INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (IR)

International Relations is both an academic discipline and a state of affairs among the states of
the world. IR is often seen as a branch of Political Science but with its capacity and ability to
cover the rapidly changing international trends, the subjects has gained its own distinct
recognition. The definition of International Relations is not absolute just as its scope. It has
broader perspectives and ways of interpretation than we think.

International Relations Definition

One can better define International Relations if one clarifies in which aspect it is required to be
defined. International Relations is beyond a comprehensive definition because of its
multidimensional approaches. Scholars however devised their own kinds of definitions depicting
the sense in which they take IR. As Palmer and Perkins used these words to define IR;

“International Relations is the objective and systematic study of international life

in all its aspects.”
This is a relatively general definition yet beyond the width of International Relations as a
discipline.

Central Point of all Efforts made to define International Relations

In nearly all definitions proposed for International Relations, scholars share one point in
common that works as the central idea behind this discipline. That idea is of ‘nation states’ and
the relationships between them.

IR in its very first sense name of the relationships between the nation states of the world. The
internationality is subject matter of the discipline. Modern nation state system evolved from the
Peace of Westphalia Treaty signed in 1648. Today, in the complex structure of world states
working on varying ideologies, International Relations helps to study them in unanimity of
thought.

Scope of International Relations

Another merit as well as demerit of this discipline is that it has no boundaries of its scope. It is
merit in the sense of provision of absolute opportunity to man to make research on the daily
changing international relations. It is demerit as the discipline fails to give itself a concrete shape
and outline. But still keeping in view the aspects studied in the International Relations till now,
we will try to elaborate its scope. Following points will prove helpful in this regard;
 IR studies relations between states in their political and economic prospects primarily.
 IR covers the realm of ‘foreign affairs’ in all its dimensions.
 IR deals with the recording and studying of International History with the aim to find out
the basis of states’ relations in the past.
 IR studies International Law in the context of how international rules define and govern
the relations between states.
  IR embodies its scope with the inclusion of not only states but also the non-state actors
in international relations.
 IR deals with the international events of;
 War
 Peace
 Nuclear world
 International political economy
 Globalization
 International institutions
 Conflicts among states
 Foreign policy and decision making
 National powers and interests

Conclusion
International Relations has a wider scope. The points elaborated above as its scope are not
final. This discipline broadens its scope with the changing events of the world and new
dynamics of international relations. It is a subject along with being a practical course adopted by
nations of the world and the international institutions.

The Nation State System

The Nation State System
Modern world is the world hosting nation state system. This system in its very basic sense
ensures the origin of states on the world map. And the relationships among these states are to
be regulated by internationally agreed set of rules. This nation state system is child of political
and social evolution of the world that commenced with the birth of social animal on this planet.

What is Nation State System?

Palmer defines nation state system in these words; “Nation State System is a pattern of political
life which organizes people separately into sovereign states”.

Elements of a Nation State

Every nation state of the world is to possess four essential elements in order to prove its
recognition. These elements are;

 Population as a nation
 Definite territory for that population to live in
 A government to govern that population with the defined territory
 Sovereignty of that nation state
Origin of Nation State System
Origin of the modern nation state system can be traced back into 1648 when the Peace Treaty
of Westphalia was signed. This treaty was actually an agreement to end the ‘Thirty Years of
War’ from 1618 to 1648 between various religio – political factions of the landmass Europe.

Prior to signing of this treaty various religious sects of Christian Europe were at daggers drawn
at one hand and there was dreadful clash between the Church and the Throne on the other
hand.

With the Peace of Westphalia drawn in 1648, for the first time in human history, independent
sovereign territories were defined to be ruled by the nations living in them. This was a way to
end the long war and it proved quite effective.

Modern Nation State System

Europe became the birthplace of the contemporary nation state system. Though it was not in
this position at that time but with the time passing it evolved. Today, the nation state system
shapes an international community to discuss and deal with the affairs between them.

Today, the nation state system is complex than ever. Not only the states are the prominent
actors as in the past but also the non-state actors occupy their place. Nation state system of
present day is however more concrete but still victim of various international problems.

Future of Nation State System

There can never be one state of the whole world as nations hesitate to lose their distinct
identities. Nation state system will continue in the future of this world with any rare chance of
being replaced. It is system that if not perfect then at least better than its previous versions.

Further, nations have learned to govern themselves and their states. They have established
international community, international peace making institution and international law as well.
Thus, it is a relatively better system.

Conclusion
Nation state system is the framework in which modern political world acts. It has more evolved
and developed mechanisms of conduct with each other. Nation states become the basis of
studying International Relations as well both in terms of a discipline as well as in terms of a
mechanism.

