Political Science III

POLITICAL SCIENCE III (COMPILATION)
Political Science Syllabus

Module 1
1. What is IR?
2. Difference between international politics, international relations, and global politics
3. Globalisation and Global Politics
4. Stages within IR
5. Great Debates
6. Actors
7. Levels of Analysis
8. Models of Decision Making
9. Interests in Inter-State Interactions
Module 2
1. Realism
2. Liberalism
3. Marxism
4. Social Constructivism
5. Game Theory
Module 3
1. Power
2. Balance of Power
3. Collective Security
Module 4
1. Foreign Policy (readings)
Module 5
1. Disarmament
Module 6
1. International Organisation
POLITICAL SCIENCE III – INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. DISCIPLINE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS..................................................................3
1.1. MEANING AND EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS....................................3
1.2. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AND
GLOBAL POLITICS....................................................................................................................4
1.3. GLOBALISATION AND GLOBAL POLITICS...................................................................5
1.4. STAGES WITHIN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS............................................................8
1.5. GREAT DEBATES.......................................................................................................10
1.6. ACTORS OF GLOBAL POLITICS.................................................................................12
1.7. LEVELS OF ANALYSIS...............................................................................................14
1.8. MODELS OF DECISION MAKING...............................................................................15
1.9. CORE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS..................................................18
2. THEORIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS...................................................................20
2.1. REALISM...................................................................................................................20
2.2. LIBERALISM..............................................................................................................28
2.3. MARXISM..................................................................................................................34
2.4. GAME THEORY.........................................................................................................41
3. CONCEPT OF POWER.......................................................................................................49
3.1. UNDERSTANDING THE NOTION OF POWER...............................................................49
3.2. SHIFT IN POWER.......................................................................................................52
3.3. COLD WAR...............................................................................................................54
3.4. BALANCE OF POWER................................................................................................57
3.5. COLLECTIVE SECURITY............................................................................................60
4. FOREIGN POLICY............................................................................................................63
4.1. THEORETICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF FOREIGN POLICY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
63
4.2. NEW GEOMETRY OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY........................................................67
5. DISARMAMENT................................................................................................................68
6. INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION...................................................................................77
6.1. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW........................................77
6.2. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS AS SUBJECTS OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW (CONFINED TO REQUISITE POLITICAL SCIENCE BASICS)..................81
2
SEMESTER V
1. DISCIPLINE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

1.1. Meaning and Evolution of International Relations
 What is international relations?
International Paradigm
International Paradigm believes that States are major political units and whatever happens
between States makes up the study of internal relations. It is a narrow/tunnelled perspective.
Interactions between States is International Relations. Ultimately, international relations is all
about what goes on between the governments of the States and that is the subject matter of
international relations. It believes that States are the building blocks. All that is required is
understanding the States and their governments and how they interact with each other.
Global Paradigm
Global Paradigm believes that right from the individual, i.e., each individual is affected by
(and affects) international relations in some way or the other. This might not necessarily be
political. Because of interconnectedness, all of us get affected by the international
activities/events/communities and vice-versa.
This takes a broader view as it is not confined to the governments of the States social
structures. It takes into consideration geographical influences, historical factors, cultures,
leaders’ mindsets, perception of masses, sports, movies, NGOs, institutions, corporations, etc.
All these factors affect international relations; one cannot blame it solely on the governments
of the States.
All forms of interactions between members of separate states and societies, whether
government-sponsored or not, would form a part of international relations. International
relations cannot be restrained to the idea of a State. Rather, it is a very comprehensive view
which includes all the above mentioned things. It suggests that the world no longer operates
as a disaggregated collection of states or units, but rather as an integrated whole.
INTERNATIONAL PARADIGM GLOBAL PARADIGM

- International Paradigm believes that - Global Paradigm believes that each
States are major political units and individual is affected by (and
whatever happens between States affects) international relations in
makes up the study of internal some way or the other.
relations.
- It is a narrow/tunnelled perspective. - This takes a broader view.
- It believes that States are the - International relations cannot be
building blocks. restrained to the idea of a State.
Assertions of International Relations

1. Isolation & Neutrality are impossible
3
SEMESTER V
Is it possible for a country/individual to be indifferent and not be opinionated?

No. Eventually and ultimately, in some way, international relations impact an
individual directly/indirectly. There is globalised trade and commerce. If one wants
to thrive, it is not possible to be isolated and neutral.
For example, North Korea is not actually isolated because it needs alliances to survive
against South Korea. They tried to isolate themselves and that had an adverse impact
on economy.
2. Realisation to political obligation cannot be restricted to one’s own State
There are certain obligations that every state has. The very fact that UN, ICJ, WTO,
etc. are present shows that larger international interests are also considered. The world
is interconnected, especially in the context of trade and commerce.
3. Globalisation is internationalising us (to be discussed later)
1.2. Difference between international politics, international relations, and global

politics
International Politics: This term is used by the section of scholars who believe in one
philosophy/ideology (i.e., realism). One of the major torch-bearers is Hans Morgenthau. His
idea is closer to the idea of “international paradigm.” The core principles which would
define politics is that what goes on between nations. Each and every State is governed by its
own national interest(s). They want to promote and secure such interests. Liberalists make
utopian claims and in the end, the States decide for their own welfare. Realists understand
international affairs only in terms of politics, i.e., in furtherance of self-interest. They have a
very constricted view of internationalism. This is international politics.
International Relations: This is similar to the broader/global view. International relations

is both an academic discipline (i.e., the discipline/study part) and activity (i.e., the public
policy part; the activities that go on between the nations). Even before conventions, there was
segregation and interaction between nations.
It is a wider concept. It is not just restricted to national interest. It involves various other non-
state actors and deals with problems of trade, communication, etc.
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

- This is closer to the idea of - This is closer to the idea of global
international paradigm. paradigm.
- Realists have a very constricted view - It is a wider concept.
of internationalism.
- They believe that every state is - It is not just restricted to national
governed by its own national interest; it involves various non-state
interest. actors.
4
SEMESTER V
 What could have been the reason for international politics to start as an
academic study?
1) World War I
There was unparalleled destruction of human and property post WWI. There was a
catastrophic effect of the war. A group of scholars got together since European diplomacy
was not working. There was a need for modifications/revamp for the better future of coming
generations.
2) Liberalism
Liberalism believed in the goodness of humanity. Alfred Zimmern, Norman Angell, James
T. Shotwell, Woodrow Wilson believed in the idea of liberalism. Woodrow Wilson’s 14 point
speech was one of the first expressions of his idealistic ideas. It had 2 relevant features:
a) making the world safe for democracy
b) creation of international organisations for promotion of peaceful cooperation among
nation states
At this backdrop, League of Nations was created. Simultaneously, it was felt that they needed
to have a centre for the study of international relations. Hence, came University College of
Wales, England (1919), which had a Dept. of International Politics. It also created a
Woodrow Wilson chair, which was first presided over by Alfred Zimmern. They adopted a
module for a legalistic-moralistic approach
 Why did it take so long for international relations to develop as an academic

study?
International Relations was a part of political science. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1822) first
talked about international relations in Principles of Morals and Legislations. It is argued
that the study and research of international relations had started with Peace of Westphalia
(1648), which put an end to war and created state system. Two major principles of this treaty:
1. States enjoy sovereign jurisdiction.
2. Relations between States are structured by the acceptance of the sovereign
independence of States.
There is an assertion that writings of international relations started way back.
For example, Arthashastra by Chanakya, The Prince by Machiavelli, History of
Peloponnesian War by Thucydides (460-400 B.C.)
Idea of realism had not started by then but the core idea behind realism had already begun.
For example, Realpolitik by Thucydides.
 Revision of Previous Semester

Positivism: It borrow a lot of content from natural sciences. It is an objective method/
observable. They would study how power is exercised. They’d understand power as a
tangible factor.
Normativism: Value-driven.
Post-Positivist: This encompasses both the positivist and normative approaches.
5
SEMESTER V
For example, when power is exercised, positivists will take tangible factors into
consideration. Here, additionally, subjective factors like morale, leadership, etc. will also be
considered.
1.3. Globalisation and Global Politics

Globalisation: Globalisation is the process of heightened interaction and integration
among nations and their people, governments, and corporations. This phenomena impacts
and transforms political systems, economy, culture, environment, and general human
wellness.
Global politics: Global politics as a concept pioneers the idea that it is not only the diplomats
who engage in international relations. There is a democratisation of diplomacy and public
opinions play a role in the formulation of international policy.
 Does International Relations mean the same thing as Global Politics?

