe. For starters, the new nations had to deal with the possibility of a military confrontation with their neighbours. They also had to be concerned about internal military strife. These nations were threatened both internally and externally, mostly by their neighbours. Many recently independent nations had a greater dread of their neighbours than they did of the US, the USSR, or the previous colonial powers. They clashed over territory and boundaries, population and population management, or all three at once. Internally, separatist organizations seeking to establish independent nations posed a threat to the new republics. Internal and external dangers can occasionally combine. Tensions between the two neighbouring nations may arise as a result of a neighbor supporting or starting an internal independence movement. Nowadays, internal conflicts account for about 95% of all armed conflicts conducted worldwide. The number of civil conflicts increased twelvefold between 1946 and 1991, the largest increase in two centuries. Therefore, the security of the new republics was seriously threatened by both internal and foreign conflicts with their neighbors. Generally, the use of military force or the threat of using it is the main focus of conventional concepts of security. In conventional security, the primary way of establishing security as well as the primary danger to security is force. Self-check Exercise 3 Q 1) Nation states operates in an environment of _______and are preoccupied with_______,_____________ and______. Q 2) A ___________ is an alliance of states that coordinate their efforts to prevent or protect against __________. 20.6 Non-Traditional Notions of Security It is accurate to refer to non-traditional ideas of security as "problems without borders." Beyond military concerns, non-traditional ideas of security encompass a broad spectrum of risks and dangers that impact human living situations. First, they challenge the conventional referent of security. By doing this, they also raise doubts about the other three components of security: what is being protected, from what kind of risks, and how security is being implemented. "Security for whom?" is what we mean when we say referent. The state, with its territory and governmental bodies, is the referent in the conventional security idea. The referent is broadened in non-traditional concepts. When we inquire, "Who is security for?" "Not just the state but also individuals or communities or indeed all of humanity," is the response given by proponents of non-traditional security. "Human security" and "global security" are terms used to describe non-traditional perspectives on security. Protecting individuals is more important to human security than protecting nations. State security and human security ought to be the same thing, and they frequently are. However, safe states do not equate to secure citizens. While defending residents against foreign attacks may be a prerequisite for personal security, it is by no means an adequate one. In fact, during the past century, domestic governments have killed more people than foreign forces. There are disagreements, nonetheless, about the specific dangers that people ought to be shielded from. Supporters of the "narrow" definition of human security concentrate on risks to people who are violent. or "the protection of communities and individuals from internal violence," in the words of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Because famine, illness, and natural catastrophes kill considerably more people than war, genocide, and terrorism combined, proponents of the "broad" notion of human security contend that they should be included on the danger agenda. They contend that human security policy ought to shield citizens from both these dangers and acts of violence. Economic security and "threats to human dignity" are also included in the human security agenda in its most expansive version. In other words, the broader definition emphasizes what have been referred to as "freedom from fear" and "freedom from want," respectively. In response to the worldwide scope of dangers like international terrorism, global warming, and diseases like AIDS and avian flu, among others, the concept of global security first surfaced in the 1990s. No nation can handle these issues on its own. Additionally, there are instances where a global issue like environmental deterioration may disproportionately affect one nation. For instance, a 1.5–2.0 m rise in sea level brought on by global warming would flood 20% of Bangladesh, submerge the majority of the Maldives, and endanger about 50% of Thailand's population. From the above account t is clear that for realising the ultimate objective of security cooperation both at local, national and international level is indispensable. 20.6.1    New Sources of Threats to Security One of the hazards in line with non-traditional perspectives of both human and global security, is terrorism.“ Terrorism can be defined as political violence that targets civilians deliberately and indiscriminately. International terrorism involves the citizens or territory of more than one country”. Terrorist organizations use force or the threat of force to try to alter a political situation or setting that they abhor. Normally, civilian targets are picked in order to scare the populace and utilize their disenchantment as leverage against other warring groups or national governments. Bombings in marketplaces, cafés, trains, and other public areas, as well as airline hijackings, are the typical examples of terrorism. Though terrorism is not new, other countries and the general public have given it more attention after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in America on September 11, 2001. The Middle East, Europe, Latin America, and South Asia have typically witnessed the majority of terror attacks. Terrorist activity of any type apart from men and material loss also leads to massive human Rights violation.Since the 1990s, incidents such as the Rwandan genocide, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and the Indonesian military's killing of civilians in East Timor have raised questions about whether the UN should intervene to stop human rights abuses. Some argue that the international community has the right to use force to defend human rights because of the UN Charter. Others argue that depending on the national interests of the powerful states, the UN will intervene in certain situations of human rights violations. Global poverty is another factor contributing to insecurity. . By the middle of the twenty-first century, the world's population, which is currently at 760 crore, would have grown to around 1000 crore. Currently, just six nations—India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Indonesia—account for half of the world's population increase. The population of the world's poorest nations is predicted to treble during the next 50 years, while many wealthy nations will experience population declines during that time. While low incomes and fast population growth reinforce one other to make poor states and poor groups poorer, high per capita income and low population growth make rich states or affluent social groupings richer. This discrepancy adds to the divide between the Northern and Southern nations on a global scale. Inequalities have also widened within the South, as some nations have succeeded in reducing population growth