Evolution of International Society

Nation state system provided the fundamental unity for giving this world an international society.
This society of states faced various phases of peace and war to evolve into its contemporary
shape. Today, international society is more powerful and strong under the shadow of
international law than it was ever before in the past. Conflicts and frictions in the relations
among states however undermine the concreteness of international society at different levels of
interaction.
What is International Society?
International society can be defined as ‘community of world states gathered under an agenda
that may be in the shape of international law at a universal organization in order to sort out the
ways for achieving common goals and averting common threats thus primarily fulfilling the aim
of a peaceful world’.

Elements shaping International Society

The definition carries following elements that establish an international society;

 Nation states
 International organization
 International law
 Common Agenda
 Aim for world peace

Origin of International Society

Evolution of international community can be studied after knowing its origin. It was the Peace of
Westphalia of 1648 that actually laid the formal structure of nation states. Establishment of an
international community was possible not before that. Thus, nation states became the first
element of international community.

Nation states of the world plunged into the First World War in 1914. At the end of this war, the
first ever time came in history when the idea of an international community was materialized.
Following the proposition of the then American President Wilson, the League of Nations was
established as an apparent body of international society.

Evolution of International Society

Evolution of international society began with the birth of the League of Nations after the First
World War. The league became the first platform where the member states could debate over
the international problems. But soon after the Great Depression of 1930s, the League became
the victim of nationalism and state – centrism. This undermined the evolution of international
society. World put itself into another Great War from 1939 to 1945. This was a period which
might or might not be taken as evolutionary phase of international community. But in a compact
view, World War Two ended bringing the nation states closer again in order to revive this
interrupted evolution of international society. At that moment another international organization
with the name of the ‘United Nations’ (UN) was established.

UN survives even today after having passed through the bumpy decades of the Cold War
between the US and the USSR. The organization represents an international society with the
gathering of 192 states as its members.

UN & the Evolution of International Society

In the contemporary state of affairs, the evolution of international society can be seen and
assessed in terms of the evolution of the UN.
The UN as universal body of nation states pledges for the world peace and to avoid any
possibilities that might lead the world into another major conflict.

International society today has evolved to discuss and deal with the modern day problems of
global climate change, nuclear non-proliferation and so on. It is dealing with the issues of
regional and civil conflicts as well to prevent them from escalation. As has been the case with
Libya and Syria today where UN interfered to stop the wars.

Conclusion
From the origin of nation state system to the establishment of the League of Nations and then
its successor the United Nations, International Society is endeavoring in one way or the other to
infuse more rational ways to deal with the global problems and global crisis. The community
faces dilemmas and debacles in their efforts but overall prevent the world system from
disintegrating.

International Relations Theoretical Approaches

Theories are the academic basis of any discipline of social science. International Relations
being a discipline is studied in different theoretical approaches. It has varying approaches
because of different perspectives in which its subject matter is studied by the scholars. All
interpret the postulates of International Relations mostly not in a common way. Among the
theoretical approaches of the IR:

Liberalism or Idealism
Liberalism or Idealism comes first in terms of its formal origin.

Realism
Realism comes first in terms of its strong realistic postulates.

Neo-Realism
Neo-Realism comes as a refined form of the aboriginal Realism.

Neo – Liberalism
Neo – Liberalism takes re-birth years after the failure of idealism.

World System Theory

World System Theory advances itself from the traditional theories of International Relations, and

Feminist Theory
Feminist Theory brings forth the new and utopian ideas related to suppressed role of women in
International Relations.

— Liberalism and Idealism

What is Liberalism?
Liberalism as its name denotes, is a theory that defies the traditional and conservative style of
observing International Relations. It is a theory that basically emphasizes upon the need of
liberal thought and openness while maintaining international relations.
What is Idealism?
Idealism is nothing different from liberalism. It is part of the Liberal Approach which denotes a
specific period of time in the world history following the First World War when the Liberals made
an abortive effort to give this world an ideal system regulating the international relations.
Idealism is also called ‘Utopianism’.

Proponents of Liberalism & Idealism

Among the classic and modern proponents of Idealism and liberalism come the following
names;

 Immanuel Kant
 Thomas Jefferson
 James Madison
 John Locke

These above mentioned names were of classic scholars. The modern scholars included;

 Alferd Zimmern
 Norman Angell
 Woodrow Wilson

Fundamental Points of Liberal Approach in IR

The fundamental principles devised by the Liberal Approach in International Relations can be
studied in following points;

 It is instinct of human being to cooperate for mutual welfare.

 Evil is an exceptional case in the Human nature.
 States in a similar context tend to cooperate in international affairs as they are governed
by rational men.
 War cannot be eradicated however with mutual cooperation it can be reduced to the
minimum possible level.
 There shall be promoted international harmony with the help of a global institute working
to maintain the world peace.

