Module in International Relations

Page |1
NORTH LUZON PHILIPPINES STATE COLLEGE
Module in
Introduction to international relations
JARON CHRISTIAN R. BEDAR Ll.B
College of Arts and Sciences
North Luzon Philippines State College
Discussion of Topic:
Page |2
Chapter I
Meaning, scope, importance and the core principles of International Relations
Learning Objectives:
At the end of the chapter the students should have:
1. Explained the meaning and scope of International Relations;
2. Elaborated the importance of International relations in the study of Political Science;
3. Mastered the different core principles of International relations.
What is International Relations?
International relations (IR) can be defined as political activities and other kinds and aspects of
interactions among two or more states. The academic field of international relations is a branch of
political science that is concerned with the study of relations between states, the foreign policy of
nation-states, and the mechanisms and institutions (such as international organizations, inter-
governmental organizations, international and national non-governmental organizations and
multinational corporations) through which states interact.
The study of international relations involves many subjects such as international and regional peace and
security, international organizations, nuclear proliferation, globalization, human rights, economic
development, intervention, international financial relations, and international trade relations.
What is the scope of International Relations?
In modern world the scope of IR has a greatly expanded. Initially it was the study of diplomacy.
Later, international law became the subject matter of IR. It became wider with the establishment of
League of Nations and the study of international organizations was also included in IR. The scope of IR
expanded during the second world war with emergence of USA and USSR as super power, the
multiplications of nation states, the danger of thermo-nuclear war, increasing interdependence of states
and rising expectations in the people of the underdeveloped world. Greater emphasis was made on the
scientific study of IR which developed methodologies and introduction of new theories. Today IR
includes the study of behavior of political actors and groups and it has an extensive scope. On the other
hand, the writers seem divided on the scope of IR and as Alfred Zimmern says that IR is not a discipline
but a combination of History and political science. It is heavily dependent on other disciplines and has so
far failed to develop a coherent body of knowledge. According to Organski “as a science, IR today is in
its infancy, it is still less a science than a mixture of philosophy and history and its theories are shockingly
unstable”
Page |3
What is the importance of International Relations?
The world has become a global village due to technological advances. Therefore, an event in one
part of the world has an immediate effect on the other part. All the states in the world are now under
compulsion to interact with each other. International relations existed since long among different states
like Egypt, Greece and China but they were based on morality and were not scrupulously observed. These
earlier relations were among the neighbors and they may precisely be called “regional relations”.
It was only in seventeen centuries that the states established relations beyond their regions. The
improvement in the means of communications, and the industrial revolution further brought the states
together. At this time the study of IR was mainly concerned with the study of diplomacy, law and
philosophy. Today the relations among the states are interdependence, and IR enables us to understand
the motives of individual states and problems faced by the world. IR teaches us that peace could only be
achieved if the world actors subjectively solve the problems faced by the world politics like excessive
nationalism and narrow national interest. Modern theory of IR demonstrates that the traditional concept of
sovereignty has become outdated and needs modification.
Core Principles of International Relations
• IR revolves around one key problem:

– How can a group – such as two or more states – serve its collective interests when doing
so requires its members to forego their national interests?
• Example: Problem of global warning. Solving it can only be achieved by many
countries acting together.
– Collective goods problem
• The problem of how to provide something that benefits all members of a group
regardless of what each member contributes to it
• In general, collective goods are easier to provide in small groups than large ones.
– Small group: defection (free riding) is harder to conceal and has a greater impact on the
overall collective good, and is easier to punish.
• Collective goods problem occurs in all groups and societies but within a state, gov’ts provide
public or collective goods.
– Particularly acute in international affairs
• No central authority such as a world government to enforce on individual nations
the necessary measures to provide for the common good
• Three basic principles offer possible solutions for this core problem of getting individuals to
cooperate for the common good without a central authority to make them do so.
– Dominance
– Reciprocity
Page |4
– Identity
DOMINANCE
• Solves the collective goods problem by establishing a power hierarchy in which those at the top
control those below
– Status hierarchy
• Symbolic acts of submission and dominance reinforce the hierarchy.
• Hegemon
• The advantage of the dominance solution
– Forces members of a group to contribute to the common good
– Minimizes open conflict within the group
• Disadvantage of the dominance solution
– Stability comes at a cost of constant oppression of, and resentment by, the lower-ranking
members of the status hierarchy.
– Conflicts over position can sometimes harm the group’s stability and well-being.
RECIPROCITY
• Solves the collective goods problem by rewarding behavior that contributes to the group and
punishing behavior that pursues self-interest at the cost of the group
– Easy to understand and can be “enforced” without any central authority
– Positive and negative reciprocity
– Disadvantage: It can lead to a downward spiral as each side punishes what it believes to
be the negative acts of the other.
• Generally people overestimate their own good intentions and underestimate those
of opponents or rivals.
IDENTITY
• Identity principle does not rely on self-interest.
• Members of an identity community care about the interests of others in the community enough to
sacrifice their own interests to benefit others.
Page |5
– Family, extended family, kinship group roots, clan, nation, religious and ethnic groups
• In IR, identity communities play important roles in overcoming difficult collective goods
problems; while at times identity construction can intensify the collective goods problem
– Nonstate actors also rely on identity politics.
-End of Discussion-
Evaluation:
Answer the following questions: (10 pts each)
1. What is the goal of International Relations?
2. What will happen if an actor does not want to enter into a relationship?
Criteria Performance Indicator Points

Argument Provided argument that is 6
coherent to the content and
context.
Grammar Used correct grammar, 2
punctuation, spelling, and
capitalization.
Organization Expressed the points in clear 2
and logical arrangement of
ideas in the paragraph.
Total 10
Reference:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337635265_International_Relations_Introduction
Discussion of topic:
Page |6
Chapter II
Political Globalization and Actors of International
Relations
1. Defined political globalization as part of International relations;
2. Mastered the different actors of International Relations.
What is Political Globalization?
It refers to the growth of the worldwide political system, both in size and complexity. That
system includes national governments, their governmental and intergovernmental organizations as well as
government-independent elements of global civil society such as international non-governmental
organizations and social movement organizations. One of the key aspects of the political globalization is
the declining importance of the nation-state and the rise of other actors on the political scene. The
creation and existence of the United Nations has been called one of the classic examples of political
globalization.
What are the attributes of today’s global system?
1. There are countries and states that are independent and govern themselves.
2. These countries interact with each other through diplomacy.
3. There are IGO’s that facilitate these interactions.
4. IGO’s also take on lives of their own. (they exist for some other purposes) E.G UN’s (WHO)
Who are the actors in IR?
The actors in IR or global politics are
1. The States
Page |7
2. International Governmental Organizations (IGO’s)
3. Non-governmental Organizations (NGO’s)
What is a State?
 State is a community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion
of territory, having a government of their own to which the great body of inhabitants render
obedience, and enjoying freedom from external control.
Is the Philippines a State?
To answer the question let us first examine the different elements of a state.
 Elements:
1. People
It refers to the inhabitants occupying the state
2. Territory
It refers to the portion on the surface of the earth.
(Read: Sec. 1 Art. 1 of the 1987 constitution about National territory)
3. Government
Defined as the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the state is formulated
expressed and realized.
4. Sovereignty
The supreme power inherent in a state by which the state is governed
 If all the elements are present then the Philippines is a state
What are the differences between a State and a nation?
 State is a legal concept while nation is an ethnic concept.
 Nation is a sociological collectivity of individuals who possess common certain non-political