and increasing wages while others have not. For instance, sub-Saharan Africa, the world's poorest area, is currently the scene of the majority of violent conflicts. More people were dying in battles in this region than in the entire world at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Large-scale migration to the North in search of a better life—particularly greater economic opportunities—has also resulted from poverty in the South. International political tensions have resulted from this. Refugees, who flee from war, natural disasters, or political persecution, are distinguished from migrants, who leave their home nations freely, by international law and conventions. Although states are not required to welcome migrants, they are typically expected to admit refugees. While refugees depart their country of origin, persons who have abandoned their homes but stay inside national boundaries are called ‘internally displaced people’. One example of an internally displaced population is the Kashmiri Pandits, who escaped the turmoil in the Kashmir Valley in the early 1990s. Due to wars and armed conflicts in the South, which have caused millions of people to flee in search of safety, the world refugee map and the world conflicts map nearly match. About 55 lakh people were murdered in 93 battles involving 70 states between 1990 and 1995. Due of the widespread dread of violence or the loss of their livelihoods, identities, and living conditions, people, families, and even whole communities have been compelled to move. In the 1990s, all but three of the 60 refugee flows occurred in conjunction with an internal armed conflict, according to an analysis of the relationship between conflicts and refugee movement. Through migration, commerce, tourism, and military activities, health epidemics including HIV-AIDS, avian flu, and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have quickly spread throughout nations. Infections in other nations are impacted by a nation's ability or inability to control the spread of these illnesses. An estimated 4 crore persons worldwide were infected with HIVAIDS by 2003, with half of them in South Asia and two-thirds in Africa. In the late 1990s, new pharmacological regimens significantly reduced the death rate from HIVAIDS in North America and other developed nations. However, these therapies were too costly to aid impoverished areas, such as Africa, where they have been a significant contributor to the region's decline into even greater poverty. While traditional illnesses like cholera, dengue fever, malaria, and TB have changed into drugresistant variants that are challenging to cure, other new and poorly understood diseases like hantavirus, hepatitis C, and Ebola virus have also surfaced. Animal epidemics have a significant financial impact. Bird flu stopped the supply of chicken exports from numerous Asian nations, while Britain has lost billions of pounds in revenue since the late 1990s due to a mad cow disease epidemic. These diseases highlight the necessity for international collaboration and show how governments are becoming more interdependent, making boundaries less significant than they once were. Extending the notion of security does not include bringing any form of illness or hardship into its purview.The idea of security may become less coherent if we do that.Everything may turn into a security risk. Therefore, even if the specifics of the threat may vary, an issue must have a minimal common condition, such as endangering the referent's (a state or group of people's) basic existence, in order to be classified as a security concern. In contrast to Southern African nations, where one in six individuals suffer from HIV/AIDS (one in three in Botswana, the worst case scenario), the Maldives may feel endangered by global warming as a significant portion of their land may be inundated due to the rising sea level. The existence of the Tutsi tribe in Rwanda was threatened in 1994 when the Hutu tribe, a rival group, massacred around five lakh of its members in a few short weeks. This demonstrates that, similar to conventional ideas of security, non-traditional ideas of security also change depending on local situations. 20.6.2    Cooperative Security as a way to mitigate non-traditional threats: It is clear that cooperation, not military conflict, is needed to address many of these unconventional security threats. There is a limit to what military force can accomplish when it comes to fighting terrorism or upholding human rights, but it is hard to imagine what force might accomplish when it comes to managing migration and refugee flows, controlling diseases, or reducing poverty. Indeed, in most circumstances, the deployment of armed force would only make problems worse. Developing tactics that incorporate international collaboration is far more successful. Cooperation can be regional, continental, international, or bilateral (i.e., between any two nations). Everything would rely on the threat's characteristics as well as the nations' capacity and desire to react. International organizations (such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, World Bank, and IMF), nongovernmental organizations (such as Amnesty International, the Red Cross, private foundations and charities, churches and religious organizations, trade unions, associations, social and development organizations, businesses and corporations, and notable individuals (such as Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela) can all be involved in cooperative security. Using cooperative security might entail the use of power as a means to their survival. The use of force against governments who murder their own citizens or disregard the suffering of their people who are ravaged by poverty, illness, and natural disasters may need to be approved by the world community. It could have to consent to the use of force against foreign terrorists and those who provide them with sanctuary. When the use of force is approved and implemented by the international community as a whole, as opposed to when a single nation chooses to use force on its own, non-traditional security is significantly improved. Self-Check Exercise 4 1)    The years following World War II were marked by ___________ which positioned the Soviet-led Communist alliance in opposition to the US-led Western alliance. 2)    Terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre in America on __________. 3)    The use of _______may be used as a last resort in cooperative security. 