Origin of Liberalism
Liberalism was actually founded after the chaotic World War One. It was the wish of the nation
states to cooperate in order to eliminate war of this destructive level. Former American
President Woodrow Wilson gave his historic 14 points to bring peace into the post – war world.
He in the last of his points gave the idea of establishing an international organization that was
materialized in the form of the ‘League of Nations’.
Criticism on Liberal & Ideal Approach
Liberalism and its more ambitious faction Idealism are criticized for utterly rejecting the realist
basis of international relations. They are criticized for forwarding the utopian and impracticable
schemes of regulating the relations between the states.

Failure of Liberalism?
Liberalism if not utterly failed then at least received a blow when the League met failure and
world plunged into World War Two. The utopian scheme could not prevent the nationalistic
tendencies of the League’s former members from disrupting the world order.

Conclusion
Liberalism is among the classic theoretical approaches of the International Relations. The
theory carries massive support for its liberal and peaceful modes of regulating the international
relations. However, it is criticized for its failure to prevent the world from another great war with
its utopian schemes.

— Realism
Realism is the approach of International Relations that works as anti – thesis to Liberalism.
Realism focuses on the more realistic, power oriented and state centric principles that play
important role in international relations. Realism lays emphasis upon gaining national power to
pursue national interests at all costs.

Proponents of Realism Approach

Among the classic proponents of Realism, also regarded as its founders, following names fall;

 Nicolo Machiavelli
 Thomas Hobbes
 Clausewitz

Modern scholars that favor Realism as a better approach in International Relations are;

 Hans Morgenthau
 George F. Kenan
 E. H. Carr

Origin of Realism as Approach of International Relations

Formal origin and incorporation of Realism as an approach in the International Relations was
seen at the end of the Second World War. Liberalism failed in all its utopian schemes to bring
peace to the world. States fought another Total War. Following that the approach of Realism
sought grounds. If seen in the distant past, Realism finds its origin in writings of Machiavelli as
well as Thomas Hobbes.
Fundamental Postulates of Realism
Following were the fundamental postulates drafted by various scholars under the umbrella of
Realism;

 There exists international anarchy.

 States are the principal actors in international relations.
 States pursue national interests.
 States tend to accumulate national power.
 States strengthen the means of their survivals.
 National power and national interests determine the relations between states.
 States need to compete each other for seeking relative gains in the international realm.
 War is an option in the international relations.

Realism and Six Principles of Hans Morgenthau

Hans Morgenthau’s Six principles of Realism are taken as eminent work in this field of
International Relations. His six principles give the ideas of;

 National power
 State centrism
 National interests
 Autonomy
 Survival
 Beyond morality approach of state

Criticism on Realism as Theoretical Approach of International Relations

Realism is criticized for its extreme emphasis on state centrism, power grabbing and national
interests at the costs of world peace. The theory is realistic but leads the world states into an
anarchic position where everyone is at war against the other. It does not eliminate war as an
option in the international relations.

Conclusion
International Relations seeks Realism as among the influential classical approaches. Realism
talks about the aboriginal and realistic basis of international relations. It is criticized for its
extreme version but the theory completely rejects the utopian postulates of idealism. Realism
does not take cooperation as an option because according to its proponents, world is anarchic
where intense competition is inevitable to maintain national power.

— Neo-Realism
‘Neo’ means new or the latest. Neo-Realism is more refined and advanced strand of Realism.
Neo-Realism unlike the original Realism is more moderate form in International Relations.
Origin of Neo-Realism
Neo-Realism originated in latter part of 1970s. It was the reactionary product of Neo-Liberalism
which once again posed serious threat to the Realist idea of state centrism. It was the work of
Kenneth Waltz with the title of ‘Theory of International Politics’ which gave birth to neo-realism.

Exponent of Neo-Realism
Among the modern exponents of neo-realism the name of Kenneth Waltz echoes. He is
regarded as founder of this theoretical approach in the International Relations. Waltz sticking to
the traditional ideas of Realism, infuses a new spirit in this approach by not utterly rejecting the
possibilities of cooperation among the states of the world.

Postulates of Neo-Realism
Postulates of new-realism are the same as that of realism. They differ in a few points which are
explained as following;

 There exists international anarchy which serves as basis of international relations rather
than the Human nature of violence.
 World states follow the idea of self – help to empower themselves and act in
international relations.
 There exists Security Dilemma in international relations. States accumulate power for
their security and survival which leads most of them into a race of armament and
militarization.
 Possibilities of cooperation between the states need not to be overlooked when they are
serving the interests of a state.
 It is not the cooperation however but the ‘Balance of Power’ that actually prevent the
states from large scale war.

Criticism on Neo-Realism Theory of International Relations

Neo-Realism is criticized on the account of following points;

 Still the theory is extreme and regards state as the sole actors of international relations.
 It admits cooperation now but it has not yet rejected war as an option.
 Focuses on national power and national interests of a state which actually undermine
the possibilities for cooperation.
 The theory of Neo-Realism gives a mixed vision not a clear cut one. It is not inclined on
a single side.