characteristics such as common racial origin, common language, common religion, common
historical experience, common culture and traditions, common beliefs and creeds.
 A nation may compose different states but a state may not compose different nations due to
strong sense of nationalism.
 Nation and State are closely related because it is nationalism that facilitates state formation. In
the contemporary era, it has been the nationalist movements that allowed for the creation of
nation-states. States become independent and sovereign because of nationalist sentiment that
clamors for this independence.
Page |8
 Nationalism – Love for one’s country.
The Historical background of the Interstate system
 The origins of the present day concepts of sovereignty can be traced back to the treaty of
Westphalia, which was a set of agreements signed in 1648 to end the thirty years war between the
major powers of Europe.
 The treaty was designed to avert wars in the future by recognizing that the treaty signers (like:
Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and Dutch republic) exercise complete control over
their domestic affairs and swear not to meddle in each other’s affairs.
 The Treaty was challenge by Napoleon Bonapart in the Napoleonic wars that implemented the
Napoleonic code that challenge the power of monarchies in Europe.
 However, Napoleon lost the battle of waterloo that caused his defeat ending his mission to spread
his liberal code across Europe, the Royal powers created a new system that would restore the
Westphalia system, the Concert of Europe.
 Klemens von Metternich was the system’s main architect.
 The Westphalia and Concert systems divided the world into separate, sovereign entities. Hence,
the existence of Interstate system
The call for Internationalism
 Others imagine a system of heightened interactions between sovereign states particularly the
desire for greater cooperation and unity among states and peoples. This desire is called
Internationalism.
 The principle of Internationalism may be divided into two broad categories: Liberal
internationalism and Socialist internationalism.
Liberal Internationalism
 The first major thinker of liberal internationalism was the late 18 th century German philosopher
Immanuel Kant. Kant likened states in a global system to people living in a state.
◦ If people living together require a government to prevent lawlessness, shouldn’t that

same principle be applied to states?
He argued that without a form of world government the international system would be chaotic.
In short, Kant imagined a form of global government.
Page |9
 Jeremy Bentham (18th century British philosopher who coined the term “International”)
advocated the creation of International law that would govern the inter-state relations.
 He believe that objective global legislators should aim to propose legislation that would create
“the greatest happiness of all nations taken together”
 The first thinker to reconcile nationalism with liberal internationalism was the 19 th century Italian
patriot Giuseppe Mazzini.
 He believe in a republican government (without kings, queens and hereditary successions) and
proposed a system of free nations that cooperated with each other to create an international
system.
 Mazzini influenced the thinking of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson who became one of the 20th
century’s most prominent internationalist.
 Wilson saw nationalism as a pre-requisite for internationalism.
 He forwarded the Principle of self determination-the belief that the world’s nations had a right to
a free and sovereign government.
 Wilson is known as one of the advocate for the creation of the League of Nations.
 The league was the concretization of the concepts of liberal internationalism.
Socialist Internationalism
 One of Mazzini’s biggest critics was German socialist philosopher Karl Marx who was also an
internationalist, but who differed from the former because he did not believe in nationalism.
 Marx did not divide the world into countries but into classes.
 The capitalist class referred to the owners of factories, companies, and other means of production
are called the “Bourgeois”.
 While the working class is called “Proletariat”
 Marx and his co author Friedrich Engels opposed nationalism because they believed it prevented
the unification of the world’s workers.
 One of the most famous quote of Marx
 “Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains”
P a g e | 10
 Marx died in 1883, but his followers soon sought to make his vision concrete by establishing their
international organization-The Socialist International.
 SI was a union of European socialist and labor parties established in Paris in 1889. Although,
short-lived, the SI’s achievements included the declaration of May 1 as Labor Day and the
creation of an international women’s day. Most importantly it initiated for an 8 hour work day.
 As the SI collapsed, a more radical version emerged. Like the Bolshevik Party led by Vladimir
Lenin that overthrow Czar Nicholas II paving the creation of the USSR.
 With the collapsed of USSR in 1991 whatever existing thoughts about communist
internationalism also practically disappeared
Global politics of the contemporary world
 For the postwar period, liberal internationalism would once again be ascendant and the best
evidence is the rise of the United Nations as center of global governance.
-End of discussion-
Evaluation:
1. What is the main reason why United Nations Organization was created?
2. Does internationalism beneficial?

context.
capitalization.
Total 10
References:
Book: The Contemporary World by Prince Aldama. 2018
P a g e | 11
Chapter III
Theories in International Relations
1. Understood the concept of the different theories of International relations;
2. Demonstrated understanding about the theories of IR and find application in the study of Polsci.
What are the theories in IR?
REALISM
Realists think that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and
competitive. This perspective, which is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, views human nature
as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless there exist conditions under which humans
may coexist. It is also disposed of the notion that an individual's intuitive nature is made up of anarchy. In
regards to self-interest, these individuals are self-reliant and are motivated in seeking more power.
They are also believed to be fearful. This view contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international
relations.
The state emphasizes an interest in accumulating power to ensure security in an

anarchic world. Power is a concept primarily thought of in terms of material resources necessary to
induce harm or coerce other states (to fight and win wars). The use of power places an emphasis on
coercive tactics being acceptable to either accomplish something in the national interest or avoid
something inimical to the national interest. The state is the most important actor under realism. It is
unitary and autonomous because it speaks and acts with one voice. The power of the state is understood
in terms of its military capabilities. A key concept under realism is the international distribution of
power referred to as system polarity. Polarity refers to the number of blocs of states that exert power in an
international system. A multipolar system is composed of three or more blocs, a bipolar system is
P a g e | 12
composed of two blocs, and a unipolar system is dominated by a single power or hegemon. Under
unipolarity realism predicts that states will band together to oppose the hegemon and restore a balance of
power. Although all states seek hegemony under realism as the only way to ensure their own security,
other states in the system are incentivised to prevent the emergence of a hegemon through balancing.
States employ the rational model of decision making by obtaining and acting upon
complete and accurate information. The state is sovereign and guided by a national interest defined in
terms of power. Since the only constraint of the international system is anarchy, there is no international
authority and states are left to their own devices to ensure their own security. Realists believe
that sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system. International institutions, non-
governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state
actors are viewed as having little independent influence. States are inherently aggressive (offensive
realism) and obsessed with security (defensive realism). Territorial expansion is only constrained by
opposing powers. This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma whereby increasing
one's security may bring along even greater instability as an opposing power builds up its own arms in
response (an arms race). Thus, security becomes a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.
Realists believe that there are no universal principles with which all states may guide
their actions. Instead, a state must always be aware of the actions of the states around it and must use a
pragmatic approach to resolve problems as they arise.
Attempts are underway to identify the quantitative axioms underpinning political realism,
which would allow for computational analysis of the international system.
Rather than assume that states are the central actors, some realists, such as William
Wohlforth and Randall Schweller refer instead to "groups" as the key actors of interest.
LIBERALISM
Liberalism is a school of thought within international relations theory which can be thought to revolve

around three interrelated principles:
 Rejection of power politics as the only possible outcome of international relations; it questions
security/warfare principles of realism
 It accentuates mutual benefits and international cooperation
 It implements international organizations and nongovernmental actors for shaping state preferences
and policy choices[1]
This school of thought emphasizes three factors that encourage more cooperation and less conflict among
states:
 International institutions, such as the United Nations, who provide a forum to resolve disputes in a
non-violent way
 International trade because when countries' economies are interconnected through trade they are less
likely to go to war with each other
P a g e | 13
 Spread of democracy as well-established democracies do not go to war with one another, so if there
are more democracies, interstate war will be less frequent
Liberals believe that international institutions play a key role in cooperation among states via
interdependence. There are three main components of interdependence. States interact in various ways,
through economic, financial, and cultural means; security tends to not be the primary goal in state-to-state
interactions; and military forces are not typically used. Liberals also argue that
international diplomacy can be a very effective way to get states to interact with each other honestly and
support nonviolent solutions to problems. With the proper institutions and diplomacy, Liberals believe
that states can work together to maximize prosperity and minimize conflict.
Laying out the basics
Realism: The traditional path that emphasizes the centrality of the state on the world
stage and the pursuit of national self-interest above all else.
Liberalism: The alternative path that emphasizes a more cooperative, globalist

approach and the important role of global institutions and regional organization as
authoritative actors on the world stage.
REALISM
Influence of Thomas Hobbes and Hans Morgenthau: Conflict is inevitable
Largely pessimistic: Humans are aggressive and self-serving, and they are unlikely to
change
Neorealism: Focus on anarchic nature of world system based on competing sovereign

states
LIBERALISM
Influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Humans join civil societies and cooperate to

achieve mutual benefits.
Neoliberalism: Emphasize international organization to build effective cooperation