Global politics has two connotations:
1) Planetary Existence: Everything is interconnected and integrated; it is difficult to

come up with issues/policies whose implications are solely national. Politics has
crossed boundaries. Organisations like UN has an almost universal membership.
Even certain issues (like terrorism, environment/global warming/climate change,
monetary standards etc.) have become global; these cannot be handled on a national
level alone. These issues require a multilateral approach. Kenichi Ohmae (1996)
wrote “[s]tate is dead & Sovereignty is irrelevant”. State sovereignty is something
that can never die; notwithstanding the size of the State, only the State exercises
jurisdiction.
2) Comprehensive: Idea of sovereignty still stays; whatever happens within the States is
as important (if not more) what happens outside the states. Global Politics takes a
combined view. A balance needs to be struck between the two. The power which the
state has can never be denied. What happens with state’s bureaucracy, government,
people is as important. So, this view says not one at the cost of other. There is no need
to select between the state or the global view since they co-exist and complement
each other. Overlapping circles – worldwide, national, regional, sub-national
(dimensions of globalisation). What happens within all of these is the subject matter.
Global Politics — Dimensions of Globalisation = (World + National + Sub-National +

Regional) intersection
 Difference between Global Politics and International Relations

International politics looks at government, International Relations looks at non-state actors.
Global Politics looks at how an interaction between 2 states would impact a 3 rd state, it is a
web of connections. So, International Relations and Global Politics can affect each other and
are sometimes a part of each other.
6
SEMESTER V
 What are the major reasons which made politics go global?
1. Emergence of new global actors and influences

The idea has widened; there are so many more transnational factors. Because of the
emergence of all these factors, international politics has become global. Pluralism: the ‘mixed
actor model’ explains this.
2. Increased interdependence and interconnectedness

The State system is State centric. This idea provides that States are completely autonomous,
sovereign and independent units. This view gave rise to a billiard ball model by Arnold
Wolfers (progressive realist; 1892-1968). This model is supported by the realists. This
model states how there are different billiard balls on the table and there are constant
collisions. The reasons behind these collisions are largely for security/survival/sovereign
reasons. This can lead to military action or diplomacy, i.e., war or peace). These collisions
will not be of the same intensity/magnitude.
What decides these collisions? Why some have the ability to push stronger?
It is dependent on power as some might be strong, some might not be strong.
Consequences of this model: Domestic-international divide. The inside is domestic and

outside is international. They make rigid, strict lines between domestic and international
factors.
Criticism of this model:

a) There is a transnational flow of people, idea, technology, diseases, etc. People are not
restricted within their countries. As people travel more, this flow gets intensified. Is
it possible to sustain this model despite this flow?
b) There is interdependence. Every country needs to have wider target for ideas, goods,
etc. This interdependence is not confined to governments, it has entered the house of
the people/individuals (jobs, products, etc.).
c) It only takes into consideration hard power and not soft power.
d) The boundaries are becoming porous.
Then, came along the Complex Interdependence Theory by Keohane & Nye. The cobweb
model was a part of this theory. Units not isolated, there is constant interaction, and they are
influencing each other. Cobweb model given by John Burton (1915-201). The billiard
model came after WW2. Cobweb model revived in 90s when globalisation came in strongly.
This model was not able to sustain and justify its assumptions. Interdependence may be
asymmetrical rather than symmetrical, in which case it can lead to domination and conflict
rather than peace and harmony.
3. Trends towards global governance

Looking from the lenses of international politics, if there was one word for the kind of global
governance, which word would it be? Anarchy.
7
SEMESTER V
Realists describe that there is an anarchical system. Simultaneously, this resonates with the
pre-political societal conception i.e., State of Nature. They either get into wars, or resolve
issues through diplomatic means.
Anarchial society is term given by Hedley Bull in 2002. A society of States comes into
existence when a group of States, conscious of certain common interests and values for a
society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in
their relation with one another and share in the working of common institutions.
Transformationalists believe in this idea partly. They take a middle part towards
globalisation. This anarchical society is a modified version of anarchy.
This idea eventually moved to the idea of international society. This was a word largely
used by liberalists. This idea is believed in by hyperglobalists. It is not a complete anarchy
out there as the States do function on certain norms / international order. There are certain
rules of the game; the cultural differences have flattened out. This is for the larger interests of
the society.
There are certain rules which are accepted and supported by the nations and the nations that
don’t abide by them, there are certain punishments, they may be isolated etc. There is
interdependence, btw the states and not always for safety-survival but also for the larger
humanity’s interest. There is cultural collision and social integration, more so between
countries which have certain similarities or affinities with each other, shared ideologies,
religions, language, history. They dismissed the idea of plain anarchy. They said eventually
there are certain “collective dilemmas”, which have to be dealt with.
For example, COVID is a collective dilemma.
 Globalisation- Myth or Reality

Held came with this classification in 1999. There came a point where question marks were
raised. By the end of the first decade of the new millennium, big question marks were raised
on this by Bisley (2007) “death of globalisation”.
Hyperglobalists: They strongly believed that globalisation had revolutionised the world, not
just decision making but also brought changes in technology, availability of commodities etc.
They say these things prove everything has gone global and that it is here to stay and that
the national boundaries have become useless. They say all nations who resist the diktat of
globalisation would not be able to survive. They say that state and sovereignty is dead.
They made national frontiers redundant. To progress, they have to be a part of globalisation.
Transformationalists: They believe that much has changed but not everything. States
cannot die. We are living in post sovereign condition; sovereign is there but in revised form.
But the idea of international society cannot be dismissed. Hyper Globalists view is an
overhyped view. These strong factors to understand nations have not been taken into
consideration. We could call it pooling of sovereignties, post-sovereign stage. State is still
very important but has become more entrepreneurial, state has become more like an
enterprise. There might be an altered view of the state, as sceptics believe, but state still
matters. Boundaries still exist.
8
SEMESTER V
Sceptics: They said that it’s all a bubble created by the vested interest of the capitalist
societies trying to promote their own self-interest. They said hyperglobalists have
overstated the importance of the idea of globalisation. To say states or sovereignty have
become redundant, the idea is baseless can never happen. They say state can never die, and
sovereignty is of the upmost importance. International trade and flow of capital is
something that has always been there. Globalisation is a manipulative political device being
used by capitalist societies, hegemons to secure their own interest.
1.4. Stages within International Relations
This was inspired from the work of Kenneth Thomson (1921 – 2013).
1st Stage: Diplomatic Historical Stage

There are two sub-parts to this stage:
A. Initial Attempts (pre-WWI): This is the phase where no concrete/substantial work in IR