Conclusion
Neo-Realism is actually the reaction to the action posed by Neo-Liberalism. The theory has not
given up the basic postulates of Realism but it is still moderate as compared to its original
version. Neo-Realism is brainchild of Kenneth Waltz who believed neither in extreme liberalism
not in extreme realism. As a consequence, he devised a middle way to meet the ideals in
international relations.
— Neo-Liberalism
Neo-liberalism emerged to be the modern strand of liberalism in the realm of theoretical
International Relations. This approach just like its previous aboriginal strand believes in
rationality of human nature and international cooperation. But unlike its aboriginal form, neo-
liberalism is moderate and less extreme.

Origin of Neo-Liberalism as Theoretical Approach in IR

Origin of neo-liberalism in International Relations was both the result of changing world
circumstances and need of the evolving discipline of International Relations. Even more than
these two points, neo-liberalism originated to revive the dead approach of liberalism.

It was 1960s which is seen as the decade when neo-liberalism took birth. Its origin was
catalyzed by the declining oomph of realism.

Since after the collapse of liberalism as first hand approach of international relations, realism
was holding firm grip on the world order. Neo-Liberalism defied the system of state centrism and
intense competition bringing forth cooperation as the best option in economic and political
terms.

Various Aspects of Neo – Liberalism

Neo-Liberalism can be understood in various aspects it brought. These are explained below;

A. Neo Liberal Internationalism

The core assumption of this aspect of neo-liberalism is that the liberal democratic states of the
world don’t war against each other. This ensures peace and prosperity at global level.

B. Neo-Liberal Institutionalism
This strand of neo-liberal institutionalism though believes in cooperation but in one aspect it
shares commonality with the Realism. It concurs to the point of realism that states are the
principal actors and institutions in the international relations.

But instead of seeing this thing in terms of competition in anarchic world, neo-liberal
institutionalism focuses on ensuring prospects of cooperation.

Neo-Liberalism and Idealism

Neo-Liberalism gives a different scheme to regulate the international affairs as compared to
idealism. The theory of idealism that took birth after the First World War was taken as utopian
way to deal with international relations. It was impracticable.

Neo-Liberalism does not represent utopian and impracticable schemes. It accepts the primary
role of states in world affairs but suggests them to work with cooperation.

Criticism on Neo-Liberalism
Realists attack neo-liberalism again with the traditional mantra of not being a realistic approach
in understanding the global affairs. For the proponents of Feminism this is again among the
theories that carry nothing remarkable to ensure women empowerment. Marxists consider it as
a tool of the Western powers being exploited to deal both the developing and the developed
states under the same but unfair mechanisms.

— World System Theory

World System Theory, unlike the classic theories of Realism and Liberalism, is one dimensional
approach to study the situation of dependency of a part of the world upon the other. The central
point of the theory emphasizes on the point that the unhealthy economic condition of the
developing countries is due to continuous dependence on and unending exploitation by the
developed states of the world.

Origin of World System Theory

World System Theory is believed to have its root in the works of Lenin – the revolutionary
founder of the communist USSR. Lenin wrote ‘Imperialism – The Highest Stage of Capitalism’.
In this book he blamed capitalistic developed states responsible for exploitation and
backwardness of the developing states.

Explanation of World System Theory

World system theory explains the imperialistic styles of the world hegemons. It simply divides
the world into two tiers. One of the ‘Core’ which is based on economically and politically
advance countries i.e. European nations, USA. The other is ‘Periphery’ which consists of the
developing countries of Asia, Africa and South America.

The theory propounds that the Periphery world is dependent upon the Core world. This
dependence can be interpreted in terms of economy, politics and technological advancement.
The reasons behind the dependence are not only backwardness and depravity of the Periphery
but also continuous exploitation of these states by the Core states. This exploitation is carried
out by various tools that can be laws, institutions or any other form.

Historical Dependence of the Periphery

The theory goes deep in the history of the world order. It states that it was Periphery that
provided the Core with cheap labor, natural resources and raw material. Most of the Periphery
states were colonized and exploited to bring advancement and development in the Core states.
This led to historical dependence of the Periphery states on the Core states.

The situation worsened when the Core states reached high levels of industrialization and
technology but they did not share this advancement with the periphery states.

Conclusion
The approach of World System is criticized for being not a theory in real sense. It is single
dimensional perspective that explains how developing states are dependent upon the
developed states. The theory did not carry enough weightage in the theoretical realm of
International Relations.
— Feminist Theory
Feminism is a non-traditional and modern theory of International Relations. The theory
highlighted the aspects of international relations from the point of view of women of the world.
The theory propounds how this gender has been sidelined in deciding international relations
despite being its direct victim every time. Feminism is the broadest example of an effort for
women empowerment.

Origin of Feminism as Theory of International Relations

Origin of Feminism is actually the consequence of several world conferences convened to
empower women across the globe. Some of the prominent conferences that played role in this
regard are;

 Mexico Women’s Conference 1975

 Copenhagen Women’s Conference 1980
 Nairobi Women’s Conference 1985
 Convention on Elimination of All Kinds of Discriminations against Women 1979

These conferences highlighted the rights of women along with the need to empower them and
give them a share in deciding international affairs.