(also known as neoliberal institutionalism)
CONSTRUCTIVISM
Constructivism primarily seeks to demonstrate how core aspects of international relations are, contrary to
the assumptions of neorealism and neoliberalism, socially constructed. This means that they are given
their form by ongoing processes of social practice and interaction. Alexander Wendt calls two
increasingly accepted basic tenets of Constructivism "that the structures of human association are
determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and that the identities and
interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by
P a g e | 14
nature." This does not mean that constructivists believe that international politics is "ideas all the way
down", but rather that international politics is characterized both by material factors and ideational
factors.
Central to Constructivism are the notions that ideas matter, and that agents are socially
constructed (rather than given)
Constructivist research is focused both on causal explanations for phenomena, as well as analyses of how
things are constituted. In the study of national security, the emphasis is on the conditioning that culture
and identity exert on security policies and related behaviors. Identities are necessary in order to ensure at
least some minimal level of predictability and order. The object of the constructivist discourse can be
conceived as the arrival, a fundamental factor in the field of international relations, of the recent debate on
epistemology, the sociology of knowledge, the agent/structure relationship, and the ontological status of
social facts.
The notion that international relations are not only affected by power politics, but also by ideas, is shared
by writers who describe themselves as constructivist theorists. According to this view, the fundamental
structures of international politics are social rather than strictly material. This leads to social
constructivists to argue that changes in the nature of social interaction between states can bring a
fundamental shift towards greater international security.
RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY
According to James D. Fearon, a rational choice research project typically proceeds in the following
fashion:
1. The analyst identifies an event or pattern of behavior that they want to explain
2. The analyst posits a set of relevant actors
3. The analyst proposes the choices available to the actors
4. The analyst links the preferences of actors to the set of available choices
5. The analyst explains the conditions under which an outcome occurs if the relevant actors are
behaving rationally
Actors do not have to be fully rational. There are varieties of rationality (e.g. thick and thin
rationality). Rational choice scholarship may emphasize materialist variables, but rational choice and
materialism are not necessarily synonymous.
Rational choice explanations for conflict and the lack of cooperation in international politics frequently
point to factors such as incomplete information, and a lack of credibility. Chances of cooperation and
peaceful resolution can be increased through costly signaling, long shadows of the future, and tit-for-tat
bargaining strategies. According to rationalist analyses, institutions may facilitate cooperation by
increasing information, reducing transaction costs, and reducing collective action problems.
Rational choice analyses tend to conceptualize norms as adhering to a "logic of consequence" rather than
the constructivist “logic of appropriateness”. The “logic of consequences” entails that actors are
assumed to choose the most efficient means to reach their goals on the basis of a cost-benefit
P a g e | 15
analysis. This stands in contrast to the logic of appropriateness whereby actors follow “internalized
prescriptions of what is socially defined as normal, true, right, or good, without, or in spite of calculation
of consequences and expected utility”. Jeffrey Checkel writes that there are two common types of
explanations for the efficacy of norms:
 Rationalism: actors comply with norms due to coercion, cost-benefit calculations, and material
incentives
 Constructivism: actors comply with norms due to social learning and socialization
FEMINIST THEORY
• Argues that women have been excluded by men from the international politics process and from
the conceptualization of world politics
• More comprehensive concepts of peace and security represent examples of how women perceive
international politics issues differently than men
• Seeks to forge a distinct political identity and heightened feminist consciousness for women
living in nations around the world
ECONOMIC THEORY
• Economic nationalism—closely connected to realism with its emphasis on using economic

strength to increase national power and vice versa.
• Economic internationalism—closely related to liberalism with its belief free economic

interchange without political interference can bring prosperity to all nations
• Economic structuralism—holds that economics plays a fundamental, dominant role in

determining world politics
-End of Discussion-
Evaluation:
1. Identify at least five countries that practice the different theories that we discussed. Justify your
answer.

context.
P a g e | 16

capitalization.
Total 10
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism_(international_relations)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(international_relations)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_(international_relations)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)
P a g e | 17
CHAPTER IV
POWER IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
1. Defined power in international relations;
2. Identified the different categories of power in international relations;
3. Differentiated hard, soft and smart power.
What is power in international relations?
Power is an of the essentially contested concepts in tne study of international relations (Evans, Newnham,
The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations)
The concept of Power is one of the most troublesome in the field of international politics‖ (Robert Gilpin)
Power, like a host of other important concepts in IR, is an essentially contested concept
It means quite different things to different people (Brian C. Schmidt)
At its simplest, power in interstate relations may be defined as a state’s ability to control, or at least
influence, other states or the outcome of events.
Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall define power as "the production, in and through social
relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to determine their circumstances and fate."
They reject definitions of power that conflate power as any and all effects because doing so makes power
synonymous with causality. They also reject persuasion as part of the definition of power, as it revolves
around actors freely and voluntarily changing their minds once presented with new information.
Political scientists, historians, and practitioners of international relations (diplomats) have used the
following concepts of political power:
P a g e | 18
 Power as a goal of states or leaders;