20.9    Summary Despite the fact that the objective of the State pertains to the notions of security in an anarchic nature of international order , all states focus with the sole aim of to defend their security, status and stability. With the rapid progress of international trade, increased globalization, and the interactional within the international and regional organisation, the interest of states are no longer singular. Previously, utmost importance was given to sovereign security and territorial integrity whereas today a call for national unity is prevalent, as health social development is essential for peoples’ well-being. State security was the prevailing character of traditional security, which focuses on threats directed at states while the non-traditional presents the humanitarianism, deals with threat directed at individual or people. As a result, additional political actors, both state and non-state, have entered the current global political arena due to the fact that non-traditional security is primarily transnational in nature, the threats of which are endless, fraught with uncertainty, and its sources are diversified in nature 20.10    Glossary: Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism. a terrorist method of governing or of resisting a government. Genocide:  Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Super Powers:  “An extremely powerful nation. specifically: one of a very few dominant states in an era when the world is divided politically into these states and their satellites”. Al-Qaeda: Al Qaeda (Arabic for “the base”) is a complex international Islamist terrorist network made up of regional affiliate organizations and clandestine cells with varying degrees of communication with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the group's ideological and operational leaders. Collective Security: collective security, system by which states have attempted to prevent or stop wars. Under a collective security arrangement, an aggressor against any one state is considered an aggressor against all other states, which act together to repel the aggressor. 20.11    Answers to Self- Check QuestionsExercise 1 1)    state-centric, power 2)    internal and external security. Exercise 2 1)    First World War 2) “Cold War” Exercise 3 1)    anarchy, survival, power and security 2)    coalition of states, military attack Exercise 4 1)Cold War 2 ) 11 September 2001 3) force 20.12    Suggested Readings Romm, Joseph J. “Defining National Security: The Non-military Aspects.” Council on Foreign Relations, April 1, 1993, Sarkesian, Sam C. “US National Security:  Policymakers, Processes & Politics.” Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., October 19, 2012. McSweeney, Bill. “Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations.” Cambridge University Press, 1999. Makinda, Samuel M. “Sovereignty and Global Security, Security Dialogue.” Sage Publications, 1998. Smith,2006. The concept of security in a globalising world in Pateman, ed., Globalization and Conflict: Routeledge. Misra, K. P. (1976). The Concept of Security. India International Centre Quarterly, 3(2), 85–94. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23001943 20.13    Terminal Questions Q.1) Citing suitable examples explain the Notions of Trational and Non-Traditional Security ? Q.2) Discuss the role of Co-operative security in securing the interests of small powers. Q.3) Explain the dynamics of International Security? Give some live examples. Unit 21 NON-TRADITIONAL SECURITY THREATS Structure 21.1    Introduction 21.2    Objectives 21.3    Non-Traditional Security: Meaning and features Self-check Exercise 1 21.4    Non-Traditional Security Threats In Post-Cold War Phase Self-check Exercise 2 21.5 Terrorism as an Unconventional Security Threat Self-check Exercise 3 21.6    International Terrorism & American Efforts towards Global War on Terror Self-check Exercise 4 21.7    Manifestations of Terrorism/Insurgent Threats in India 21.7.1 Militancy and Separatism in Jammu and Kashmir 21.7.2    Islamist Terrorism 21.7.3    Insurgency in North-East India 21.7.4    Khalistan Militancy in Punjab 21.7.4    Naxalite Movement Self-check Exercise 5 21.8    Summary 21.9    Glossary 21.10    Answer to self-check Exercises 21.11    Suggested Readings 21.12 Terminal Questions 21.1    introduction The issue of Non-Traditional Security (NTS) threats is not new in international relations; however, it was largely overshadowed during the Cold War era when global attention was focused on traditional security threats associated with "high politics." Traditional security frameworks concentrated on the state as the central actor, aiming to protect national territories from foreign aggression by maintaining sufficient military force. NTS threats were often dismissed as "low politics" during this time, considered less urgent and thus deprioritized.Following the end of the Cold War, non-traditional security threats rapidly emerged as critical concerns in international relations. Like traditional military and external security risks, these non-traditional threats—both national and transnational in scope—have the potential to cause severe political, military, economic, and social repercussions, destabilizing the legal and social order within a nation-state. Consequently, non-traditional security threats pose significant insecurity to both the state and its society. These threats, though referred to by various names, share common traits. Unlike traditional security risks, which typically involve state actions, NTS threats are often driven by state-sponsored groups or non-state actors—such as criminal organizations or terrorist groups—that operate both within and beyond national borders, disregarding international laws and norms. The causes of these threats are complex and multifaceted, making them difficult to pinpoint. They represent long-term challenges marked by an ongoing dilemma. Since these hazards are both mobile and versatile, a traditional security perspective has proven inadequate in addressing them (Williams and Black 1994: 127-151). Since the problems have gotten much bigger than any state can directly control, the strategies that states have employed to deal with non-traditional security concerns ended up falling short. The security and well-being of entire states in particular, as well as regions in general, are now at risk due to the proliferation of non-traditional security threats like terrorism and illegal drug trafficking. It is impossible to dispute the role that criminal organizations play in this type of trafficking since they have effectively taken advantage of the interconnectedness of the world to grow their operations (Mathew and Shambaugh 1998: 163-175). Additionally, the rapid growth of international trade, the steadily increasing integration of financial markets, computerized money transfers, and falling transportation costs have all contributed to the rise of transnational organized crime, illegal trafficking, and terrorism, which criminals find highly profitable. However, the increasing authority and power of non-state actors, including separatist movements, religious cults, anti-government extremists, and other groups that employ terrorist tactics, as well as organized crime syndicates, including, most notably, drug trafficking "cartels," has caused an increase in non-traditional security threats. Again, the post-cold war era is hardly responsible for this threat, but globalization has significantly enhanced these groups' ability in accomplishing the goals they seek. For the same, if not more, factors that have made it easier for weaker regimes to obtain funding and advanced weapons, especially WMD. Their capacity to operate globally has also increased due to the ease and difficulty of monitoring foreign travel as well as the expanding utilization of cooperative agreements or "strategic alliances" with like-minded organizations worldwide. Non-state actors have also expanded their standing through networks based on worldwide distributed immigrant groups. With the increasing penetration of increasingly permeable national lines, non-traditional security risks are becoming more and more significant. The issue is not restricted to a single nation or area; rather, it affects a growing geographic and political environment with growing ramifications for global security. Furthermore, low intensity conflict is a tool used by state-sponsored groups and non-state actors like terrorist organizations or criminal gangs that don't give a damn about international standards and guidelines, in contrast to traditional security threats, which are used by states. Their causes are numerous and difficult to pinpoint. The difficulties of coming up with the best answer is what defines this long-term issue. Non-traditional security challenges are, at their most basic, low-intensity, crossborder non-military threats that endanger a country's political and social stability or the health of its citizens. Such low intensity combat is used by state-sponsored groups and non-state actors, like criminal gangs or terrorist organizations, who don't give a damn about international norms and standards, in contrast to conventional and nuclear threats, which are used by states. Furthermore, non-traditional security threats are characterized by the difficulty of identifying the best remedy because their causes are widespread and numerous difficult to identify, and usually involve longterm issues. 