International Endorsement of Women’s Rights

Following the conferences mentioned above, international community endorsed the rightful
demands of women. The United Nations declared the years from 1976 to 1985 as ‘Decade for
Women’. Similarly, the year 1975 was marked as the ‘International Women’s Year’.

Core Points of Feminism as a Theory

Feminism laid down following reservations upon the contemporary world order;

 World order is in fact male dominated.

 National interest is always multi-dimensional but is defined by masculinity.
 Women have always remained hidden in international relations.
 Women are direct victims of male dominated decision making in international relations.
 War is decided by men but women suffer.

Efficacy of Feminism
Feminism is right in its reservations but it is utopian scheme. It is not practicable to secure the
share for women in international relations in a way as demanded. Feminism just like World
System Theory explains one dimensional aspect of international relations. Though there is a
vast change observable today in the status of women in world. They have been empowered
greatly. But there are cultural, social and historical barriers to enhance their role in international
relations that are difficult to overcome.
Another point which proves that women are now more active in international relations more than
they were in the past is that they can be seen as heads of the states, chief diplomats,
ambassadors, head of delegations at UN.

Conclusion
Feminist theory is more a reservation than an explanation how international relations are
regulated. It rarely gives any clear cut mechanism to regulate international relations. It has
however helped in empowering women.

Power & Elements of National Power

Power & Elements of National Power
National Power is fundamentally a mantra given by and believed in by the Realist school of
thought in International Relations. Having assumed this world as anarchic, the realists
emphasize upon accumulation of power by a state as inevitable. As far as the parameters of
measuring the national power is concerned, realists do measure it in relative terms. The
criterion set to determine national power is a collection of different elements that collectively
assess it.

What is Power?
In simplest terms of understanding, power is the capacity to get a thing done from someone who
would not have done this otherwise.

What is National Power?

National power refers to the capacity of a state to use its influence, force or authority upon
another state.

Realists’ View of National Power

Realist school of thought view national power as ultimate as well as the immediate goal of a
state. According to them a state must never give up accumulating national power after all it is in
competition with friends as well as foes.

Elements of National Power

Elements of national power are the factor which determine the power of a state. Status of these
elements is basically the parameter that may enhance or decline the national power of a state.
Some of the major elements have been elaborated below;

A. Geography
Geography does not only include the size and location of a state which determine national
power but also strategic position, climate, topography etc. Role of geography can be seen in
terms that the USSR and the USA had been super powers of the world and both carried vast
territories. But that is not always the case. Britain has small territory of its own but its control on
seas empowered it to rule over the world.
B. Economy
In the contemporary world order, the thing which matters the most is the powerful and stable
economy of a state. China is a clear example which due to its economy emerges out to be the
next world super power. Even the USA which is super power now has a vibrant economy.

C. Military
With economy, military might be also essential to enhance national power. China might be an
economic giant but it has limited military capacity as compared to the US. Thus the USA
surpasses it in national power.

D. Technology
Technological advancement emerges out to be another modern element of national power.
Technology is something that is shared in every field whether it is military, science, agriculture
or another department of state. A state technologically advance shares superiority over the
other. For instance, during the Cold War, the USA shared technological superiority over the
USSR.

E. Natural Resources
Natural resources are another element of national power. What matters in real is not the
presence of natural resources but it is their exploitation. If exploited to the maximum benefit,
natural resources can be helpful in enhancing national power.

F. National Unity and Population

Population type and its skills determine national power. And if the population of a nation is
united, it empowers the nation better.

G. Ideology
Ideology is traditional element of national power. It matters less but still matters to determine
national power. This is because of the reason that ideology plays role in determining structure of
state.

National Interest
National interest is a tricky topic of modern International Relations. It is something taken as an
impetus behind every state action relative to another state. National Interest serves as the
determinant of state’s foreign policy along with depicting the nature and policies of political
government ruling the state.

Defining National Interest

It is a common perception that national interest has no concrete and definite words that can
define it absolutely. It is a fluid aspect of International Relations. The definition of national
interest lacks universality because the national interest is not shared common by all states.
Secondly, there are the factors which determine national interest of a state for a specific period
of time. These factors also vary from state to state.
But in a very safe and simplest attempt to define national interest following words can be used;
“National Interest is the name of those goals and objectives of a state which are pursued to
seek the maximum benefit in a given set of circumstances”.

Fluidity of National Interest

National interest lacks definite outlook. The variables which prevent national interest from
seeking a concrete shape are following;

 Varying circumstances
 Different state ideologies
 Major changes in the World Order

These variables make states to review their national interests from time to time and alter their
course of action then.