 Power as a measure of influence or control over outcomes, events, actors and issues;
 Power as victory in conflict and the attainment of security;
 Power as control over resources and capabilities;
 Power as status, which some states or actors possess and others do not.
Power as a goal
The primary usage of "power" as a goal in international relations belongs to political theorists,
such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Hans Morgenthau. Especially among Classical Realist thinkers, power
is an inherent goal of mankind and of states. Economic growth, military growth, cultural spread etc. can
all be considered as working towards the ultimate goal of international power. The German military
thinker Carl von Clausewitz is considered to be the quintessential projection of European growth across
the continent. In more modern times, Claus Moser has elucidated theories centre of distribution of power
in Europe after the Holocaust, and the power of universal learning as its counterpoint. Jean Monnet] was a
French left-wing social theorist, stimulating expansive Eurocommunism, who followed on the creator of
modern European community, the diplomat and statesman Robert Schuman.
Power as influence
Political scientists principally use "power" in terms of an actor's ability to exercise influence over other
actors within the international system. This influence can be coercive, attractive, cooperative,
or competitive. Mechanisms of influence can include the threat or use of force, economic interaction or
pressure, diplomacy, and cultural exchange.
Under certain circumstances, states can organize a sphere of influence or a bloc within which they
exercise predominant influence. Historical examples include the spheres of influence recognized under
the Concert of Europe, or the recognition of spheres during the Cold War following the Yalta Conference.
The Eastern Bloc, the Western Bloc, and the Non-Aligned Movement were the blocs that arose out of the
Cold War contest. Military alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact are another forum through which
influence is exercised. However, "realist" theory attempted to maintain the balance of power from the
development of meaningful diplomatic relations that can create a hegemony within the region. British
foreign policy, for example, dominated Europe through the Congress of Vienna after the defeat of France.
They continued the balancing act with the Congress of Berlin in 1878, to appease Russia and Germany
from attacking Turkey. Britain has sided against the aggressors on the European continent—i.e.
the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Napoleonic France or the Austrian Empire, known during the Great
War as the Central Powers and, in World War II as the Axis Powers.
International orders have both a material and social component. Martha Finnemore argues that unipolarity
does not just entail a material superiority by the unipole, but also a social structure whereby the unipole
maintains its status through legitimation, and institutionalization. In trying to obtain legitimacy from the
other actors in the international system, the unipole necessarily gives those actors a degree of power. The
unipole also obtains legitimacy and wards off challenges to its power through the creation of institutions,
but these institutions also entail a diffusion of power away from the unipole. David Lake has argued along
similar lines that legitimacy and authority are key components of international order.
P a g e | 19
Susan Strange made key contribution to International Political Economy on the issue of power, which she
considered essential to the character and dynamics of the global economy. Strange was skeptical of static
indicators of power, arguing that it was structural power that mattered. In particular, interactions between
states and markets mattered. She pointed to the superiority of the American technology sector, dominance
in services, and the position of the U.S. dollar as the top international currency as real indicators of lasting
power. She distinguished between relational power (the power to compel A to get B to do something B
does not want to do) and structural power (the power to shape and determine the structure of the global
political economy). Political scientists Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman argue that state power is
in part derived from control over important nodes in global networks of informational and financial
exchange, which means that states can "weaponize interdependence" by fighting over control of these
nodes.
Power as security
Power is also used when describing states or actors that have achieved military victories or security for
their state in the international system. This general usage is most commonly found among the writings of
historians or popular writers.
Power as capability
Power is also used to describe the resources and capabilities of a state. This definition is quantitative and
is most often [used by geopoliticians and the military. Capabilities are thought of in tangible terms—they
are measurable, weighable, quantifiable assets. A good example for this kind of measurement is
the Composite Indicator on Aggregate Power, which involves indicators and covers the capabilities of 44
states in Asia-Pacific from 1992 to 2012. Hard power can be treated as a potential and is not often
enforced on the international stage.
Chinese strategists have such a concept of national power that can be measured quantitatively using an
index known as comprehensive national power.
Michael Beckley argues that gross domestic product and military spending are imprecise indicators of
power. He argues that better measurements of power should take into account "net" indicators of powers:
"[Gross] indicators systematically exaggerate the wealth and military capabilities of poor, populous
countries, because they tally countries’ resources without deducting the costs countries pay to police,
protect, and serve their people. A country with a big population might produce vast output and field a
large army, but it also may bear massive welfare and security burdens that drain its wealth and bog down
its military, leaving it with few resources for power projection abroad.
Power as status
Much effort in academic and popular writing is devoted to deciding which countries have the status of
"power", and how this can be measured. If a country has "power" (as influence) in military, diplomatic,
cultural, and economic spheres, it might be called a "power" (as status). There are several categories of
power, and inclusion of a state in one category or another is fraught with difficulty and controversy. In his
famous 1987 work, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, British-American historian Paul
Kennedy charts the relative status of the various powers from AD 1500 to 2000. He does not begin the
P a g e | 20
book with a theoretical definition of "great power"; however he lists them, separately, for many different
eras. Moreover, he uses different working definitions of great power for different eras. For example;
"France was not strong enough to oppose Germany in a one-to-one struggle... If the mark of a Great
Power is country which is willing to take on any other, then France (like Austria-Hungary) had slipped
to a lower position. But that definition seemed too abstract in 1914 to a nation geared up for war,
militarily stronger than ever, wealthy, and, above all,. endowed with powerful allies.
Neorealist scholars frequently define power as entailing military capabilities and economic strength. ]Classical
realists recognized that the ability to influence depended on psychological relationships that touched on ethical
principles, legitimacy and justice, as well as emotions, leaders' skill and power over opinion.
Categories of power
In the modern geopolitical landscape, a number of terms are used to describe various types of powers,
which include the following:
 Superpower: In 1944, William T. R. Fox defined superpower as "great power plus great mobility of

power" and identified three states, the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States. With
the decolonization of the British Empire following World War II, and then the dissolution of the
Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has remained to be the sole superpower. China is now
considered an emerging global superpower by many scholars.
 Great power: In historical mentions, the term great power refers to the states that have strong
political, cultural and economical influence over nations around them and across the world.
 Middle power: A subjective description of influential second-tier states that could not quite be
described as great or small powers. A middle power has sufficient strength and authority to stand on
its own without the need of help from others (particularly in the realm of security) and takes
diplomatic leads in regional and global affairs. Clearly not all middle powers are of equal status;
some are members of forums such as the G20 and play important roles in the United Nations and
other international organizations such as the WTO.
 Small power: The International System is for the most part made up by small powers. They are
instruments of the other powers and may at times be dominated; but they cannot be ignored.
 Regional power: This term is used to describe a nation that exercises influence and power within a
region. Being a regional power is not mutually exclusive with any of the other categories of power.
The majority of them exert a strategic degree of influence as minor or secondary regional powers. A
primary regional power (like Australia) has often an important role in international affairs outside of
its region too.
 Cultural superpower: Refers to a country whose culture, arts or entertainment have worldwide
appeal, significant international popularity or large influence on much of the world. Countries such
as China, India, Italy, Japan, Spain, France,\ the United Kingdom, and the United States[64] have often
been described as cultural superpowers, although it is sometimes debated on which one meets such
criteria. Unlike traditional forms of national power, the term cultural superpower is in reference to a
nation's soft power capabilities.
 Energy superpower: Describes a country that supplies large amounts of energy resources (crude
oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, etc.) to a significant number of other states, and therefore has the
potential to influence world markets to gain a political or economic advantage. Saudi
Arabia and Russia, are generally acknowledged as the world's current energy superpowers, given
P a g e | 21
their abilities to globally influence or even directly control prices to certain

countries. Australia and Canada are potential energy superpowers due to their large natural resources.
HARD, SOFT AND SMART POWER

 Some political scientists distinguish between two types of power: Hard and Soft. The former is
coercive (example: military invasion) while the latter is attractive (example: broadcast media or
cultural invasion).
 Hard power refers to coercive tactics: the threat or use of armed forces, economic pressure
or sanctions, assassination and subterfuge, or other forms of intimidation. Hard power is
generally associated to the stronger of nations, as the ability to change the domestic affairs of
other nations through military threats. Realists and neorealists, such as John Mearsheimer, are
advocates of the use of such power for the balancing of the international system.
 Joseph Nye is the leading proponent and theorist of soft power. Instruments of soft power include
debates on cultural values, dialogues on ideology, the attempt to influence through good example,
and the appeal to commonly accepted human values. Means of exercising soft power include
diplomacy, dissemination of information, analysis, propaganda, and cultural programming to
achieve political ends.
 Others have synthesized soft and hard power, including through the field of smart power. This is
often a call to use a holistic spectrum of statecraft tools, ranging from soft to hard.
-End of discussion-
Evaluation:
Answer the following question: (2 pts each)
1. Identify 5 superpower countries and give justification on why you considered them as one.
Reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(international_relations)
P a g e | 22
CHAPTER V
BALANCE OF POWER
1. Defined balance power in international relations;
2. Identified the characteristics of the balance of power;
3. Explained the balance of power theory and the different modes in balancing power.
What is balance of power?
A balance of power is a state of stability between competing forces. In international relations, it refers to
equilibrium among countries or alliances to prevent any one entity from becoming too strong and,
thus, gaining the ability to enforce its will upon the rest.
Characteristics
 The balance of power is subject to constant changes from equilibrium to disequilibrium.
 It is not a gift of God but is achieved by the active intervention of man.
 Real balance of power seldom exists, if war take place it means real balance of power not there.
What happens if one state becomes stronger?
The balance of power theory
The balance of power theory in international relations suggests that states may secure their survival by