21.2    Learning Objectives After reading the unit the students will understand and comprehend : the several kinds of NTS dangers in the modern world; terrorism as an NTS threat and its different forms in India. •    The idea of non-traditional security (NTS); •    The several kinds of NTS dangers in the modern world •    Terrorism as an NTS threat and its different forms in India. 21.3    Non-Traditional Security: Meaning and features Traditional security has typically been understood in geopolitical terms, focusing on the relationships between sovereign states. In this framework, security is concerned with matters such as deterrence, the balance of power, alliance dynamics, and military capabilities. However, since the end of the Cold War, and especially after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the conventional understanding of security has come under scrutiny regarding how security should be defined and approached. As a result, the concept of Non-Traditional Security (NTS) has gained prominence. NTS emphasizes aspects of security that were previously not considered threats. As a theoretical perspective, NTS has also gained traction in the field of International Relations, as it highlights new sources and drivers of insecurity and conflict. The most threatening aspect of non-traditional threats is that they are likely to occur in conjunction with or as triggers for other crises. NTS threats and TST( traditional security threats) are interwoven, affect each other, and may change into each other under certain conditions. Non Traditional Security(NTS) are characterised by the following features : Firstly, Non-traditional security threats are part of a complex global network shaped by modern communication, transportation, and information technologies, all of which involve transnational and non-state actors. These threats are increasing in scale as they cross more national borders, which have become increasingly porous. The issue with non-traditional security threats is that they are not confined to a single country or region; instead, they spread across a broader geographical and political landscape, with growing repercussions for global security as a whole. Secondly, the concept of security has expanded to now encompass not only the security of the state but also that of the community. It is important to note that in some cases, the intensification of these threats can be connected to the processes of globalization. Thirdly they are non-state centred and are sub-state or trans-state in nature, they have no geographical limitations and they cannot be managed by traditional security policies alone. They transcend national boundaries and ae thus transnational in nature. Fourthly these types of threats can generate adverse, complex and devastating consequences for the survival and well-being of the states which shows that security is much more complex than traditional conceptions suggest. There is also the role of technology in the transition of new security threats. Fifthly these are thought to traverse national borders or operate beyond the scope of conventional state action; they are not necessarily seen to directly threaten the state’s very existence, challenge its real or perceived capacity to protect affected populations. They go beyond military spheres and are sudden and unexpected. Sixthly In the past, challenges such as terrorism, trafficking in arms, narcotics, and human beings, illegal migration, and environmental destruction were generally not viewed as security threats, and their impact on security was considered indirect at most. As a result, dominant theories in International Relations largely overlooked such issues. However, since the end of the Cold War, these non-traditional security threats have increasingly become a direct danger to the security and well-being of both individuals and states. Two key points are important here: non-traditional security threats have the potential to evolve into traditional security threats and can lead to conflict and war. and lastly they are frequently interwoven with traditional survival as well security challenges. Compared with military threats whose content is relatively simple, non-traditional security factions are extremely wide-ranging, mainly including: ecological and environmental security, information security, resourse security, terrorism, weapon proliferation, the spread of epidemics, transnational crimes, narcotics, smuggling, illegal immigration, piracy, money laundering and so on. A country’s internal problems also come within the scope of national security. The concept of Non-Traditional Threats (NTS) is based on the following five assumptions: 1.    Non-traditional threats can directly lead to conflict or war. 2.    These threats cannot be addressed solely by the state, as the state's perspective is insufficient to tackle NTS challenges. 3.    Security is a shared responsibility among the state, the community, and the individual. 4.    NTS threats, such as climate change or pandemics, are transnational in nature and require non-military responses. 5.    Due to their transnational character, international cooperation is crucial to effectively address these challenges. Self-check Exercise 1 Q 1) Security threat pertains both to the safety of ____________ and _________. Q 2) Threats to non-traditional security include ____________ centred and are substate or __________ in nature. Q 3) Why NTS were referred to low polities’ during the “Cold War”? 