Link Between National Interest and Foreign Policy

National interest is closely linked to the foreign policy of a state. As foreign policy is determined
and drafted keeping in view the national interest. Relations of one state with another state are
nothing more than their interests attached to each other’s. In Foreign policy a state pursues its
national interest.

Determinants of National Interest

Along with the variables mentioned above, national interest is determined by following elements;

 State’s geo – strategic position

 Political traditions
 Goals and manifestoes of political parties
 History of the state

Survival – The Chief Aim of National Interest

Among the several aims and goals of the national interest of a state, survival stands to be the
first one. All other interests come after a state has ensured survival. Other aims of national
interest can be economic, political and diplomatic oriented.

Ways to Pursue National Interest

National interest is pursued through different ways. In the modern world of the nation – state
system, national interest is pursued chiefly by ‘Diplomacy’. It is the legitimate art of forwarding
state’s foreign policy towards other states. In this way actually national interest is pursued.

Ways to pursue other than diplomacy can be use of influence, making alliances, concluding
agreements and treaties. Illegitimate ways might include the use of force against the other state
or interfering in its internal matters with the help of non – state actors.
Conclusion
National interest is understood in wider sense. It is mostly long term policy. The reason behind
the presence of complexity in understanding national interest is also that we take it in shorter
term as something imminently achievable and based on unchangeable principles. But in fact it is
contrary to that.

Sovereignty
Sovereignty is a modern day aspect of the International Relations. It is actually linked with the
aboriginal concept of the nation – state system. Before the origin of the nation state system, the
idea of sovereignty was vague. Later it evolved gradually to assume the contemporary
manifestation.

Defining Sovereignty
Sovereignty is defined in terms of ‘unrestricted and unlimited authority of a state within its
territory and on its population’. In another meaning of sovereignty, it is taken as the supremacy
of state. This supremacy is meant to control and command everything inferior to it.

Sovereignty as Element of State

Modern nation state has four essential elements as defined in the ‘Montevideo Convention on
Duties and Rights of States’;

 Population
 Territory
 Government
 Sovereignty

Sovereignty as an element of state is the most important one in abstract sense. Without
sovereignty the idea of population and territory can be perceived but the idea of government
control on both these things remains impossible. So, sovereignty is actually the name of that
control as well which government being the working agency of state exercise over its people.

Various Dimensions of Sovereignty

Sovereignty is understood in different dimensions or types. Some are explained below;

A. Domestic Sovereignty
Domestic sovereignty means that the state is sovereign to rule over and decide for all the
internal matters within its territory or related to its population.

B. Interdependence Sovereignty
Interdependence sovereignty means that state shall have control the international boundaries it
shares with the neighboring states. No one is permitted to cross the borders of the state without
due permission.
C. International Legal Sovereignty
This sovereignty is linked to the recognition of other sovereign states which have fulfilled the
criteria of being the nation states.

Exclusivity and Absoluteness in Sovereignty

Exclusiveness and Absoluteness are two important features of sovereignty. Exclusivity means
that the state is sovereign excluding all other agents that may tend to exercise control. In simple
terms it excludes these agents from sharing state’s sovereignty.

Absoluteness of sovereignty of state means that the supremacy and authority of state is
absolute and final. It will govern not only all the geographical parts of the country but also decide
for the people. This feature makes the modern nation state as central institute of power.

Internal & External Sovereignty

Internal sovereignty deals with the internal affairs of a state. This idea is most of the time also
linked with the concept of legitimacy of government. The way in which a government is elected
to exercise internal sovereignty is an important aspect.

External sovereignty is the name of maintaining relations of a sovereign power with the other
states of the world. It is not the supremacy of one state over another but the way in which
relations between states are to be maintained on equal footing.

Conclusion
Sovereignty is an abstract element of state which is also the most important one. Sovereignty is
the actual thing which works as the soul of modern nation state.

Balance of Power
Balance of power is the classical realist concept that preserved peace of the pre – world wars
world. It is concept that marks its practical implementation in 18th century. In the contemporary
world, balance of power theory has little role to play but it cannot be ignored utterly due to its
historic role. Even during the Cold War, a balance of power was present between the two Super
Powers which prevented from escalation of any conflict to the total war.

Defining Balance of Power

It has been noted that unlike most of the topics of international relations which lack concrete
definitions, ‘Balance of Power’ is actually the one which has multiple interpretations. In simple
terms, Balance of Power refers to ‘the mechanism which the states adopt in order to maintain a
certain level of equilibrium in their relative powers’.