preventing any one state from gaining enough military power to dominate all others. If one state becomes
much stronger, the theory predicts it will take advantage of its weaker neighbors, thereby driving them to
unite in a defensive coalition. Some realists maintain that a balance-of-power system is more stable than
P a g e | 23
one with a dominant state, as aggression is unprofitable when there is equilibrium of power between rival
coalition.
How states counter an external threat?
When faced with an external threat from a more powerful state, states have several options:
– Balancing
– Bandwagoning
– Buck-passing
– Blood-letting
-- Chain ganging
BALANCING
Balancing encompasses the actions that a particular state or group of states take in order to equalize the
odds against more powerful states
(Make it more difficult and hence less likely for powerful states to exert their military advantage over the
weaker ones)
States choose to balance for two reasons. First, they place their survival at risk if they fail to curb a
potential hegemon before it becomes too strong; to ally with the dominant power means placing one's
trust in its continued benevolence. Secondly, joining the weaker side increases the likelihood that the new
member will be influential within the alliance.
Two types of balancing
• Internal balancing involves efforts to enhance state's power by increasing one's economic
resources and military strength in order to be able to rely on independent capabilities in response
to a potential hegemon and be able to compete more effectively in the international system
External Balancing
• External balancing involves strengthening and enlarging one's alliances and interstate
cooperation in order to prevent a hegemon or counter a rising power.
BANDWAGONING
A state aligns with a stronger, adversarial power and concedes that the stronger adversary-turned-partner
disproportionately gains in the spoils they conquer together.
P a g e | 24
The weaker the state the more likely it is to bandwagon than to balance as they do little to affect the
outcome and thus must choose the winning side. Strong states may change a losing side into a winning
side and thus are more likely to balance. States will be tempted to bandwagon when allies are unavailable;
however excessive confidence in allied support encourages weak states to free ride relying on the efforts
of others to provide security. Since bandwagoning "requires placing trust in the aggressors continued
forbearance" some realists believe balancing is preferred to bandwagoning. According to Stephen Walt,
states are more likely to balance in peacetime but if they are on the losing side of a war they may defect
and bandwagon in the hopes that they will "share the fruits of victory".
BUCK-PASSING
Instead of balancing against an aggressor, some states instead choose to "pass the buck" whereby instead
of taking action to prevent a potential hegemon's rise, it will pass the responsibility on to another state
• Mearsheimer argues there are 4 strategies states can use to facilitate buck passing:
1. Seeking good diplomatic relations with the aggressor in the hope that it will divert its attention to the
"buck-catcher”
2. Maintaining cool relations with the buck catcher so as not to get dragged into the war with the buck-
catcher and as a result possibly increase positive relations with the aggressor
3. Increasing military strength to deter the aggressive state and help it focus on the buck-catcher
4. Facilitating the growth in power of the intended buck-catcher
BLOOD-LETTING
If a state is an enemy with both the aggressor and the intended buck-catcher, a buck-passer can implement
bait and bleed strategy whereby the state causes two rivals to engage in a protracted war while the baiter
remains on the sideline.
Bloodletting, a further variant whereby a state does what it can to increase the cost duration of the conflict
can further increase the buck-passer’s relative power.
CHAIN GANGING
Chain-ganging occurs when a state sees its own security tied to the security of its alliance partner. [ It chains
itself by deeming any attack on its ally the equivalent of an attack on itself. That is another aspect of the
balance of power theory, whereby the smaller states could drag their chained states into wars that they have no
desire to fight. A key example was the chain-ganging between states prior to World War I, dragging most
of Europe to war over a dispute between the relatively major power of Austria-Hungary and the minor power
of Serbia. Thus, states "may chain themselves unconditionally to reckless allies whose survival is seen to be
indispensable to the maintenance of the balance"
P a g e | 25
Defensive realism v. Offensive realism
Defensive realism
Defensive realists emphasize that if any state becomes too powerful, balancing will occur as other powers
would build up their forces and form a balancing coalition because this resulting security dilemma would
leave the aspiring hegemon less secure, defensive realists maintain that it is in a state's interest to maintain
the status quo rather than maximize its power.
Offensive realism
Offensive realists accept that threatened states usually balance against dangerous foes, however, they
maintain that balancing is often inefficient and that this inefficiency provides opportunities for a clever
aggressor to take advantage of its adversaries., rather than joining a balancing coalition, is another tactic
offensive realists point to when disputing the balance of power theory.
Offensive realists believe that internal balancing measures such as increasing defense spending,
implementing conscription, are only effective to a certain extent as there are usually significant limits on
how many additional resources a threatened state can muster against an aggressor. However, since
offensive realists theorize that states are always seeking to maximize their power, states are "effectively
engaged in internal balancing all the time
-End of discussion-
Evaluation:
1. What is the role of the United States in South East Asia?
2. What is the best technique to balance the power of a country?
Reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ BalanceofPower_(international_relations)
P a g e | 26
CHAPTER VI
DIPLOMACY
1. Defined and explained diplomacy;
2. Mastered the different types of diplomacy;
3. Discussed the importance of diplomacy in international relations.
DISCUSSION
What is diplomacy?
Diplomacy refers to spoken or written speech acts by representatives of states (such as leaders and

diplomats) intended to influence events in the international system.
Diplomacy is the main instrument of foreign policy and global governance which represents the broader
goals and strategies that guide a state's interactions with the rest of the world. International treaties,
agreements, alliances, and other manifestations of international relations are usually the result of
diplomatic negotiations and processes. Diplomats may also help shape a state by advising government
officials.
Modern diplomatic methods, practices, and principles originated largely from 17th-century European
custom. Beginning in the early 20th century, diplomacy became professionalized; the 1961 Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations, ratified by most of the world's sovereign states, provides a
framework for diplomatic procedures, methods, and conduct. Most diplomacy is now conducted
by accredited officials, such as envoys and ambassadors, through a dedicated foreign affairs office.
P a g e | 27
Diplomats operate through diplomatic missions, most commonly consulates and embassies, and rely on a

number of support staff; term diplomat is thus sometimes applied broadly to diplomatic and consular
personnel and foreign ministry officials.
HISTORY
Western Asia
Some of the earliest known diplomatic records are the Amarna letters written between the pharaohs of
the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt and the Amurru rulers of Canaan during the 14th century BCE. Peace treaties
were concluded between the Mesopotamian city-states of Lagash and Umma around approximately 2100 BCE.
Following the Battle of Kadesh in 1274 BC during the Nineteenth dynasty, the pharaoh of Egypt and the ruler
of the Hittite Empire created one of the first known international peace treaties, which survives in stone tablet
fragments, now generally called the Egyptian–Hittite peace treaty]
The ancient Greek city-states on some occasions dispatched envoys to negotiate specific issues, such as war
and peace or commercial relations, but did not have diplomatic representatives regularly posted in each other's
territory. However, some of the functions given to modern diplomatic representatives were fulfilled by
a proxenos, a citizen of the host city who had friendly relations with another city, often through familial ties. In
times of peace, diplomacy was even conducted with non-Hellenistic rivals such as the Achaemenid Empire of
Persia, through it was ultimately conquered by Alexander the Great of Macedon. Alexander was also adept at
diplomacy, realizing that the conquest of foreign cultures were be better achieved by having
his Macedonian and Greek subjects intermingle and intermarry with native populations. For instance,
Alexander took as his wife a Sogdian woman of Bactria, Roxana, after the siege of the Sogdian Rock, in order
to placate the rebelling populace. Diplomacy remained a necessary tool of statecraft for the great Hellenistic
states that succeeded Alexander's empire, such as the Ptolemaic Kingdom and Seleucid Empire, which fought
several wars in the Near East and often negotiated peace treaties through marriage alliances.
East Asia
One of the earliest realists in international relations theory was the 6th century BC military strategist Sun
Tzu (d. 496 BC), author of The Art of War. He lived during a time in which rival states were starting to pay
less attention to traditional respects of tutelage to the Zhou Dynasty (c. 1050–256 BC) figurehead monarchs
while each vied for power and total conquest. However, a great deal of diplomacy in establishing allies,
bartering land, and signing peace treaties was necessary for each warring state, and the idealized role of the
"persuader/diplomat" developed.[7]
From the Battle of Baideng (200 BC) to the Battle of Mayi (133 BC), the Han Dynasty was forced to uphold a
marriage alliance and pay an exorbitant amount of tribute (in silk, cloth, grain, and other foodstuffs) to the
powerful northern nomadic Xiongnu that had been consolidated by Modu Shanyu. After the Xiongnu sent
word to Emperor Wen of Han (r. 180–157) that they controlled areas stretching from Manchuria to the Tarim
Basin oasis city-states, a treaty was drafted in 162 BC proclaiming that everything north of the Great
Wall belong to nomads' lands, while everything south of it would be reserved for Han Chinese. The treaty was
renewed no less than nine times, but did not restrain some Xiongnu tuqi from raiding Han borders. That was
until the far-flung campaigns of Emperor Wu of Han (r. 141–87 BC) which shattered the unity of the Xiongnu
and allowed Han to conquer the Western Regions; under Wu, in 104 BC the Han armies ventured as
far Fergana in Central Asia to battle the Yuezhi who had conquered Hellenistic Greek areas.
P a g e | 28
Medieval and Early Modern Europe