21.4 NON-TRADITIONAL SECURITY THREATS IN POST-COLD WAR PERIOD: During the Cold War, the ideological divide between socialism and capitalism created a clear-cut binary choice. People had to pick between capitalism and socialism, or what could be seen as a forced choice. As one prominent American strategic thinker described, it was an era of "metamyth," where everything was exaggerated, and there was a misguided belief that all matters could be controlled. When the Cold War ended, so too did the belief in the dominance of ideologies. Scholars anticipated a "peace dividend" and envisioned a prolonged period of peace. However, this did not materialize. Many conflicts that had roots in the Cold War era continued, and a number of these were not driven by ideological or political motives. Instead, they were largely driven by ethnic, tribal, or environmental issues, persisting even after the ideological standoff between capitalist democracy and socialist authoritarianism had ended. In fact, many of these conflicts reignited with even greater intensity, becoming more violent and leading to more human casualties, as they increasingly involved diverse ethnic and tribal identities. Additionally, new conflicts emerged, many of them being intra-state in nature. These intra-state conflicts, often defined by ethnic, religious, or tribal fault lines, were marked by brutalities that defied any standard rules of engagement, leaving no one accountable for the violence. In 1997, for example, of the 86 armed conflicts recorded, 84 were internal, rather than interstate. The Rwandan crisis of the 1990s is one such example, where the violence resulted in immense suffering. It was noted that in the 1990s, the majority of those killed in conflicts were unarmed civilians, especially women and children. Most of the combatants were not regular soldiers, and international legal conventions were disregarded by the warring factions. In modern conflicts, civilians now constitute eight out of ten casualties. Another significant development in the post-Cold War era was the rise of the diaspora as a new actor in international relations. Diasporas, which had previously been largely ignored in global politics, gained considerable influence in the 1990s. These diaspora groups were often courted by their home countries and became key players in internal politics, providing funding, arms, advocacy, and even lobbying at the international level. This led to a debate on whether diasporas acted as "peacekeepers" or "peace wreckers." The end of the Cold War also brought new challenges to the international system. Traditionally, sovereign states were the primary actors in international relations, responsible for conducting diplomacy, making agreements, and maintaining authority within their own borders. However, the post-Cold War landscape introduced new types of states—so-called "rogue" or "failed" states. These states, often ruled by authoritarian or chauvinistic-nationalist elites, did not follow liberal or socialist principles and often had public backing. These regimes engaged in practices such as "ethnic cleansing," resulting in mass killings and the displacement of civilian populations, creating a refugee crisis. While many sovereign states argued that these were internal issues falling under domestic jurisdiction, these intra-state conflicts destabilized entire regions. Furthermore, these conflicts led to the mass displacement of people, with refugees and internally displaced persons becoming major global challenges. The plight of "boat people" or the Rohingya remains one of the most persistent and unresolved issues of the past few decades. Another emerging threat in the post-Cold War era was the consequences of globalization. Economic globalization has been uneven, bringing both positive and negative effects. Exploitation of natural resources, such as in large-scale extraction projects and hydropower development, caused significant environmental damage, which transcended national borders. Many of these projects benefited only a small wealthy elite, often aligned with foreign financial interests, rather than the host countries themselves. Additionally, there were other threats that challenged the stability and sovereignty of states, such as trafficking in narcotics, human beings, and arms, as well as money laundering and environmental degradation. These issues clearly highlighted the need to redefine the sovereignty and role of states in the post-Cold War world. It became evident that states were no longer the sole and immutable actors in international relations. International organizations, non-governmental entities, and the growing interdependence among states in an increasingly globalized world all raised questions about the traditional notion of state sovereignty. Self-check Exercise 2 1 ) The bulk of intrastate conflicts in the post-Cold War era paralleled the fault lines of __________,__________ or ________. 2 ) What do you understand by “ Rogue States” and the “failed States”? 2 1.5 Terrorism as an Unconventional Security Threat The term "terrorism" has no universally accepted definition. The phenomenon of terrorism is complicated and contentious. It has also been used for a considerable amount of time. Both right- and left-leaning political organizations, nationalistic and religious organizations, revolutionaries, and even government agencies like the military, police, and intelligence services have all taken part in terrorism. For political or ideological reasons, one state has also engaged in and encouraged transnational terrorism against another. It becomes difficult to conceptualize terrorism once the lines separating it from other types of political violence are blurred. The adage "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" comes from this. The word "terrorism" has been used more specifically in the 20th century. It is frequently used to characterize acts of violence directed either directly or indirectly toward governments in an effort to change laws or topple an established government. Although it is difficult to describe precisely, there are several characteristics that are restricted to terrorism. Instilling fear in the thoughts and emotions of the general public is the first fundamental component of terrorism. "Terrorism involves the use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience," What sets terrorism apart from both conventional combat and guerilla warfare is the extent to which it is based on fear. In order to win, conventional military forces use their weapons' might, but they also engage in psychological warfare and propaganda against the opposition. For instance, the Viet Cong guerrilla campaign in Vietnam throughout the 1970s was a successful example of guerilla warfare in the 20th century. To restate: "When direct military victory is not feasible, terrorism proper is the systematic use of violence to create fear and thereby achieve political goals" (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Because of this, some social scientists have described terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest" and guerilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak." The shock value of a terrorist attack is the second essential component of terrorism. In order to create widespread fear, terrorists typically use dramatic and widely known violent assaults. . Suicide bombing, hostage-taking, hijacking, and bombings of prominent figures and buildings are examples of common terrorist attacks. The targets have been selected with care to increase the act's shock and surprise effect. Terrorists seek to project an image of their omnipresence and invincibility. A couple extra layers can be added to this: terrorists may randomly select their victims, such as by bombing a marketplace; they also operate covertly and carry out their activities in secret. They normally seek people and locations that will generate a lot of publicity for them and give them an inflated impression of their abilities. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the third essential component of terrorism is the terrorists' belief that "the sense of terror these acts engender will induce the population to pressure political leaders toward a specific political end." The fourth fundamental component is that innocent civilians are always the victims of terrorist attacks. Terrorism is defined by the US government as planned, politically driven acts of violence against noncombatant targets. Both the armed forces and guerilla groups adhere to specific international legal standards in war situations. For example, international law forbids purposefully targeting the defenseless civilian population. Terrorists detest adhering to any such standard, and they frequently target innocent citizens with their strikes. Thus, the adage "One man's terrorist is everyone's terrorist" is used. Wanton deaths of civilians and destruction of infrastructure are still considered acts of terrorism, regardless of the justification. As a result, there is some agreement regarding the essential components of a terrorist act. That being said, a categorization of an act as terrorism is still somewhat subjective. The issue is that different forms of political violence are either referred to as terrorism or not; as a result, there is still definitional uncertainty. Self-check Exercise 3 Q 1) The core element of terrorism is to instil __________ in the hearts and thoughts of the entire public. Q 2) What do you understand by Transnational Terrorism? 2 1.6International Terrorism & American Efforts towards Global war on Terror Scholars have faced challenges in classifying different types of terrorism due to the vast range of motivations, ideologies, and methods employed by terrorist groups. Terrorism has been used across a spectrum of political movements, from far-right to far-left ideologies, and in a variety of contexts. In the 20th century, terrorism was prominent in anti-colonial struggles (e.g., in Algeria), in territorial disputes (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), between religious groups (like in Northern Ireland), and in internal conflicts between governments and insurgents (e.g., in El Salvador). Modern technology, such as automatic weapons, explosives, air travel, and information technology, has significantly enhanced the capabilities of terrorists, enabling them to increase their reach and lethality. The rise of terrorism has made it a persistent aspect of global political life, with fears that terrorists could gain access to weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Historical examples of these types of attacks include the AUM Shinrikyo nerve gas attack in Tokyo in 1995 and the anthrax letters in the U.S. after September 11, 2001. Terrorist groups often operate based on a mix of ideological factors, such as religious extremism, messianic beliefs, and the desire to return to a perceived ideal past. Many of the most notorious terrorist organizations, such as Hamas and al-Qaeda, follow fundamentalist religious ideologies, and groups like the LTTE, Hamas, and the Taliban have used suicide bombings as part of their tactics. The U.S. has faced several major attacks on its interests abroad, including bombings at U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia (1996), the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (1998), and the USS Cole bombing in Yemen (2000). However, the most significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil occurred on September 11, 2001, when al-Qaeda orchestrated the hijacking of four planes, crashing three into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., while the fourth crashed in Pennsylvania. This attack killed 2,977 people and marked the deadliest assault on the U.S. since Pearl Harbor. In response, President George W. Bush declared the Global War on Terror (GWOT), calling for nations to align with the U.S. in combating terrorism. Under Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S. launched military operations in Afghanistan, beginning with airstrikes on October 7, 2001, followed by ground operations on October 19. This coalition effort, including countries like Britain, Germany, and France, quickly dismantled the Taliban regime and targeted al- Qaeda’s infrastructure. In May 2011, U.S. Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda’s leader, in Abbottabad, Pakistan. While the U.S. formally declared an end to combat operations in Afghanistan in December 2014, the Afghan government, led by President Ashraf Ghani, remained fragile, and U.S. military presence persisted under President Donald Trump’s administration, which escalated airstrikes and ground operations to push the Taliban toward negotiations. In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq under the premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and by April, Hussein’s regime had collapsed. However, the U.S. struggled to establish stability in the country, which descended into civil war and became a breeding ground for extremist groups like Daesh (ISIS). Despite Saddam Hussein’s execution in 2006 and the declaration of the end of combat operations in Iraq in 2010, Iraq continued to face insurgencies and sectarian violence. The GWOT has been compared to the Cold War in terms of its scale, costs, and impact on international relations. It included not only military action in Afghanistan and Iraq but also intelligence reforms, new technologies for counterterrorism, and measures to cut off financial resources to terrorist groups. However, critics argue that the GWOT has had mixed results, with terrorist attacks continuing, and the U.S. facing accusations of human rights violations, such as the detention and torture of suspects without trial at Guantanamo Bay. Additionally, drone strikes and targeted killings of suspected terrorists, some of whom were U.S. citizens, raised concerns about due process. Though the Taliban was ousted in 2001, and al-Qaeda was severely weakened, terrorist groups like Daesh continued to spread. For example, in 2004, bombings in Madrid killed 191 people, and in 2005, bombings in London killed 52 people. AntiAmerican sentiments persisted, especially in the Muslim world. Some critics argue that the GWOT served as a cover for U.S. geopolitical ambitions, such as securing military presence in the Middle East, controlling energy resources, and countering regional powers. The invasion of Iraq, in particular, exposed U.S. failure in post-war reconstruction resulting in widespread violence and a sectarian divide. The rise of Daesh was another disastrous consequence of the conflict. President Obama, after declaring the GWOT over in 2013, focused on counterterrorism operations against specific groups but continued many Bush-era policies, including targeted killings and expanded drone warfare. The U.S. security apparatus maintained vast surveillance powers, and U.S. military interventions in countries outside declared war zones continued, highlighting the enduring legacy of the GWOT. Self- check Exercise 4 Q 1) Why Terrorism is regarded as a non-traditional security threat? Q 2) What do you understand by U.S PATRIOT Act? 21.7    Manifestations of Terrorism/Insurgent Threats in India India’s experience with terrorism is exceptional in its scale, scope, and complexity. Since gaining independence in 1947, India has faced an unusually large and diverse range of terrorist groups, including home-grown, cross-border, and transnational organizations. These groups come from a variety of ideological and geographical backgrounds. Scholars highlight that political violence in India is intricately linked to issues of identity, with demands for separateness and autonomy often at the core. Ethnicity, caste, and