Balance of Power as a General Social Principle

International Relations’ Realist Morgenthau see the ‘Balance of Power’ as a general social
principle. According to this perspective, ‘Balance of Power’ exists among states just as it exists
among individuals in society to maintain the social peace and equilibrium.
Pre – Requisites of ‘Balance of Power’
Balance of power requires following essentials;

 Multiple nation states

 International anarchy
 Varying degrees of powers distributed among the states
 Requirement for bringing an equilibrium

Tools of ‘Balance of Power’

Balance of power is not naturally present in the world order. It has to be achieved by the world
states utilizing one or the other method. Some major tools or techniques of achieving balance of
power are elaborated as following;

A. Alliances & Counter Alliances

This is the chief way to maintain or bring balance of power. In the 18th century world and also
during the Cold War, balance of power was kept by establishing Alliances. A common example
is ‘NATO’ & ‘Warsaw’ during the Cold War. Both the alliances, each led by rival superpower,
maintained a level of balance between them.

B. Buffer States
These are the states which geographically work as barrier between two or more rivals. For
instance, Afghanistan has been a buffer state between British held Indian colony and the Soviet
Union. Similarly, Tibet served as buffer states between India and China.

C. Armament and Militarization

Armament and militarization by one nation leads the rival states to do the same. This maintains
balance of power between them. India and Pakistan present this type of case. Both the states
maintain a level of deterrence through militarization and nuclear armament.

D. Disarmament
During Cold War, particularly in its later part, rapid disarmament agreements were concluded
between the US and the USSR. These agreements were like SALT, NPT at global level, etc.
These helped to restore balance of power by reducing dreadful arms.

E. Intervention
Intervention is also an option to bring balance of power. The US & USSR’ interventions in
Korean war, Vietnam war are its examples. Both the powers maintained balance of power
between them by fighting proxy wars at foreign lands.
Conceptualization of Security in 21st Century
Conceptualization of Security in 21st Century
Balance of Power is anachronism in the 21st century which is dominated by the nation states
that see their national interests and national powers as chief aims. Thus, intense competition
exists in anarchic world. Balance of power was not appropriate to bring peace to the 21st
century world. Due to its inadequacy and uncertainty it was needed to be replaced by something
more reliable.

Perceiving the Idea of Security in 21st Century

21st century is witnessing the nation states in their evolved shapes. International community is
stronger than ever before in the chaotic world history. But the risks of conflicts among states are
never eliminated absolutely. It is part of realistic world. In 21st century these risks might be less
but dangerous than ever. This is because international community is strong but several states
have weaponized themselves with weapons of mass destruction. Thus, maintaining peace in
this scenario is critical and needs proper mechanisms.

‘Collective Security’ as Core Concept of World Peace in 21st Century

The idea of ‘Collective Security’ replaced ‘Balance of Power’ in 21st century. This core concept
of security is different from its preceding formula.

A. What is Collective Security?

Collective Security can be defined as the ‘the collective or joint mechanisms adopted and
pursued by the international community to fight aggression and the aggressor in order to
maintain international peace’.

B. Principle behind the Concept of Collective Security

The principle behind the concept of Collective Security is that ‘all the states must be joining
hands to fight against the aggression. Attack against one states shall be taken as an attack
against all states’.

C. How to Achieve Collective Security?

Collective security can be achieved by pursuing the ways mentioned below;

 Aggressor state is needed to be identified in a combat

 All other states shall work jointly to contain or defeat the aggressor
 Aggressor shall be either made to surrender or defeated
 Arrangements shall be made in future to bring the aggressor state into mainstream

Effectiveness of Collective Security

Effectiveness of ‘Collective Security’ depends completely upon the eagerness of states to play
their respective roles in this regard. More the willing states would be the more effective
Collective Security can be perceived.
Collective Security & The League of Nations
League of Nations established on the principle of collective security failed in its mission due to
inappropriate and nationalistic approach of certain states like Germany, Italy, France. It carried
the principles to preserve the world peace which collapsed after the Great Depression and
finally led world to Second Great War of the century.

Collective Security & the UN

UN succeeded the League. In its very first Article, the UN Charter pledges to maintain
international peace. Chapter 7 of the charter further clarifies the course of action that states
need to adopt in cases of Breach of Peace.

Conclusion
Collective Security is the idea that works as the concept of security in 21st century. This concept
is working contemporarily along with several flaws it carries.

Quiz | Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. International Relations is the study of:
(A) Relations among states
(B) Relations among individuals
(C) Relations among citizens of a state

2. International Relations was branch of which discipline?

(A) Sociology
(B) International Law
(C) Political Science

3. Two mainstream theories of IR include:

(A) Professionalism and Individualism
(B) Realism and Idealism
(C) Rule of Law and Equality

4. Whose name is associated with Realism Theory:

(A) Karl Marx
(B) Hans Morgenthau
(C) Woodrow Wilson

5. Woodrow Wilson was proponent of:

(A) Realism
(B) Constructivism
(C) Idealism

6. International Relations is comparatively _____ discipline:

(A) New
(B) Ancient
(C) Old
7. Idealism primarily believes in:
(A) War and Conflict
(B) Trade and Cooperation
(C) Cold War