was done. The field of IR had not been created. It was, as a discipline, very disintegrated.
This means that it was not that nothing in line with the subject was not done, but the whole
work/study was very disintegrated and lacked a systematic approach.
B. Diplomatic Historical Means (around when WWI broke – around 1914): This is when
WWI started. The catastrophic effect triggered the realisation that something needs to be
done in the arena of IR. The need for specific departments/chairs was felt. Though the
discipline had found some kind of shape and name, it predominantly centered around
diplomacy. It was about history. IR, in this stage, was predominantly the work of diplomatic
historians; this area was manipulated by historians and has a major charge of the world today.
Their methods were descriptive and chronological largely. Problem was it was completely
limited to history and description of history. They did not see patterns and only explained
the past. There was good work which had been done but only centred around explaining the
past and this was not how the discipline could function.
2nd Stage: Current Events Stage (end of WWI & before WWII):
This was confined to reviewing newspapers, journals, etc. They focused on studying the
current events, contemporary events, etc. A huge lacuna was that they only endeavored to
study the present. They missed out on the past, i.e., they did not study the origin of the
problems. They should have not only studied the contemporary events but also interpreted
them. Because of their approach, they could not reach the root of the problems/issues so as to
deal with them, i.e., their analysis was superficial analysis.
3rd Stage: Law and Organisation Stage (end of WWI & before WWII - relatively later
than 2nd):
9
SEMESTER V
This took a legalistic, moralistic approach because, here, they were thinking of reformation.
So, IR was infused with the idea of reformation. This is also known as the utopian stage. The
approach was legalistic and institutional and was more moralistic and utopian in its nature.
This required some kind of codification of law/rules, i.e., the presence of some kind of a
structure to execute the same was deemed necessary.
This stage was dominated by liberalism. They believed men could be rational, peace and
harmony could be brought about with the correct institutions. Hence, they believed that
peaceful structuring could bring harmony. Here, the following things were deemed important
to execute this legalistic, institutional approach:
 Creation of some supra-national institutions (like League of Nations). They wanted
to create a legal instrument for controlling war by creating a supranational institution
– which became the LON
 Eliminating wars through legal instruments (like League of Nation and other
treaties like instruments) — to promote peace.
 Peace construction through some kind of legal instrument which would prohibit
wars.
However, it was very hard to predict the future. At the same time, aggressive nationalism
developing. Nazism and fascism, dictatorship coming in, strong security threats. There was
the Economic depression of 1935, there was Italy-Ethiopia crisis of 1935 — these discredited
the sanctity of the League of Nations, tried to put sanctions on Italy which it ignored and
ended up invading. Then, finally, there was the outbreak of WW2. Thus, this stage started
with the creation of League of Nations and ended with the outbreak of WW2.
4th Stage: The Contemporary Stage (The end of WWII)
A. Post War Stage: They realised that what they had been doing so far was not working.
Needed something more comprehensive.
B. Comprehensive Stage: This stage starts at the end of 1940s. There are sub-parts to this
stage:
 Behaviouralism (1950s-60s): Natural sciences and concomitant approaches were
being adopted by the researchers. Eventually, one has to figure out the determinant
factors that are causing issues and their solutions. Some level of cause-effect analysis
is needed, i.e., a quantitative study is required. Mathematics is included in their
studies. One predominant phenomenon affecting this development was the cold war.
 Neo-Liberalism (1960s-70s): This was also the cold war period. This was a time
period détente – ‘thaw’ in the relationship. There was some improvement in inter-
relationships (i.e., detente). Neo-liberalism came into being. This is a revised/altered
version of liberalism.
 New Political Thinking (1970s-80s): This involved, again, a strain of relationships.
Reagan had propounded the stars war programme. The Strategic Defense Initiative,
derisively nicknamed the “Star Wars program”, was a proposed missile defense
10
SEMESTER V
system intended to protect the United States from attack by ballistic strategic nuclear
weapons. This was titled the new cold war. Here, neorealism came back.
 Disintegration of USSR (1980s Onwards): Both Russia and US interfered in
Afghanistan. Gorbachev came into the picture and propounded policies of openness
and transparency (‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’). A revision took place in relationship
between US and USSR. Both liberalism and realism took a back seat and “new-
political thinking;” “post modernism” and “post positivism” emerged. New horizons
came to the study of IR, there was new political thinking. This stage ended with the
disintegration of USSR in 90s, and with the emergence of a unipolar world with US as
the superpower.
C. Major concerns in the post war period (1990s): It was the new millennium. The two
polarizing thoughts and tendencies of the world is something which are co-existing now
(liberalism and realism). Idea of liberalism, globalization, emergence of non-state actors – all
factors which point to how globalization is important, co-exist at the same time with security
threats. New security threats have emerged like drug trafficking, migration, disease,
cybercrime, transnational terrorism. There is emergence of neo-imperialism – new threats
have emerged, which talk about how national borders are equally important. There is an
acceptance of both the views – liberalism and realism.
1.5. Great Debates

1. The First Great Debate (1930s – 1950s). This was between liberal internationalists, who
emphasised peaceful cooperation, and realists, who firmly believed in power politics.
Idealism is a precursor to liberalism as it is a more utopian view (i.e., all human being
are benign and good). Realism states that human being are self-centered, selfish and look
for their own interests. This debate pertained to the subject matter of international
relations.
2. The Second Great Debate (1960s). Previously, international relations was a very
normative, coloured subject. It had acquired an abstract nature. This was between the
behaviouralists and the traditionalists on whether it is possible to have objective law in
international relations. Behaviouralism is a school of thought that, drawing on
empiricist’s theory of knowledge and positivist philosophy of science, seeks to study
human behaviour in reference to observable and measurable behavioural patterns. To
counter the abstract nature of international relations, behaviouralists emphasised a
scientific and empirical approach. It was understood that the subject was to be studied
objectively. Traditionalists opposed this idea.
Bull defined the traditional approach as the approach to theorizing that derives from
philosophy, history and law and that is characterized above all by explicit reliance upon
the exercise of judgement, beliefs and by the assumption that if we confine ourselves to
strict standards of verification and proof then there is very little of significance that can be
said about IR. They said if we bring in science, will kill the nature of the subject,
11
SEMESTER V
believed in belief driven subject. This debate pertained to the method by which
international relations was to be studied.
3. The Third Great Debate or the Inter-Paradigm Debate (End of 1970s – 1980s)
[Between Rationalists]. This was between realists and liberals on the one hand and
Marxists on the other, who interpreted international relations in economic terms. By this
time, neo-realists, neo-liberals and neo-Marxists had emerged. Realism adopted certain
positivist methodology, eventually turning into neo realism. The father of neo realism is
Kenneth Waltz. Liberalism was influenced by complex interdependence by R. Keohane
& J. Nye and became neo-liberalism.
The two schools of thought realised that they cannot keep themselves constrained by the
normative, ethical approach. They realised the kind of stand they are taking. In the kind
of time they were living in, it was not possible to maintain that ethical and philosophical
approach. Realism dropped the pessimism it had about human and state behaviour and
accepted that some cooperation can happen. Neo-Liberalism acknowledged that some
kind of anarchy is there, but cooperation is still possible.
At the same time, Marxism had also entered the scene. They were talking about the wide
divide and the class structures. The Marxists argued that nations interacted only on
economic terms. The liberals and the realists came together to emphasise national
interest. This debate pertained to the method by which international relations was to be
studied.
By the time this debate arose, a consensus had been reached about commitment to
positivism. This debate owes its origin to the difficult times experienced by realism and
liberalism. The father of neo-realism, Kenneth Waltz utilised positivist methodology and
objectivity of the natural sciences to draw his theories. Keohane and Nye’s theory of
complex interdependence demonstrated that self-interested actors are capable of
cooperation, peace and harmony even in an anarchical structure.
4. The Fourth Great Debate (End of 1980s- 90s) [Between Reflectivists]. Again, the
arguments revolved around science. The divide was between explaining and
understanding.
The advocates of rationalism stated that the notions of science can’t be left behind. They
focused more on explaining. They believed states are nothing but ‘utility maximiser’. It
is always self-interest which governs choices. The alternatives will always be weighed
and the best one will be picked accordingly. This is rational choice theory. It believes
states are aware of the complexities of the world but are always governed by their own
self-interest. This weighing of choices requires scientific approach.
Reflectionism says natural sciences cannot help us in understanding IR because it’s by
nature interpretive. The understanding component is by your beliefs etc. It says that all
that is not positivist, will be reflectivist. It is an umbrella which incorporates a number of
thoughts amongst itself, like social constructivism and feminism.
This debate once again focuses on the issue of science in IR and tries to reassess the
theoretical assumptions in a post-positivist hierarchy. There is a strong
explaining/understanding divide prevalent over here. The explanatory theorists emulate
12
SEMESTER V
the natural sciences or scientific methods in identifying the IR issues whereas the
advocates of understanding focus on the internal meanings, reasons and beliefs that
actors hold and act as reference to.
Rational theorists accept the complexities of the social world but believe that states act as
utility maximisers where they use their self-interest to make choices that will provide
them the greatest benefit. States weigh the choices and pick what serves their interest.
Reflectivism seeks to build a unified logic of interference by taking both quantative and
qualitative methods of inquiry into consideration and try to save the subject of IR from
two polarised ends of over speculation and mechanical science.
This debate pertained to the method by which international relations was to be studied.
1.6. Actors of Global Politics
The actors in international relations can be divided into two categories:

1. State Actors
Background.
The Westphalian Peace Treaty was signed at the end of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). It
was fought primarily in Central Europe between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics
to oppose the false doctrines and malpractices. It was a victory of the secular forces over the
malpractices of the church. The modern state with territorial sovereignty came in the wake of
this treaty.
It was formally put into effect only in 1933 by the Montevideo Convention on Rights and
Duties of States. It was signed at Uruguay in 1933 and codifies the declarative theory of
statehood. Article 1 of the Convention says that the state as a person of international law
should possess the following qualifications:
- Permanent population.
- Defined territory.
- Government.
- The capacity to enter into relations with other states.
Concepts
A nation has a shared culture of history, ethnicity, language, etc. there has to be some feature
of community. A state is a self-governing political entity. A nation-state is a system of
organisation in which people with a common identity live inside a country with firm borders
and a single government. A nation-state system is a pattern of political life in which people
are separately organised into sovereign states that interact with one another in varying ways
and degrees.
Features
1. One of the major organising principles for a state to be is nationhood. However,
some states may contain one or more nations and a nation may be made up of several
states. For example, Tibet, Taiwan, Kurdistan, Catalonia, Kosovo consider
themselves to have a separate nationhood which has not yet been recognised.
13
SEMESTER V
2. This sovereignty of states is recognised by other states through diplomatic relations

or membership in the United Nations.
3. State answers to no higher authority. It has complete sovereignty, both internal and
external.
4. With few exceptions, a state has a capital city and a seat of government.
For instance, Switzerland has not declared Bern to be its capital city. However, it acts
as the capital because of the presence of the seat of government.
The state as an actor also includes the bureaucracies and the ministries in the name of
the state.
5. The international system is the set of relationships among the world’s states,
structured according to certain rules and patterns of interactions. Here, two problems
may arise that question the sovereignty of the state:
- Sub-nationalism, i.e., when people identify with a nationality that the sovereign state
does not represent.
- Globalisation is also an issue. The importance of the sovereign state gets diluted
because a state is often at the mercy of other states.
6. Two views regarding interaction between states in the international system:
a) The state-centric view
This is supported by Realists as it tries to explain the existence of sovereign states
through a model known as the ‘Billiard Ball’ model. An analogy is drawn between
billiard balls and states. Just like billiard balls, states are also impermeable with hard
shells and are self-contained units. They go on to say that the interactions / collisions
between states are largely because of two reasons, either for security purposes or
military purposes. This may end in either peace (through diplomacy) or war (through
military action).
This model has two implications:
 Domestic politics and international politics. What you do within your
borders is your business, but what you do outside your borders depends on
the power of other states – borders matter.
 There is a distribution of power. Interactions between states are dependent
on the power of the states, meaning that states have unequal power. The
more powerful are able to intrude into the affairs of the less powerful.
Therefore, international relations is largely in the interest of the powerful.
Questions arise as to the explanations for transnational flows and
interdependence of states. The lacunae in this model led to the emergence of
another model.
b) The mixed-actor view

This explains interaction between states through a ‘cobweb’ model. It argues that the
billiard ball model is insufficient, and that states have been forced to work together in
tackling issues such as global warming, health, and weapons of mass destruction. This
web of relations creates a complex interdependence.
2. Non-State Actors
14
SEMESTER V
a) International NGOs
Governments of states are the members. They are usually large organisations. Their specific
functions are economic, political, environmental, etc.
For example, WTO, UN, OPEC, NATO, etc.
b) Non-Governmental Organisations.
They may be large or small. Individuals, organisations could be members. They can also
work as pressure groups who attempt to achieve their goals through lobbying.
For example, Amnesty International. Red Cross, etc.
c) Multi-National Corporations
They are companies that span borders. It is a two-way relationship. They impact state policies
such as political funding.
For example, Samsung, Apple, Maruti, etc.
d) Others
This includes criminal, religious and ethnic groups. They have global presence, global reach
and appeal. They are non-categorised NSAs.
For example, Al Qaeda, ISIS, diaspora communities, anti-capitalist movements, drug cartels,
etc.
1.7. Levels of Analysis

A level of analysis is a perspective of international relations based on a set of similar actors
or processes that suggests possible explanations to the ‘why’ questions of international
relations – Why armament? Why disarmament? Why did this nation sign that treaty? Why
war?
The four levels of analysis, which were developed by Waltz in 1959 as he analysed the
causes of war are:
THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

This concerns the perceptions, choices and actions of individual human beings. It involves
personal priorities as well as cognitive and psychological dispositions. Great leaders
influence the course of history, as do individuals, citizens, thinkers, soldiers, voters, etc.
If it weren’t for Lenin, Russia as we know it wouldn’t exist. If it had been Nixon instead of
Kennedy at the helm during the Cuban Missile Crisis, WWIII might have broken out. This is
because Kennedy was a pacifist while Nixon was aggressive. If it hadn’t been for Nehru,
Kashmir would have been ours. US Bombing of Iraq (2003) – Bush’s antagonism for
Gaddafi and Gaddafi’s overconfidence.
THE DOMESTIC LEVEL

The domestic level of analysis concerns the aggregations of individuals within states that
influence state actions in the international arena. It involves the nature of the state, the type of
government as well as the bureaucratic structure. Decisions taken at the domestic level put
15
SEMESTER V
together also influence international relations – should a nation adopt democracy or

autocracy?
Kurdistan isn’t an issue that concerns only Iran, it affects the world at large. US Bombing of
Iraq (2003) – the 9/11 attacks triggered sentiment.
THE INTER-STATE LEVEL (SYSTEMIC LEVEL)

This level of analysis concerns the influence of the international system upon outcomes. It,
therefore, focuses on the interactions of states themselves without regard to their internal
makeup or the individuals who lead them.
There is a power imbalance between a developing nation and a hegemon. This imbalance will
have an effect on the way they interact with each other. It is also concerned with the web of
state interdependence and the dynamics of global capitalism. US Bombing of Iraq (2003) –
The Bush and Gaddafi administrations did not share cordial relations.
GLOBAL LEVEL
This level of analysis seeks to explain international outcomes in terms of global trends and
forces. US Bombing of Iraq (2003) – the emergence of a global trend of pitting the Middle
East against the West.
LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
Individual Level Perceptions, cognitions, decision, learning patterns, accidents of history.
Nationalism, ethnic conflict, type of government, political parties, interest

Domestic Level
groups, public opinion.
Inter-State Level Power balances, interdependence.
Global Level Religious fundamentalism, terrorism, world environment.
1.8. Models of Decision Making
1. The Rational Actor Models

Decision-making models that emphasise human rationality have generally been constructed
on the basis of economic theories that have themselves been derived from utilitarianism.
They are based on the notion of the ‘economic man’, a model of human nature that stresses
the self-interested pursuit of material satisfaction.
Example: Cost-benefit analysis. In line with the goal of profit maximisation, businesspeople
make decisions that will ensure the least possible cost and the greatest possible benefit, both
calculated in monetary terms.
16
SEMESTER V
It has been developed by thinkers such as Anthony Downs (1957) and follows the following
procedure:
– The nature of the problem is identified.
– An objective or goal is selected on the basis of an ordering of individual
preferences.
– The available means of achieving this objective are evaluated in terms of their
effectiveness, reliability, costs, etc.
– A decision is made through selection of means most likely to secure the desired
end.
– The role of individuals is restricted to the selection of the best means of
achieving a pre-determined end.
Assumptions:
– That clear-cut objectives exist.
– That human beings are able to pursue them in a rational and consistent
manner.
The primary attraction of the theory is that it reflects how most people believe decisions
should be made – in a manner that is goal-oriented and a product of careful thought and
deliberation.
Drawbacks:
– Decisions are often made on the basis of inadequate and inaccurate
information. This encouraged Herbert Simon (1983) to develop the notion of
‘bounded rationality’ which acknowledges that since it is impossible to analyse
and select all possible courses of action, decision-making is essentially an act of
compromising between differently valued and imprecisely calculated
outcomes. Simon describes this process as ‘satisficing’.
– They ignore the role of perception, i.e., the degree to which actions are shaped
by belief and assumptions about reality, rather than by reality itself. Little or no
importance is thus attached to individual and collective psychology or to the
values and ideological leanings of decision-makers.
2. The Incremental Models

It has been summed up by Charles Lindblom as the ‘science of muddling through’. It
holds that decisions tend to be made on the basis of inadequate information and low levels of
understanding, and this discourages decision-makers from bold and innovative courses of
action. Policy-makers tend to operate within an existing framework, adjusting their position
in light of feedback in the form of information about the impact of earlier decisions. Suggests
a strategy of avoidance or evasion.
Attractions:
– Provides a more accurate account of how decisions are made in the real world.
– Allows for flexibility and expression of divergent views – muddling through
implies responsiveness, flexibility, consultation and compromise.
17
SEMESTER V
Drawbacks:
– Best suited for situations where policy-makers are more inclined towards inertia
than innovation. It explains policy trends of pro-status quo states more easily. It
explains the policy of appeasement followed by the UK and France towards Nazi
Germany, but does not explain Nazi expansionism itself.
– It places little emphasis on the role of beliefs and values which may have been a
crucial factors in driving foreign policy decisions in Nazi Germany.
3. The Bureaucratic Organisation Models