religion not only fuel political violence and terrorism but also influence and shape the state's counter-terrorism (CT) responses, or sometimes the lack thereof. Additionally, India is home to several internal conflicts, manifesting as insurgencies where terrorism is a principal feature. Purely terrorist groups are less common, and the overlap between insurgency and terrorism complicates the task of studying terrorism as a security threat within the Indian context. Drawing clear distinctions between terrorism, militancy, and insurgency is challenging. Analysts also observe that India’s CT and counter-insurgency (COIN) efforts have often been ad hoc, inconsistent, and at times contradictory. In 2013, India had at least 66 terrorist groups operating within its borders. By 2015, the Ministry of Home Affairs listed 39 banned groups, though this list did not include many active groups that were not officially banned. There were also groups that had been dormant for a period or were engaged in some form of negotiation with the authorities. Given the sheer number and diversity of these non-state actors, a broad yet brief overview of them is outlined below. 21.7.1    Militancy and Separatism in Jammu and Kashmir: One of the most complex conflicts in India is the ongoing situation in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), which also has international dimensions. The core issue since J&K's accession to the Indian Union has been the demand for a separate identity and autonomy. Various ethno-religious and separatist insurgent groups emerged in the 1990s, each with different agendas. The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), which advocated for independence, initiated an armed campaign against the Indian state in 1996. While JKLF defined Kashmiri nationalism in secular terms, it still used Islamic rhetoric to gain support. However, the separatist movement soon shifted towards pro-Pakistan Islamist groups, such as Hizbul Mujahideen, which sought to merge J&K with Pakistan and viewed Kashmir as a jihad against India. Pakistan launched a proxy war against India, supporting numerous cross-border Islamist groups that used terrorism as a tactic. This gave rise to the phenomenon of 'Islamist terrorism' in J&K. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, some of the Islamist groups from across the border began aligning with Al Qaeda and other international Islamist organizations. Pro-Pakistan groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) became more closely tied to Al Qaeda, expanding their ideological reach and global connections. This collaboration enabled both organizations to carry out attacks beyond J&K, targeting other parts of India. Whether local militant groups or cross-border groups supported by the Pakistani state, or those with links to international terrorist organizations, all were involved in widespread acts of terrorism in J&K and across India. The international connections allowed LeT and JeM to evolve both ideologically and tactically. One notable example of this evolution was the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 2008, carried out by LeT. These attacks, far from J&K, demonstrated LeT's ability to use modern technology and target high-profile buildings in India's financial capital. 21.7.2    Islamist Terrorism A long history of communal riots, along with the marginalization and exclusion of certain segments of the Muslim community, has contributed to the radicalization of some individuals. While the scale of radicalization and the potential for terrorist attacks remains unclear, it appears to be somewhat limited. In the 1980s, a few home-grown jihadi groups engaged in criminal activities, receiving assistance from Pakistan’s intelligence agencies. The demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 led to a series of bombings in Mumbai in 1993, which were linked to Pakistan-based Dawood Ibrahim and Pakistani intelligence. Additionally, groups like the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) emerged, and more militant members of SIMI went on to form the Indian Mujahideen (IM). There have also been traces of Al Qaeda and Daesh in India, as these transnational jihadist groups view India as part of a Crusader-Zionist Hindu conspiracy against Muslims. Reports have indicated that some Indian Muslims have participated in the wars in Syria and Iraq under the banner of Daesh. 21.7.3    Insurgency in North-East India Many insurgent movements in India display paramilitary characteristics. Insurgent groups in the North-East have been responsible for carrying out terrorist activities, with a large and diverse number of groups and political agendas, creating complex security challenges for the Indian state. Insurgency became a more serious threat starting in the 1980s. Among these, the separatist Naga movement stands out as one of the longest and most persistent. Other insurgent movements have also emerged in Mizoram, Tripura, and Manipur. Political unrest and a sense of alienation are widespread across the North-East, where demands for separation and autonomy are driven by ethnic, tribal, and religious identities. Numerous ethnic groups insist on being distinct from the rest of India. Despite decades of government efforts to address and manage ethnic conflicts, these have largely been unsuccessful, and terrorist attacks by splinter insurgent groups have risen. The frequency of attacks on police and security forces has also increased in the past decade. Peace dialogues have yielded little progress due to the multitude of splinter groups and factions. The North-East states share international borders, which allow insurgent groups to seek refuge in neighboring countries such as Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Myanmar, further complicating efforts by Indian security forces. In summary, security challenges in the North-East are varied and difficult to resolve. 21.7.4    Khalistan Militancy in Punjab The northern state of Punjab witnessed Sikh militancy between 1978 and 1993, driven by the demand for a separate Khalistan state. A group of armed militants, led by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, gained significant support within the Sikh community both in Punjab and abroad. Pakistan played a role in exacerbating the insurgency. Despite the use of terrorism, the Indian state initially treated the Khalistani movement as a law-and-order issue until 1984. The state's response escalated with Operation Blue Star, which sparked widespread violence across Punjab. This was followed by the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards and the subsequent anti-Sikh riots in Delhi and other parts of India. Khalistani terrorism intensified after 1984, but a decisive police operation, Operation Black Thunder, launched in 1988, effectively ended the insurgency in India. While sporadic incidents of violence and terrorism have continued, some pro-Khalistan groups remain active abroad within the Sikh diaspora. Similar to the militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir, media reports continue to highlight the support of Pakistani intelligence agencies for these Khalistani elements in the diaspora. 