8. Realism primarily believes in:

(A) War and Conflict
(B) Trade and Cooperation
(C) Cold War

9. War is considered as:

(A) Diplomacy by other means
(B) Unwanted
(C) Both (A) & (B)

10. World War II began in the year:

(A) 1929
(B) 1939
(C) 1949

11. World War II was won by which alliance:

(A) Allies
(B) Axis
(C) Nazis

12. Who was the Prime Minister of UK during the World War II:
(A) Tony Blair
(B) Winston Churchill
(C) Gordon Brown

13. Who was leader of the USSR during WW II:

(A) Lenin
(B) Stalin
(C) Khrushchev

14. Diplomacy means:
(A) Ways to start international business
(B) Method of international relations
(C) Means of waging war

15. President of the US who helped in founding the League of Nations was:

(A) George Washington
(B) Abraham Lincoln
(C) Woodrow Wilson

16. Cuban Missile Crisis involves which three countries:

(A) USSR, Germany and Cuba
(B) USSR, France and USA
(C) USSR, Cuba and USA
17. Prime Minister of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis was:
(A) Raul Castro
(B) Fidel Castro
(C) Ernesto Guevara

18. Bay of Pigs invasion is associated with which two countries:

(A) USA and USSR
(B) USA and Germany
(C) USA and Cuba

19. USSR was founded by:

(A) Vladimir Lenin
(B) Joseph Stalin
(C) Nikita Khrushchev

20. Who was President of USSR when the Cold War began:

(A) Vladimir Lenin
(B) Joseph Stalin
(C) Nikita Khrushchev

21. Cold War rivals were:

(A) USA and France
(B) USA and UK
(C) USA and USSR

22. Cold War ended with the:

(A) Collapse of USSR
(B) Fall of the Berlin Wall
(C) Both (A) & (B)

23. Détente is the term associated with:

(A) Cuban Missile Crisis
(B) Cold War
(C) Bay of Pigs Invasions

24. World became ______ after the end of Cold War:

(A) Unipolar
(B) Bipolar
(C) None of These

25. NATO is a security alliance of:

(A) North America and Europe
(B) USA and Russia
(C) Asia and Europe

26. Alliance founded to counter NATO was:

(A) SEATO
(B) Warsaw Pact
(C) CENTO
27. Who was the last President of USSR:
(A) Stalin
(B) Khrushchev
(C) Gorbachev

28. Gorbachev was considered as one of the reason for early collapse of:
(A) USA
(B) USSR
(C) Germany

29. World War 1 resulted in defeat of:

(A) France
(B) USA
(C) Ottoman Empire

30. Modern Turkey is the successor state of:

(A) France
(B) USA
(C) Ottoman Empire

31. Realignment of Alliance is result of:

(A) Changing interests
(B) Political Pressure
(C) Both (A) & (B)

32. Which defines relations among states the most:

(A) Interests
(B) People to People relations
(C) Both (A) & (B)

33. Which is no studied under IR:

(A) War and Peace
(B) Diplomacy
(C) Political Cultures

34. Primary topic of IR is:

(A) States
(B) Individuals
(C) Organizations

35. International Relations is a _____ discipline:

(A) Narrow
(B) Vast
(C) None of These

36. Which one of the following is not a determinant of foreign policy:

(A) Economic Interests
(B) Strategic Interests
(C) None of These
37. Foreign Policy is rarely guided by ___ in a world led by realism:
(A) Ideology
(B) Interests
(C) Warfare

38. Aid is considered as a tool of _____.

(A) Foreign Policy
(B) Ethical Help
(C) Humanitarian Efforts

39. Afghanistan has long served as a ___ state:

(A) Ideal State
(B) Buffer State
(C) Socialist State

40. USSR was expelled from Afghanistan with the support of:

(A) USA
(B) France
(C) India

41. Charlie Wilson is a name attached with:

(A) Afghan Jihad
(B) 9/11
(C) Korean War

42. Korean War was an episode of the:

(A) World War 1
(B) World War 2
(C) Cold War

43. Nixon has served as:

(A) US Secretary of the State
(B) US President
(C) US Diplomat

44. President Kennedy ______ Vietnam War:

(A) Launched
(B) Supported
(C) Opposed

45. 9/11 led to the attack of US against:

(A) USSR in Afghanistan
(B) Taliban Regime in Afghanistan
(C) ISIL

46. Syria is a country troubled by:

(A) International Interference
(B) Civil War
(C) Both (A) & (B)
47. Middle East is a ‘patch work of states’. These words belong to:
(A) Kenneth Waltz
(B) Hans Morgenthau
(C) Henry Kissinger

48. Economic Dominance is considered as:

(A) A tool of Power in IR
(B) An unwanted thing
(C) None of These

49. Bipolar World means:

(A) Having one Superpower
(B) Having Two Superpowers
(C) Having no Superpowers

50. UN can be explained as:

(A) Union of World States
(B) Union of American States
(C) A body of Unnecessary Alliance