Rational and Incremental models are ‘black box’ theories of decision-making as neither pays
attention to the impact that the structure of policy-making process has on the resulting
decisions. These models try to highlight the degree to which process influences product. This
approach was pioneered by Graham Allison (1971) in his examination of US and USSR
decision-making during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Two contrasting models emerge
from this study:
– The ‘organisational process’ model emphasises the role played by values,
assumptions and regular patterns of behaviour that are found in any large
organisation. It posits that decisions reflect the entrenched culture of the
government department or agency that makes them.
– The ‘bureaucratic politics’ model emphasises the impact of bargaining power
between personnel and agencies pursuing different perceived interests.
Drawbacks:
i. It allows little scope for political leadership to be imposed from above.
For instance, it would be foolish to ignore Hitler’s influence on Germany’s
decision to invade Poland.
ii. It is simplistic to suggest that political actors simply hold views that are based on
their own position and on the interests of the organisations for which they work.
iii. It fails to give any weight to the external pressures that emanate from the broader
political, economic, cultural and ideological context.
iv. The Cognitive Processes and Belief-System Models

These models highlight the extent to which belief is shaped by perception. What people see
and understand is what their concepts and values allow them to understand. This tendency is
particularly entrenched because in most cases, it is largely unconscious. The social and
political values of decision-makers may act as powerful filters.
Kenneth Boulding (1956) emphasised that without a mechanism to filter information,
decision-makers would simply be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of confronting them.
There are different views on the origin and nature of this filtering process.
Robert Jervis (1968, 1976) drew attention to the evidence of consistent misperception on
part of decision-makers in international relations. This, he believed, stemmed largely from
ethnocentrism, which explains the tendency of the USA to regard Fidel Castro as a Marxist
revolutionary in 1959.
18
SEMESTER V
Irving Janis suggested that decisions can be explained in terms of groupthink, which helps
us understand how and why contrary or inconvenient views may be squeezed out of
consideration in the decision-making process.
 The Pearl Harbour incident, the Bay of Pigs Incident and the 1986 Space
Shuttle Challenger disaster can be explained by groupthink.
 Evidence of groupthink can also be seen amongst Bush’s most senior
advisors during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Dick Cheney, Ronald Rumsfeld,
Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle were drawn from the neoconservative
wing of the Republican party, which urged the USA to assume military and
diplomatic leadership in the new unipolar world.
Senior policy makers are influenced by ideological biases that favour the interests of the
dominant economic and social groups. Capitalist economic structures are therefore seen as
‘natural’ and ‘beneficial’. As a result, free market, market reforms and globalism are viewed
positively, while their alternatives are seldom considered.
The interests that guide foreign policy do not therefore emerge out of the systemic pressures
of the international system, but are fashioned by ideological processes at either a domestic or
a foreign level. Ideas and identities determine interests.
1.9. Core Principles of International Relations

1. Dominance
The principle of dominance solves the collective goods problem by establishing a power
hierarchy in which those at the top control those below. Development can be traced from the
emergence of a bipolar world order (USA and USSR) with different spheres of influence,
to a unipolar world order in the aftermath of the Cold War.
The nature of power has undergone significant change – power is no longer in the form of
threats, it is soft.
For instance, the United States is a key player in the United Nations. If Trump asks nations to
not import oil from Iran, they are likely to agree.
In this scenario, where dominance plays a strong role, advantages and disadvantages both
exist. The hegemon often gets to dictate terms and carry on unchecked. However, some
amount of common good is ensured. Two benefits of dominance are:
– It forces members of a group to contribute to the common good.
– It minimises open conflict within the group.
2. Reciprocity
International relations to a large extent works on the principle of reciprocity. This principle
solves the collective goods problem by rewarding behaviour that contributes to the group
and punishing behaviour that pursues self-interest at the expense of the group.
Reciprocity forms the basis of most of the norms and institutions in the international system.
However, reciprocity cannot function if due credit is not given to other nations – there is a
tendency to overestimate one’s own accomplishments and underplay others’
accomplishments (if I fall, the floor is slippery but if you fall, you are clumsy). It is capable
of fuelling up the arms race and also encouraging disarmament.
Complex Accounting:
19
SEMESTER V
There are 2 principles herein

1.Augmenting
2.Discounting
3. Identity
The third potential solution to the problem of common good lies in the identities of
participants as members of the community. The previous principles were based on self-
interest. This principle, however, is based on selfless interest. Realists would not recognise
that the concept of identity exists. It lays emphasis on human rights, welfare of all and global
justice. Contribution, even if it is disproportionate, must be there.
For instance, Scandinavian countries offer financial aid to developing nations.
It can also, however, lead to demonization of certain groups. Some nations are labelled as
‘philanthropic nations’, while others may not be in a position to contribute. This can intensify
the rift between the ‘developed’ and the ‘developing’.
CORE PRINCIPLES FOR SOLVING THE COLLECTIVE GOODS PROBLEM
Principle Advantages Disadvantages
Order, stability, predictability,

Dominance Oppression, resentment.
minimisation of open conflict.
Downward spirals, complex

Reciprocity Incentive for mutual cooperation.
accounting.
Identity Redefining interest, sacrifice, benefits. Demonising groups.
2. THEORIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

2.1. Realism
Smith, in 1997, gave us a classification between rationalist, i.e., deterministic (realist,
neorealist, liberalist, neoliberalist) theories and reflectivist (postmodernist, feminist, critical)
theories.
20
SEMESTER V
Liberalists gave their view of how and why the war occurred. Realism as a concept took
shape as a consequence of and in response to liberalist theories. Realists called liberalists
‘utopians’ and believed that their understanding of the war was flawed because they
completely ignored the concept of power and power politics. They also said that they had
overestimated the rationality of human behaviour and overemphasised shared interests
between nations and the inherent goodness of mankind.
Morgenthau believed that “politics is a struggle for power over men, and whatever its
ultimate aim may be, power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining
and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action”.
 Two Core Assumptions of Realism

According to Donnelly (2000), realism talks about two concepts egoism and international
anarchy. The two concepts put together give us the concept of power politics.
- Egoism talks about the brutish, competitive selfish nature of mankind. This
selfishness is their defining nature. This concept would endorse classical realism.
Egoism is the basic human nature of people, and it makes the nature of politics selfish
too, and competitive, egoistic. So, egoism boils down to self-interest, national interest,
which affects nature of politics
- States operate in the framework of international anarchy. There is no world
government. It is the state which is sovereign and is completely authorised to take its
own actions. There is no superseding authority. This concept would endorse neo-
realism and structural realism.
 Major Proponents of Realism

1. E. H. Carr in his polemic (strong verbal attack on the existing system) work ‘Twenty
Years Crises – 1919 to 1939’ [Classical Realist].
2. Morgenthau in his seminal work ‘Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power
and Peace’ in 1948 [Classical Realist].
3. Kenneth Waltz in his work ‘Man, the State and War’ in 1959 [Neo-Realist].
4. Gideon Rose in his work ‘World Politics’ in 1998 [Neo-Realist].
5. George Kennan in his work ‘Realist as Moralist’ in 1989. He was the ambassador to
the USSR and Yugoslavia in 1952.
6. Reinhold Niebuhr in his work ‘The Nature and Destiny of Man’ in 1941-43. He
vehemently criticised the prevailing Christian values.
 Realist Tradition
‘Realism’ was formally addressed as such and took its current form with the works of the
aforementioned proponents. However, realist thought existed earlier as well.
THE REALIST TRADITION
Thinker Key Text Big Ideas
21
SEMESTER V
The book was about the conflict going on between

Athens and Sparta. He wrote about the ‘Melian
Dialogue’ between the Athenians and the Melians (the
ancestors of the Spartans).
History of the
He focuses on ‘what is’ rather than ‘what should be’.
Peloponnesian
Thucydides International politics is an endless struggle for power,
War (431 – 404
with roots in human nature.
BC)
There is no place for concepts such as justice, law and
society because it all comes down to man’s nature.
The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what
they must. Power transcended ethics.
He was the first person to separate morality and
ethics from politics. Leaders should do what works,
i.e., power. States must do what they have to; power
must be seized at all costs. He suggests that all treaties
and obligations be disregard if the security of the
Machiavelli The Prince (1532)
community is under threat.
He said that leaders shouldn’t seek the love of the
people, the people should be scared of them.
Principles are subordinate to policies, adapt to
changing power / political configurations.
He had an insatiable lust for power, non-rational
appetites. He asserted a violent state of nature and
Hobbes Leviathan (1651)
believed that the social contract was necessary in the
interest of mankind.
He believes that it is not human nature but anarchical
Rousseau The State of War society that fosters jealousy, lust and despair. Due to
this reason, war is inevitable.
 Doctrine of Raison D’etat