In Europe, early modern diplomacy's origins are often traced to the states of Northern Italy in the
early Renaissance, with the first embassies being established in the 13th century. [14] Milan played a leading
role, especially under Francesco Sforza who established permanent embassies to the other city states of
Northern Italy. Tuscany and Venice were also flourishing centres of diplomacy from the 14th century onwards.
It was in the Italian Peninsula that many of the traditions of modern diplomacy began, such as the presentation
of an ambassador's credentials to the head of state.
rom Italy, the practice was spread across Europe. Milan was the first to send a representative to the court of
France in 1455. However, Milan refused to host French representatives, fearing they would conduct espionage
and intervene in its internal affairs. As foreign powers such as France and Spain became increasingly involved
in Italian politics the need to accept emissaries was recognized. Soon the major European powers were
exchanging representatives. Spain was the first to send a permanent representative; it appointed an ambassador
to the Court of St. James's (i.e. England) in 1487. By the late 16th century, permanent missions became
customary. The Holy Roman Emperor, however, did not regularly send permanent legates, as they could not
represent the interests of all the German princes (who were in theory all subordinate to the Emperor, but in
practice each independent).
In 1500-1700 rules of modern diplomacy were further developed. French replaced Latin from about 1715. The
top rank of representatives was an ambassador. At that time an ambassador was a nobleman, the rank of the
noble assigned varying with the prestige of the country he was delegated to. Strict standards developed for
ambassadors, requiring they have large residences, host lavish parties, and play an important role in the court
life of their host nation. In Rome, the most prized posting for a Catholic ambassador, the French and Spanish
representatives would have a retinue of up to a hundred. Even in smaller posts, ambassadors were very
expensive. Smaller states would send and receive envoys, who were a rung below ambassador. Somewhere
between the two was the position of minister plenipotentiary.
Diplomacy was a complex affair, even more so than now. The ambassadors from each state were ranked by
complex levels of precedence that were much disputed. States were normally ranked by the title of the
sovereign; for Catholic nations the emissary from the Vatican was paramount, then those from the kingdoms,
then those from duchies and principalities. Representatives from republics were ranked the lowest (which often
angered the leaders of the numerous German, Scandinavian and Italian republics). Determining precedence
between two kingdoms depended on a number of factors that often fluctuated, leading to near-constant
squabbling.
Ambassadors were often nobles with little foreign experience and no expectation of a career in
diplomacy. They were supported by their embassy staff. These professionals would be sent on
longer assignments and would be far more knowledgeable than the higher-ranking officials about the
host country. Embassy staff would include a wide range of employees, including some dedicated to
espionage. The need for skilled individuals to staff embassies was met by the graduates of
universities, and this led to a great increase in the study of international law, French, and history at
universities throughout Europe.
At the same time, permanent foreign ministries began to be established in almost all European
states to coordinate embassies and their staffs. These ministries were still far from their modern
form, and many of them had extraneous internal responsibilities. Britain had two departments with
frequently overlapping powers until 1782. They were also far smaller than they are currently. France,
which boasted the largest foreign affairs department, had only some 70 full-time employees in the
1780s.
The elements of modern diplomacy slowly spread to Eastern Europe and Russia, arriving by the
early 18th century. The entire edifice would be greatly disrupted by the French Revolution and the
P a g e | 29
subsequent years of warfare. The revolution would see commoners take over the diplomacy of the
French state, and of those conquered by revolutionary armies. Ranks of precedence were
abolished. Napoleon also refused to acknowledge diplomatic immunity, imprisoning several British
diplomats accused of scheming against France.
After the fall of Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna of 1815 established an international system
of diplomatic rank. Disputes on precedence among nations (and therefore the appropriate diplomatic
ranks used) were first addressed at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818, but persisted for over a
century until after World War II, when the rank of ambassador became the norm. In between that
time, figures such as the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck were renowned for international
diplomacy.
Diplomats and historians often refer to a foreign ministry by its address: the Ballhausplatz (Vienna),
the Quai d’Orsay (Paris), the Wilhelmstraße (Berlin); Itamaraty (Brasil); and Foggy
Bottom (Washington). For imperial Russia until 1917 it was the Choristers’ Bridge (St Petersburg),
while "Consulta" referred to the Italian ministry of Foreign Affairs, based in the Palazzo della
Consulta from 1874 to 1922.
Immunity
The sanctity of diplomats has long been observed, underpinning the modern concept of diplomatic
immunity. While there have been a number of cases where diplomats have been killed, this is
normally viewed as a great breach of honour. Genghis Khan and the Mongols were well known for
strongly insisting on the rights of diplomats, and they would often wreak horrific vengeance against
any state that violated these rights.
Diplomatic rights were established in the mid-17th century in Europe and have spread throughout
the world. These rights were formalized by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
which protects diplomats from being persecuted or prosecuted while on a diplomatic mission. If a
diplomat does commit a serious crime while in a host country he or she may be declared as persona
non grata (unwanted person). Such diplomats are then often tried for the crime in their homeland.
Diplomatic communications are also viewed as sacrosanct, and diplomats have long been allowed to
carry documents across borders without being searched. The mechanism for this is the so-called
"diplomatic bag" (or, in some countries, the "diplomatic pouch"). While radio and digital
communication have become more standard for embassies, diplomatic pouches are still quite
common and some countries, including the United States, declare entire shipping containers as
diplomatic pouches to bring sensitive material (often building supplies) into a country. [19]
In times of hostility, diplomats are often withdrawn for reasons of personal safety, as well as in some
cases when the host country is friendly but there is a perceived threat from internal dissidents.
Ambassadors and other diplomats are sometimes recalled temporarily by their home countries as a
way to express displeasure with the host country. In both cases, lower-level employees still remain
to actually do the business of diplomacy.
Espionage
diplomacy is closely linked to espionage or gathering of intelligence. Embassies are bases for both
diplomats and spies, and some diplomats are essentially openly acknowledged spies. For instance,
the job of military attachés includes learning as much as possible about the military of the nation to
P a g e | 30
which they are assigned. They do not try to hide this role and, as such, are only invited to events
allowed by their hosts, such as military parades or air shows. There are also deep-cover spies
operating in many embassies. These individuals are given fake positions at the embassy, but their
main task is to illegally gather intelligence, usually by coordinating spy rings of locals or other spies.
For the most part, spies operating out of embassies gather little intelligence themselves and their
identities tend to be known by the opposition. If discovered, these diplomats can be expelled from an
embassy, but for the most part counter-intelligence agencies prefer to keep these agents in situ and
under close monitoring.
The information gathered by spies plays an increasingly important role in diplomacy. Arms-control
treaties would be impossible without the power of reconnaissance satellites and agents to monitor
compliance. Information gleaned from espionage is useful in almost all forms of diplomacy,
everything from trade agreements to border disputes.
Resolution of problems
Various processes and procedures have evolved over time for handling diplomatic issues and
disputes.
Arbitration and mediation