21.7.5    Naxalite Movement The question of whether the Naxalite movement should be classified as a terrorist movement does not have a simple answer. The violence and acts of terrorism associated with the Naxalite group are deeply rooted in rural and tribal distress, stemming from long-standing exploitation and oppression by a harsh state. The Naxalite movement emerged in the 1970s in West Bengal, primarily among rural, landless peasants who had suffered generations of exploitation by a class of landlords. Inspired by the writings of Mao Zedong and the 1949 revolution in China, which originated in rural areas, the movement is class-based rather than identitybased. Its goal is to overthrow the existing Indian state and establish a new, just social order. Official belief holds that the Naxalite issue can be resolved through development in the affected areas. However, despite this belief, there has been neither significant development nor any serious counter-terrorism (CT) measures to address Naxal violence. As a result, the movement has expanded and now affects nearly 185 of India’s 602 districts. The states most impacted by the movement include Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. In recent years, the movement has also spread to urban areas, attracting factory workers and sections of academia. It has increasingly targeted security personnel and civilian infrastructure, resorting to terrorist attacks and destruction. Economic liberalization has, among other factors, led to the expansion of illegal mining, quarrying, and deforestation, all of which have further bolstered the Naxal movement. The ongoing marginalization and exclusion of tribals, Dalits, landless individuals, and other rural poor communities help explain the persistence and longevity of the movement. Self- check Exercise 5 Q 1) Operation Bluestar dealt with the problem of ___________________in the state of ____________. Q 2) Why the security challenges and threats in the seven sister states of NorthEast region are heterogonous and intractable in nature? 21.8    Summary Non-traditional Security(NTS) problems/threats/issues have become increasingly important to policymakers, practioners and scholars in recent times .Non-traditional security (NTS) has expanded the concept of security, moving beyond the protection of the state to include the security of communities. From an international relations perspective, NTS focuses on the emerging nature and sources of new security threats. While NTS threats have always existed, they have become more prominent and intensified in the post-Cold War era. These threats are often transnational and cross-border, posing significant challenges that no single state can address alone. To effectively tackle NTS threats, a regional or even global response is required, calling for changes in state behavior and increased cooperation in regional governance mechanisms. Although NTS threats have existed for some time, their current significance arises from their scale, rapid development, and the speed with which they spread. Terrorism, as a major NTS threat, is particularly difficult to combat due to its elusive nature. It is also challenging to define terrorism precisely, although analysts have identified key features that distinguish it from revolutionary movements and insurgencies. Terrorism is primarily aimed at instilling fear in the general population and deliberately targets innocent civilians. The lack of coordination between states, combined with the tendency of states to prioritize national interests, contributes to the ongoing threat of international terrorism. A notable example is the trajectory of the U.S. war on terrorism. In India, terrorism has been a persistent issue since independence, deeply intertwined with domestic politics, identity struggles, and separatist movements. The state’s response through counter-terrorism (CT) and counter-insurgency (COIN) measures has often been inconsistent, reactive, and influenced by political and electoral considerations. Although non-traditional security threats are not new—issues like ethnic conflict, migration, refugees, poverty, and epidemics have always been part of life within and between states—what sets modern NTS threats apart is their scale, speed of emergence, rapid transmission, interconnectedness, and the inability of individual states to address these challenges alone within their own borders. 21.9    Glossary: NATO: Formed in 1949 with the signing of the Washington Treaty, NATO is a security alliance of 30 countries from North America and Europe. NATO's fundamental goal is to safeguard the Allies’ freedom and security by political and military means. GWOT: stands for international war on terror spanning the entire globe. The term connotes the diplomatic, financial, and other actions taken to deny financing or safe harbour to terrorists. USA PATRIOT ACT: The official title of the USA PATRIOT Act is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001." The USA PATRIOT Act is a law prevailing in America which is designed to prevent and punish those involved in terrorist activities by expanding investigation resources available to law enforcement agents. DAESH: Daesh is the Arabic acronym standing for the Islamic State in the Levant. It was used before the group took control of northern Iraq and eastern Syria. also known as ISIS, ISIL, 21.    10 Answer to self-check Exercises:Exercise 1 1)    state, community. 2) see non-state centred, trans-state 3) see 22.1 Exercise 2 1)    ethnicity, tribe or religion. 2) see 22.4 Exercise 3 1) Fear 2) see 22.5 Exercise 4) 1) see 22.5 and 22.6    2) see 22.6 Exercise 5 1) Terrorism, Punjab 2) see 22.7.3 21.11 Suggested Readings Acharya, Amitav, et.al. eds. 2006. Studying Non-Traditional Security in Asia: Trends and Issues. Singapore: Marshall Cavandish. Williams, P. and S. Black. 1994. Transnational Threats: During Trafficking and weapons proliferation. Contemporary Security Policy . Baruah, S., ed. 2009. Beyond Counter-Insurgency: Breaking the Impasse in Northeast India. Oxford: Oxford University Press . Caballero-Anthony, Mely et.al, eds. 2017. Non-Traditional Security in Asia: Dilemmas in Securitization. Hampshire: Ashgate. Chima, J.S. 2010. The Sikh Separatist Insurgency: Political Leadership and Ethnonationalist Movements. New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Dadwal, Shebonti Ray and Uttam Kumar Sinha, ed. 2015. Non-Traditional Security Challenges in Asia: Approaches and Responses. Routledge. Emmerson, Donald, K. ed. 2009. Hard Choices: Security, Democracy and Regionalism in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Utopia Press. Ganguly, Sumit, Manjeet Pardesi and Nicolas Blarel, eds. 2017. The Oxford Handbook to India’s National Security. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Mathew, R. and G. Shambaugh. 1998. Sex, Drugs and Heavy Metals: Transnational Threats and National Vulnerabilities. Security Dialogue . Hameiri, S., & Jones, L. (2013). The Politics and Governance of Non-Traditional Security. International         Studies          Quarterly, 57(3),          462–473. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24017917 Naval, J. B. (2015). Non-Traditional Security at Seas: Select Issues and Concerns. In S. F. Muhibat & A. Stienon (Eds.), The Future of The Seas In East Asia: Forging A Common Maritime Future For Asean And Japan (Pp. 33–38). Centre For Strategic And International Studies. Http://Www.Jstor.Org/Stable/Resrep14743.7 21.12Terminal Questions Q 1) Discuss in detail the notion of Non-traditional Security. What are its various manifestations? Q 2) Discuss the various manifestations of terrorism citing suitable examples? 246