The insights that realists offered into the way the state should conduct itself are often grouped
under the doctrine of raison d’état, i.e., the reason of the state. They provide maxims to the
leaders on how to conduct their foreign affairs and ensure the security of the state. It is for
the leader to rationally and critically decide which activity to adopt so that the state continues
to exist. Coercion and force are legitimate instruments of the state.
Friedrich Meinecke posits that raison d’état is the fundamental principle of international
conduct. It is the state’s first law of motion and tells us what the statesman should do to
preserve the health and strength of the state.
 Realists on Morality
Realists are sceptical of the idea that universal principles of morality (which Bentham had
called ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’) exist. However, normative emphasis also
22
SEMESTER V
operates within the realist tradition which suggests that the state should be guided by the
well-being of the citizens.
They do not reject a nationality-based conception of morality, rather they have a different
idea of morality which is not accorded with traditional religious virtues. This is a dual
standard of morality. If the survival of the state is at stake, i.e., there is a conflict with state
interest, you have to distance yourself from the ‘indeterminate ethos of ethics’.
It has wrongly been said that realists endorse war. That is, however, not the case. They
believe that a cost-benefit analysis must be made to determine the feasibility and requirement
of war in each individual case.
For instance, Hans Morgenthau opposed the US war against North Vietnam on the grounds
that it defied a rational understanding of national interest.
 The Six Realist Principles

These were given by Hans Morgenthau and form the guiding principles for political realism.
1. Politics is governed by objective laws which have their root in human nature.
2. The key to understanding international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms
of power.
3. The forms and nature of state power will vary in time, place and context but the concept
of interest remains consistent.
4. Universal moral principles do not guide state behaviour although this does not rule out an
awareness of the moral significance of political action.
5. Moral aspirations are specific to a particular nation.
6. The political sphere is autonomous.
 Types of Realism
Realism is generally classified into three categories – classical realism, structural realism (or
neorealism) and neo-classical realism. A fourth type is also added by some thinkers.
1. Classical Realism.
It prevailed till the 20th century. It was propounded by theorists beginning from Thucydides
till Morgenthau. They emphasise the scientific nature of behaviour and assert that politics
is ruled by objective laws. These laws are rooted in human behaviour. The drive for power
and the will to dominate are held to be fundamental aspects of human nature. The behaviour
of the state is that of a self-seeking egoist and reflects what an individual is.
Another distinguishing characteristic of classical realism is its adherents’ belief in the
primordial character of power and ethics. A state is like an enlarged individual, i.e., it
boils down to human nature. International politics is thus bound to be aggressive, because
humans are aggressive. This leads to competition, war, fear, etc. There is also bound to be
some power struggle, be it for self-interest or sustenance. Further, ethics works differently at
the domestic and international levels. Every state is autonomous and sovereign in itself.
This conception of realism supports ‘egoism’.
23
SEMESTER V
 Criticism of Classical Realism

By 1950s the realist school of thought led by Morgenthau was the predominant theory of
international politics. With the rise of Realism, there also came a barrage of criticisms from
different directions.
By the beginning of 1960s, the influence of scientific thinking in international relations was
palpable. There were scholars who were engaged in making the study of international
relations more scientific. By the mid-1960s, the majority of American students in
international relations were trained in quantitative research, game theory, and other new
research techniques of the social science
These scholars severely criticized the classical realism as ‘wisdom literature’, without any
scientific foundations.
For example, Morgenthau’s idea of objective reality based on human nature was
understood as highly unscientific.
On the other hand, by the beginning of 1970s, there was a general acknowledgment about the
growing importance of non-state actors in international politics. This acknowledgment
led to the emergence of pluralism and neo-liberalism in international relations.
2. Structural / Neorealism.
24
SEMESTER V
Classical realism left many questions unanswered and lacked on various fronts. It could not
explain:
– Emerging trends, alliances and treaties such as the NPT and the PTBT, which
had superpowers collaborating, cooperating and working together.
– Intra-state conflicts.
The post-behavioural revolution questioned the scientific aspect and objectivity associated
with classical realism. This conception can be traced back to the idea of the ‘noble savage’
by Rousseau, which asserts that man is not savage by birth. Rousseau was one of the
initiators of structural realism. Rather, civilisation and conditions of property pushed him to
adopt such a nature. This is in line with the idea of ‘international anarchy’.
It takes some elements of classical realism as a starting point like independent states
existing and operating in a system of international anarchy. But then departs from that
tradition by giving no account of human nature and ignoring statecraft’s ethics.
Structural realists concur that international politics is essentially a struggle for power, but
they do not endorse the classical realist assumption that this is a result of human nature.
Instead, structural realists attribute security competition and inter-state conflict to the lack of
an overarching authority above states and the distribution of power in the international
system.
 Important Assumptions of Structural Realism

1. States are the rational actors in the international system. They always want to maximize
benefits and minimize losses.
2. The anarchic structure of the international system is the foremost important
determinant of state’s behaviour.
3. In the anarchic international system, there is no central authority to impose the rules of
the game.
4. Under these circumstances, states are unaware of others’ intentions (security dilemma).
5. Survival is the most critical concern as a result of the anarchic structure of the
international system.
6. Power is not measured by the outcome, rather it is the combined capabilities of a state.
7. The most important question for stability and peace in the international system is
balancing power in the system.
Kenneth Waltz believed that there are three elements of structural realism:
a. Organising principles
He said that there are two organising principles:
- The hierarchy in domestic politics, which maintains and defines order within the
state itself. For any state to be, there has to be some structure.
- On the international level, there is no clear hierarchy. This causes anarchy in
international politics.
b. Differentiation of units
25
SEMESTER V
All sovereign states (units) are not functionally different, i.e., there is no differentiation in
these units. All states are alike in all functioning aspects. Different cultures, ideologies,
technology doesn’t matter because they all perform the same basic tasks. Unit level variation
is irrelevant in explaining outcomes so whether a state is a democracy or not doesn’t matter.
c. Distribution of capabilities
While there is no differentiation of units, there is a distribution of capabilities. This, they say,
is the key variable which leads to differential power, which in turn leads to war.
Capabilities are instrumental for states to ensure their survival. The survival aim encourages
relative gains. A neorealist assessment of the ‘capability’ of a state is determined by five
main criteria: its natural resource endowment, its demographic, economic, military, and
technological capacity. As each state achieves a different level of capability (which
primarily serves its survival goal), states within the international system are differentiated via
their level of capability. Neorealist scholars thus strive to paint a relational picture of the
capabilities each state possesses at any given time. This is referred to as ‘relative capability’.
Because states are perpetually insecure, they perpetually wish to acquire capabilities. The
grand paradox of international politics is thus born; the “security dilemma”. In striving to
attain security from a potential attack, states are driven to acquire more and more capabilities
in order to escape the impact of the capabilities of others. This renders the others more
insecure and compels them to prepare for the worst. Since no one can ever feel entirely
secure in such a world of competing units, competition ensues, and the vicious circle of
security and capability accumulation is on.
 Two categories:
a. Defensive realism developed by Kenneth Waltz in 1979.
Differential power (discussed above) affects the structure of international politics at large by
shaping issues of war, conflict and peace at a global level. This power, however, has to be
used as a means and not as an end. They propose that states must be security-maximisers
and not power-maximisers. This is because adopting a goal of power-maximisation can lead
to counterbalancing or coalitions of states. Their understanding is that of a ‘status quo-ist’
state.
b. Offensive realism developed by Mearsheimer in 2001.