Nations sometimes resort to international arbitration when faced with a specific question or point of
contention in need of resolution. For most of history, there were no official or formal procedures for
such proceedings. They were generally accepted to abide by general principles and protocols
related to international law and justice.
Sometimes these took the form of formal arbitrations and mediations. In such cases a commission of
diplomats might be convened to hear all sides of an issue, and to come some sort of ruling based on
international law.[20]
In the modern era, much of this work is often carried out by the International Court of Justice at The
Hague, or other formal commissions, agencies and tribunals, working under the United Nations.
Below are some examples.
 The Hay-Herbert Treaty was enacted after the United States and Britain submitted a dispute to
international mediation about the Canada–US border.
Conferences
Other times, resolutions were sought through the convening of international conferences. In such
cases, there are fewer ground rules, and fewer formal applications of international law. However,
participants are expected to guide themselves through principles of international fairness, logic, and
protocol.[20]
Some examples of these formal conferences are:
 Congress of Vienna (1815) – After Napoleon was defeated, there were many diplomatic

questions waiting to be resolved. This included the shape of the political map of Europe, the
disposition of political and nationalist claims of various ethnic groups and nationalities wishing to
have some political autonomy, and the resolution of various claims by various European powers.
P a g e | 31
 The Congress of Berlin (June 13 – July 13, 1878) was a meeting of the European Great Powers'
and the Ottoman Empire's leading statesmen in Berlin in 1878. In the wake of the Russo-Turkish
War, 1877–78, the meeting's aim was to reorganize conditions in the Balkans.
Negotiations
Sometimes nations convene official negotiation processes to settle a specific dispute or specific
issue between several nations which are parties to a dispute. These are similar to the conferences
mentioned above, as there are technically no established rules or procedures. However, there are
general principles and precedents which help define a course for such proceedings. [20]
Some examples are
 Camp David Accords – Convened in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter of the United States, at
Camp David to reach an agreement between Prime Minister Mechaem Begin of Israel and
President Anwar Sadat of Egypt. After weeks of negotiation, agreement was reached and the
accords were signed, later leading directly to the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty of 1979.
Treaty of Portsmouth – Enacted after President Theodore Roosevelt brought together the delegates
from Russia and Japan, to settle the Russo-Japanese War. Roosevelt's personal intervention settled
the conflict, and caused him to win the Nobel Peace Prize
Types
There are a variety of diplomatic categories and diplomatic strategies employed by organizations
and governments to achieve their aims, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.
Appeasement
Appeasement is a policy of making concessions to an aggressor in order to avoid confrontation;
because of its failure to prevent World War 2, appeasement is not considered a legitimate tool of
modern diplomacy.
Counterinsurgency
Counterinsurgency diplomacy, or expeditionary diplomacy, developed by diplomats deployed to civil-
military stabilization efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, employs diplomats at tactical and operational
levels, outside traditional embassy environments and often alongside military or peacekeeping
forces. Counterinsurgency diplomacy may provide political environment advice to local commanders,
interact with local leaders, and facilitate the governance efforts, functions and reach of a host
government.
Debt-trap
Debt-trap diplomacy is carried out in bilateral relations, with a powerful lending country seeking to
saddle a borrowing nation with enormous debt so as to increase its leverage over it.
Economic
Economic diplomacy is the use of aid or other types of economic policy as a means to achieve a
diplomatic agenda.
P a g e | 32
Gunboat
Gunboat diplomacy is the use of conspicuous displays of military power as a means of intimidation
to influence others. Since it is inherently coercive, it typically lies near the edge between peace and
war, and is usually exercised in the context of imperialism or hegemony. [24] An emblematic example
is the Don Pacifico Incident in 1850, in which the United Kingdom blockaded the Greek port
of Piraeus in retaliation for the harming of a British subject and the failure of Greek government to
provide him with restitution.
Hostage
Hostage diplomacy is the taking of hostages by a state or quasi-state actor to fulfill diplomatic goals.
It is a type of asymmetric diplomacy often used by weaker states to pressure stronger ones. Hostage
diplomacy has been practiced from prehistory to the present day.
Humanitarian
Humanitarian diplomacy is the set of activities undertaken by various actors with governments,
(para)military organizations, or personalities in order to intervene or push intervention in a context
where humanity is in danger. [27] According to Antonio De Lauri, a Research Professor at the Chr.
Michelsen Institute, humanitarian diplomacy "ranges from negotiating the presence of humanitarian
organizations to negotiating access to civilian populations in need of protection. It involves
monitoring assistance programs, promoting respect for international law, and engaging in advocacy
in support of broader humanitarian goals". [28]
Migration
Migration diplomacy is the use of human migration in a state's foreign policy. American political
scientist Myron Weiner argued that international migration is intricately linked to states' international
relations. More recently, Kelly Greenhill has identified how states may employ 'weapons of mass
migration' against target states in their foreign relations. Migration diplomacy may involve the use
of refugees, labor migrants, or diasporas[36] in states' pursuit of international diplomacy goals. In the
context of the Syrian Civil War, Syrian refugees were used in the context of Jordanian, Lebanese,
and Turkish migration diplomacy.[37][26]
Nuclear
Nuclear diplomacy is the area of diplomacy related to preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear
war. One of the most well-known (and most controversial) philosophies of nuclear diplomacy
is mutually assured destruction (MAD).
Preventive
Preventive diplomacy is carried out through quiet means (as opposed to “gun-boat diplomacy”,
which is backed by the threat of force, or “public diplomacy”, which makes use of publicity). It is also
understood that circumstances may exist in which the consensual use of force (notably preventive
deployment) might be welcomed by parties to a conflict with a view to achieving the stabilization
necessary for diplomacy and related political processes to proceed. This is to be distinguished from
the use of “persuasion”, “suasion”, “influence”, and other non-coercive approaches explored below.
Preventive diplomacy, in the view of one expert, is “the range of peaceful dispute resolution
approaches mentioned in Article 33 of the UN Charter [on the pacific settlement of disputes] when
applied before a dispute crosses the threshold to armed conflict.” It may take many forms, with
P a g e | 33
different means employed. One form of diplomacy which may be brought to bear to prevent violent
conflict (or to prevent its recurrence) is “quiet diplomacy”. When one speaks of the practice of quiet
diplomacy, definitional clarity is largely absent. In part this is due to a lack of any comprehensive
assessment of exactly what types of engagement qualify, and how such engagements are pursued.
On the one hand, a survey of the literature reveals no precise understanding or terminology on the
subject. On the other hand, concepts are neither clear nor discrete in practice. Multiple definitions
are often invoked simultaneously by theorists, and the activities themselves often mix and overlap in
practice.
Public
Public diplomacy is the exercise of influence through communication with the general public in
another nation, rather than attempting to influence the nation's government directly. This
communication may take the form of propaganda, or more benign forms such as citizen diplomacy,
individual interactions between average citizens of two or more nations. Technological advances and
the advent of digital diplomacy now allow instant communication with foreign citizens, and methods
such as Facebook diplomacy and Twitter diplomacy are increasingly used by world leaders and
diplomats.
Quiet
Also known as the "softly softly" approach, quiet diplomacy is the attempt to influence the behaviour
of another state through secret negotiations or by refraining from taking a specific action. [39] This
method is often employed by states that lack alternative means to influence the target government,
or that seek to avoid certain outcomes. For example, South Africa is described as engaging in quiet
diplomacy with neighboring Zimbabwe to avoid appearing as "bullying" and subsequently
engendering a hostile response. This approach can also be employed by more powerful states; U.S.
President George W. Bush's nonattendance at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
Development constituted a form of quiet diplomacy, namely in response to the lack of UN support for
the U.S.' proposed invasion of Iraq.
Science
Science diplomacy is the use of scientific collaborations among nations to address common
problems and to build constructive international partnerships. Many experts and groups use a variety
of definitions for science diplomacy. However, science diplomacy has become an umbrella term to
describe a number of formal or informal technical, research-based, academic or engineering
exchanges, with notable examples including CERN, the International Space Station, and ITER.
Soft power
Soft power, sometimes called "hearts and minds diplomacy", as defined by Joseph Nye, is the
cultivation of relationships, respect, or even admiration from others in order to gain influence, as
opposed to more coercive approaches. Often and incorrectly confused with the practice of official
diplomacy, soft power refers to non-state, culturally attractive factors that may predispose people to
sympathize with a foreign culture based on affinity for its products, such as the American
entertainment industry, schools and music. A country's soft power can come from three resources:
its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at
P a g e | 34
home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral
authority).
City
City diplomacy is cities using institutions and processes to engage relations with other actors on an
international stage, with the aim of representing themselves and their interests to one another.
CHAPTER VII
NATIONAL POWER
At the end of the topic the students should have:
1. Mastered the concept of national power;
2. Identified the different methods of exercising national power and limitations of national
power.
Discussion
What is national power?
National Power is a key component of International Politics. Basically International
Politics is the process of struggle for power among Nations in which each nation seeks to secure
its desired goals and objectives of National interests. Because of the absence of sovereign or of
fully powerful centralized international machinery making authoritative allocation of values
among the nations and because of the sovereign status of each nation-state, the securing of
national interest by each state is always done by the use of its national power.
P a g e | 35
National power is the capacity or ability of a nation with the use of which it can get its will
obeyed by other nation. It involves the capacity to use force or threat of the use of force over other
nations. With the use of National Power a nation is able to control the behaviour of other nations in
accordance with one’s own will.
• Acc to Hartman, “National Power denotes the ability of a nation to fulfill national goals. It tells
us as to how much powerful or weak a particular nation is in securing its national goals.”
• Acc to Padelford and Lincon, “National power is that combination of power and capacity of a
state which the state uses for fulfilling its national interests and goals.”
NATURE OF NATIONAL POWER
1. Power is different from Force and Influence
2. National Power is both Means as well as an End
3. National power is an ability to secure National Interests
4. It is dynamic in nature
5. National Power varies Nation to nation
6. There are several elements of National Power
7. There is different between the Actual power and Potential power of a Nation.
8. National Power is backed by Sanctions
9. National Power depends on its Use
10. It is not Material Power
11. Integrated nature of National power
KINDS OF FORM OF NATIONAL POWER
1. Military Power
2. Economic Power
3. Psychological power
National power is combination of Military Power, Economic power and Psychological power.
ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER

P a g e | 36
National power stems from various elements, also called instruments or attributes; these may be put into two
groups based on their applicability and origin - "natural" and "social".
 Natural:
o Geography
o Resources
o Population
 Social:
o Economic
o Political
o Military
o Psychological
o Informational
GEOGRAPHY
Important facets of geography such as location (geography), climate, topography, and size play major
roles in the ability of a nation to gain national power. Location has an important bearing on foreign policy of a
nation. The relation between foreign policy and geographic location gave rise to the discipline of geopolitics.
The presence of a water obstacle provided protection to nation states such as Great Britain, Japan, and
the United States and allowed Japan to follow isolationist policies. The presence of large
accessible seaboards also permitted these nations to build strong navies and expand their territories peacefully
or by conquest. In contrast, Poland, with no obstacle for its powerful neighbors, even lost its independence as a
nation, being partitioned among the Kingdom of Prussia, the Russian Empire, and Austria from 1795 onwards
till it regained independence in 1918.
Climate affects the productivity of Russian agriculture as the majority of the nation is in latitudes well
north of ideal latitudes for farming. Conversely, Russia's size permitted it to trade space for time during
the Great Patriotic War.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Minerals
Petroleum products
Crude oil
Uranium
Coal, Iron, Copper, lead, Gold, Sulpher, zinc etc.
Green resources (valuable tree, etc)
Environment
P a g e | 37
LIMITATION ON NATIONAL POWER
International Law and Treaties
Balance of Power
International Morality
International Public Opinion
International Organizations
Collective Security
Disarmament and arm and control
-End of Discussion-
Evaluation:
1. How laws and treaties limit national power? Give examples
2. What is the role of diplomacy in the maintenance of national power?

context.
capitalization.
Total 10
Reference:
Norman D. Palmer and Howard C. Perkins, “International Relations” CBS Publishers and Distributers,
2001.
P a g e | 38
• 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.
• Rai, Gulshan, S.N. Verma, V.P. Verma, “Comperative Political System and International Politics”Joyoti
Book Depot Pvt. Ltd. 2008.
• U.R. Ghai, “ International Politics, Theory and Practice” New Academic Publishing co. 2010.
• J.S.BADYAL, “Comparative Political System and International Politics,” Raj Publishers,

Jalandher,2012
• Hans J. Morgenthau,”Politics among Nations: the struggle for power and peace,” Fifth Edition, New
York, 1978

Module in International Relations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module in International Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page |1

NORTH LUZON PHILIPPINES STATE COLLEGE

JARON CHRISTIAN R. BEDAR Ll.B

College of Arts and Sciences

North Luzon Philippines State College

NORTH LUZON PHILIPPINES STATE COLLEGE

Meaning, scope, importance and the core principles of International Relations

At the end of the chapter the students should have:

1. Explained the meaning and scope of International Relations;

2. Elaborated the importance of International relations in the study of Political Science;

3. Mastered the different core principles of International relations.

What is International Relations?

What is the scope of International Relations?

NORTH LUZON PHILIPPINES STATE COLLEGE

What is the importance of International Relations?

Core Principles of International Relations

• IR revolves around one key problem:

NORTH LUZON PHILIPPINES STATE COLLEGE

• Symbolic acts of submission and dominance reinforce the hierarchy.

• The advantage of the dominance solution

– Forces members of a group to contribute to the common good

– Minimizes open conflict within the group

• Disadvantage of the dominance solution

– Easy to understand and can be “enforced” without any central authority

– Positive and negative reciprocity

• Identity principle does not rely on self-interest.

NORTH LUZON PHILIPPINES STATE COLLEGE

– Nonstate actors also rely on identity politics.

1. What is the goal of International Relations?

Criteria Performance Indicator Points

NORTH LUZON PHILIPPINES STATE COLLEGE

1. Defined political globalization as part of International relations;

2. Mastered the different actors of International Relations.

What is Political Globalization?

What are the attributes of today’s global system?

2. These countries interact with each other through diplomacy.

3. There are IGO’s that facilitate these interactions.

Who are the actors in IR?

The actors in IR or global politics are

NORTH LUZON PHILIPPINES STATE COLLEGE

2. International Governmental Organizations (IGO’s)

3. Non-governmental Organizations (NGO’s)

Is the Philippines a State?

 If all the elements are present then the Philippines is a state

What are the differences between a State and a nation?

 State is a legal concept while nation is an ethnic concept.

 Nation is a sociological collectivity of individuals who possess common certain non-political

NORTH LUZON PHILIPPINES STATE COLLEGE

 Nationalism – Love for one’s country.

The Historical background of the Interstate system

 Klemens von Metternich was the system’s main architect.

The call for Internationalism

◦ If people living together require a government to prevent lawlessness, shouldn’t that

NORTH LUZON PHILIPPINES STATE COLLEGE

 Wilson saw nationalism as a pre-requisite for internationalism.

 The league was the concretization of the concepts of liberal internationalism.

 While the working class is called “Proletariat”

 One of the most famous quote of Marx

NORTH LUZON PHILIPPINES STATE COLLEGE

Global politics of the contemporary world

2. Does internationalism beneficial?

Criteria Performance Indicator Points

NORTH LUZON PHILIPPINES STATE COLLEGE