According to them, power is not just a means to an end. It is an end in itself. States are not
security-maximisers, they are power-maximisers. They argue that maximisation of power
(in anticipation of some threat) leads to maximisation of security. You have no choice but to
run after power because we are living in a state of ‘security dilemma’ where we are never
sure of the interests of other states. This does not prevent them from trying to be the
hegemon, which tragically leads the world to a situation where states are always primed for
offence and not defence. Their understanding is that of a ‘revisionist’ state.
 Criticism
i. It refuses to recognise the states level defences. The lack of differentiation of units
is difficult to digest because there are a number of factors at the individual or
26
SEMESTER V
domestic levels which will have an impact on the explanation of international politics.
Domestic factors such as governance, leaders, domestic institutions, bureaucracy, etc.
will play an imp role as far as decision making and international politics is concerned.
Domestic factors haven’t been taken into consideration, just said all states are
largely the same.
ii. It fails to explain peaceful changes and cooperation.
For example, Britain and US, or the EU.
Cooperation is happening, great powers do come together. Structural realism cannot
explain such amicable relations between states.
iii. They ignored statecraft’s importance, they assumed that there is no good or bad
judgement, or misadventures etc. This makes it a very mechanical model.
3. Neo-Classical Realism.
It was propounded in 1998 by Gideon Rose, Farced Zakaria and Randall Schweller. It is a
synthesis of the two previous approaches. They agree with the classical realists, insofar as
their unit-level analysis is concerned. This rests upon the assumption that IR is basically an
anarchical system.
It draws upon neorealism by acknowledging the significance of the structure of the
international state system and the relative power of states. It also draws upon classical
realism by emphasizing the importance of leadership and foreign policy.
They agree with the neorealist concepts of ‘distribution of capabilities’ and the ‘relative
distribution of power’. However, they reject their idea that there is no differentiation of units.
They assert that neorealists ignored the role of domestic politics as a key intervening factor
in the framing of foreign policy.
Classical realists assume that the underlying condition of international relations is one of
anarchy. They view international circumstances as the most important pressures on foreign
policy. Statesmen and stateswomen are thus seen as necessarily having to deal with foreign
powers in order to carry out their responsibilities for ensuring the security and survival of
their country. Classical realists see that as the heavy moral responsibility of statesmen and
stateswomen the heartland of the ethics of statecraft.
Neoclassical realists are not content with that traditional or classical realist way of framing
the problem. This is clearly evident by their acknowledgement of the significance of
neorealism, and by their desire not to repudiate neorealism but rather to improve upon it by
introducing certain elements.
Neoclassical realists clearly want to retain the structural argument of neorealism. But they
also want to add to it the instrumental (policy or strategy) argument of the role of state
leaders on which classical realism places its emphasis.
Neoclassical realism holds that the actions of a state in the international system can be
explained by:
- intervening systemic variables
- cognitive variables
- other states intentions, or threats and
- domestic variables
affecting the power and freedom of action of the decision-makers in foreign policy.
27
SEMESTER V
Systemic factors are international intervening variables. They relate to the distribution of
power and increase in capability. They undoubtedly play a role in the formulation of foreign
policy. The challenge here is that these variables can be unclear or difficult to read.
Domestic factors are also important. Factors such as perceptions of key decision-makers,
unity of the state/society and the extractive capacity of the state also play a role in the
formulation of foreign policy. They help filter systemic pressures to produce foreign
decisions.
 Key Tenets of Realism

1. Statism.
For realists, the state is the main actor and sovereignty is its distinguishing trait; sovereignty
is inextricably linked with the use of force.
The first move for realists is to organise power domestically, only after that can community
begin. They operate on the assumption that the problem of order and security is solved at the
domestic level. However, on the ‘outside’, in the relations among independent sovereign
states, the insecurities, dangers and threats to the very existence of the state loom large.
Realists largely explain this on the basis that the very condition for law and order, namely the
condition of existence of a sovereign, is missing in the international realm.
Competitive power politics makes agreement on universal principles difficult (non-
intervention is an exception). However, realists deny this principle as will, citing the
behaviour of the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq on grounds of national security and
international order; it all comes down to how much power you are able to wield.
What do realists mean by power? Morgenthau defines this power as “man’s control over the
minds and actions of other men”. They make two claims in this respect:
i. Power is a relational concept; one doesn’t exercise power in a vacuum, but in
relation to another entity.
ii. Power is a relative concept; calculations are made about one’s own, as well as
others’ powers.
Critics argue that realists have not been able to theorise and define power in a consistent
manner. Waltz (structural realist) tries to overcome this by emphasising ‘capabilities’ rather
than power. He argues that capabilities can be ranked depending on strength in the areas of
population size, territory, resource endowment, military capability and political stability.
However, this understanding too has been criticised on the ground that resource strength
does not always lead to military victory (1967 Six-Day War, Israel defeated the Arab
alliance of Egypt, Jordan and Syria). Japan’s relative economic success over China also
remains unexplained.
A more sophisticated understanding of power focuses on the ability of a state to control or
influence its environment in situations that are not necessarily conflictual. Realists also focus
exclusively on state power, ignoring international organisations, transnational corporations
and international terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda.
2. Survival
28
SEMESTER V
The ultimate concern of all states is security. Survival is a pre-condition for attaining all other
goals. Defensive realists such as Kenneth Waltz argue that states have security as their
principal interest and therefore, seek only the requisite amount of power to ensure their own
survival.
Offensive realists such as Mearsheimer, on the other hand, argue that the ultimate goal of all
states is to achieve a hegemonic position in the international system. States always desire
more power, even if such an action may jeopardise their own security. The task of
understanding the real nature of international politics, and the need to protect the state at all
costs (even if this may mean the sacrifice of one’s own citizens), places a heavy burden on
state leaders.
Their guide must be an ethic of responsibility, i.e., the careful weighing of consequences
and the realisation that individual acts of the immoral kind may have to be performed for the
greater good. The problem with this is that while instructing leaders to consider the
consequences of their actions, it does not provide a guide as to how they should weigh the
consequences.
3. Self-help
This is the idea that no other state or institution can be relied upon to guarantee your survival.
Waltz, in his ‘Theory of International Politics’, argues that the key difference between the
domestic and international orders lies in their structure. In the international system, there is
no higher authority to prevent and counter the use of force. Thus, security can therefore, only
be realised through self-help.
This gives rise to the ‘security dilemma’, which exist when military preparations in one state
create an unresolvable uncertainty in the mind of another as to whether those preparations are
for defensive or offensive purposes. This scenario suggests that one state’s quest for security
is often another state’s source of insecurity.
In a self-help system, structural realists argue that the balance of power will emerge even
in the absence of a conscious policy to maintain the balance. Classical realists however,
emphasize the role that state leaders and diplomats play in maintaining the balance of
power, and argue that the balance of power is not natural or inevitable, it must be constructed.
The problem of coordinating interests of the individual, as opposed to the common good (the
pay-off between short-term and long-term interests) exists. Realists argue that this
cooperation problem exists because of the issue of relative gains.
The criticism here could be that self-help is not an inevitable consequence of the absence of a
world government. There are historical and contemporary examples where states have
preferred collective security systems (or regional security committees) over self-help
concerns.
2.2. Liberalism
 Understanding of State
“Rechtstaat” – which comes closest to the idea of liberalism. There is Rule of Law, there is a
constitutional framework, freedom of life, liberty and property.
29
SEMESTER V
“Machtstaat” – which comes closest to the idea of Realism. There is a concentration of

power in the State and State is a body of coercion.
 Dimensions of Liberalism
Doyle (1997) defined liberalism by identifying four key dimensions.
a. All citizens are juridically equal and possess certain basic rights to education, access to
free press, and religious toleration.
b. The legislative assembly of a state possesses only the authority vested in it by the people
whose basic rights it is not permitted to abuse.
c. A key dimension of the liberty of the individual is the right to own property, including
productive forces.
d. Liberalism contends that the most effective system of economic exchange is one that is
largely market-driven and not one that is subordinate to bureaucratic regulation and
control, either domestically or internationally.
 Origin of Liberalism
Francis Fukuyama wrote the book ‘End of History and the Last Man’ in 1992 in which he
depicts the victory of liberal democracies world over, in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin
wall.
The origin of liberalist theory can be traced all the way back to the optimism of the age of
Enlightenment in the 18th century (an intellectual movement that questioned the prevalent
theological practices), the dissemination of Liberalism in the 19th century and Wilsonian
Idealism in the 20th century. These three movements had in common the ideas of
‘democracy’ and ‘market capitalism’. However, it assumed its true form only after WWI.
The theory has an optimistic approach and asserts the possibility of progress. It posits that
humanity is good; people are good and rational and have the potential to enhance their moral
material. However, they do not deny that bad behaviour exists. They believe that bad
behaviour is responsible for warfare and violence in society. However, the reason for such
bad behaviour is not rooted in bad humanity. Rather, the reasons include corrupt social
institutions and misunderstandings between leaders. These problems may be resolved either
by reforming corrupt institutions or getting into collective action.
The optimism of the Enlightenment rests on the Greek idea that individuals are rational
human beings, able to understand laws governing both nature and human society, and also
have the capacity to improve their condition by creating a just society. Even if a just society
is not reached, the reason is not humanity but rather social institutions. The following
thinkers contributed to the emergence of this idea:
1. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1275).

He was an Italian thinker who gave the famous ‘just war theory’, which finds its place
somewhere between realpolitik (realism and vested interest) and pacifism (denies any moral
reason for war).
30
SEMESTER V
He believed that war could be justified only:

i. By the theological principle of faith or the philosophical principle of reason.
ii. If it was the last resort.
iii. If there was a just cause.
iv. If it was proportional.
v. If there was some legitimate authority.
vi. If the intention was right.
vii. If there was a reasonable prospect of success. (this factor tilts slightly towards
realism as it emphasises the self-interest of nations).
2. Montesquieu (1689-1755)
He was a French thinker who believed that people were essentially good, and that problems
were caused due to institutions that made people corrupt. Education, he believed, could solve
the problem. He stressed that groups of States should unite according to the law of nations,
which regulates conduct even during war.
3. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

He was a German thinker who believed that the international regime was barbaric and talks
about the ‘lawless state of savagery’. He gave the ‘universal theory of perpetual peace’,
under which he gave three ‘definitive articles’ which explain his ideas. They are:
i. The civil constitution of every state shall be republican

That is to say that all the decisions taken in a state will have to be taken with the consent of
the citizens of the state. Citizens must have a say in all matters, including war, thus ensuring
that whimsical governments can’t declare war easily.
ii. The right of nations shall be based on a federation of free states

Every state can and ought to protect its security and the security of others by entering into a
constitution (like a civil constitution) in which the rights of each could be secured. It would
be an agreement distinct from a ‘peace treaty’. A peace treaty (like the Treaty of Versailles)
ends a war, but such an agreement would regulate the conduct of nations.
iii. Cosmopolitan right shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality

People of this earth have entered into a universal community, as a result of which, the effect
of violation of rights in one part of the world is felt everywhere. Therefore, a ‘cosmopolitan
right’ is a necessary complement to the code of political and international rights, transforming
it into a universal right of humanity.
4. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

He was an English thinker who propounded the principle of utility. He believed in the
sanctity of institutions and posited that they must be arranged and ordered so as to achieve the
greatest satisfaction (the greatest good) of the greatest number.
 19th Century Political and Economic Liberalism
31
SEMESTER V
The key elements of this phase were free trade, and democracy over aristocracy. It was
believed that man was rational and had the capacity to fulfil all his desires and reach the
zenith of his persona, provided there was minimal state intervention. J. S. Mill propounded
the ‘harm principle’, which posited that the state could only intervene to regulate and check
behaviour that caused others harm. This idea of liberalism was also known as ‘commercial
liberalism’ as it attributed freedom to free trade.
The proponents of this idea were Richard Cobden (1804-1865) and John Bright (1811-
1889) and the inspiration behind the idea came from the ‘Manchester Liberals’ and their
idea of classical economic liberalism, propounded by Ricardo and Adam Smith. The key
theme of commercial liberalism was free trade. This could be achieved only in capitalist
states where human beings could improve their own conditions, thereby maximising both
individual and collective economic growth. For this, the government had to ensure free
markets and free flow of trade and commerce
States, it was believed, should not be forced to produce certain goods and services. They must
have the comparative advantage of producing what they are good at. It leads not only to
economic benefits but also leads to, what Cobden calls, ‘bonds of eternal peace’ which
result from inter-dependence and inter-connectedness.
Cobden believed that “the progress of freedom depends more upon the maintenance of
peace, the spread of commerce and the diffusion of education, than upon the labour of
cabinets and foreign officers”. Thus, free trade would eventually lead to a peaceful world
order and all states would be benefited.
Britain vehemently supported the theory. However, the criticism is that Britain asserted the
theory to further its own colonial mission; it would be benefited disproportionately. Public
opinion should also be incorporated; opinions at the domestic level must be extended to the
international level. They concluded their idea by saying that aggression and expansionism are
best deterred by the spirit of commerce. There was a natural harmony of interests between
states (this idea was challenged by the idealists).
 20th Century Wilsonian Idealism

They challenged the previous school of thought. Britain and Germany fought each other in
two world wars, but enjoyed extensive trade tries. This meant that peace did not come
naturally, but had to be constructed.
Woodrow Wilson (former US President) was the main proponent of this theory and his 14
points emphasised at the founding of the League of Nations formed the basis for it. Leonard
Woolf stated that “peace and prosperity are a consciously devised machinery”. Wilson
supported Woolf’s stance by saying that “peace could only be secured with the creation of
international organisations to regulate international anarchy. Security could not be left to
secret bilateral deals and a blind faith in balance of power.”
This birthed the idea of ‘collective security’. The core theme of the idea was that if there was
a threat to any one of the nations, it would be considered as a threat to all the nations. Steps
would then collectively be taken to prevent harm. [Article 16 of the Statute of the League of
Nations].
The idea of ‘collective defence’, on the other hand, talked about an ‘alliance of system of
security’. Under it, in response to a particular threat, a body having signatories would
32
SEMESTER V
collectively work to solve the problem. The NATO and the Warsaw Pact were formulated
along the lines of this theory. The collective interests of only close-knit groups were
considered.
 Pluralism
The outbreak of WWII (and the consequent failure of the League of Nations) was a fatal blow
to liberalism. There was a realisation that the language of liberalism had to be changed.
However, the moral rhetoric and central theme would continue to be the same.
One of the aspects which made the UN different from the League of Nations, was the
inclusion of the United States. These was consistent dissent among the superpowers which
led to the fall of the League. They asserted that there had to be consensus among the
superpowers for effective imposition of sanctions. This led to the grant of veto power.
[Article 27 of the UN Charter].
Because of the introduction of the veto power, countries vetoed policies which they did not
believe in. There was little consensus among the five powers, who were divided on ideology.
This resulted in what came to be known as a ‘stillborn collective security’ system.
Simultaneously, the liberalists realised that the realists were not able to understand the
problems of modernisation and liberalisation.
David Mitrany, one of the pioneers of the investigative theory model, put forward the core
concept of ‘ramifications’, which referred to the likelihood that cooperation in one sector
would lead governments to extend the range of collaboration across other sectors. The logic
was that as States become more embedded in an integration process, the cost of withdrawing
from cooperative ventures increases.
In the modernisation process, wherein transnational actors played an important role in the
integration process (key tenet of liberalism; challenged the realist notion of the state as the
key actor), ramifications were required. This led to the emergence of a new range of scholars
in the liberalist tradition, the pluralists.
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye were pluralists, and the movement began in the 1960-
1970s. They argued that the centrality of other actors such as the interest groups,
transnational corporations and international nongovernmental organizations had to be taken
into consideration. The importance of transnational actors in international relations must not
be overlooked, and the transnational actors challenged the pedestal on which the realists had
placed States.
 Basic Assumptions of Pluralism

i. Acknowledgement of the presence of non-state actors. They advocated the idea of
transnationalism. International relations cannot be boiled down to sovereign states
alone (which was the argument of realists).
ii. Non-military and non-security issues were equally important, i.e., there is no
hierarchy. Population, pollution, trade and commerce (low political factors) were as
important as military and security issues (high political factors). There is no
hierarchy in these concerns.
33
SEMESTER V
iii. Increase in interdependence.

iv. War is no longer the major option for foreign policy-makers.
 The Criticism of Pluralism.

i. Pluralism was not able to gain traction on a global level because information was
disseminated in a fragmented manner; they gave out ‘islands’ of information. They
were not able to produce a theory that consolidated all of their ideas.
ii. They completely overlooked the issue of security, which was of utmost importance
in the international domain.
iii. The neo-Realist Kenneth Waltz (1979) in his seminal work ‘Theory of International
Politics’, criticised the assumptions the assumptions and ideas proposed by the
pluralists. The importance of non-state actors cannot be equated with the importance
of key sovereign states. This conflict led to vehement debates between neo-realists
and pluralists.
 Emergence of Neo-Liberalism
1. Similarity with neo-realists
i. The anarchical international structure.
ii. Centrality of states.
iii. The move away from traditionalist notions and towards rationalist approach to social
scientific enquiry.
2. Differences from neo-realists

i. Anarchy does not mean that durable patterns of cooperation are impossible.
ii. The creation of international regimes matters because they facilitate cooperation by
reducing information asymmetry, reinforcing reciprocity and making defection
from norms easier to punish.
iii. Neo-liberals argued that actors would enter into cooperative agreements if the gains
were evenly shared [neo-realists believe in mutual gains, while neo-liberalists
believed in relative gains].
3. Differences from classical liberalists

i. Neo-liberalism maintains that academic inquiry should be guided by a commitment
to the scientific approach to theory-building. It should not be influenced by the
personal values of the scholars; their task must be to observe irregularities to
formulate hypotheses as to why these relationships exist and hold them to critical
scrutiny. [Positivism is the dividing line between the two; classical realists
believed in normative, utopian structures.]
ii. The neo-liberalists were critical of the 19th century liberals’ naïve assumption that
commerce breeds peace. A free trading system, according to neo-liberals can provide
incentive for cooperation but not guarantee it, because cooperation is not automatic –
it requires planning and negotiation.
 Handout: The Challenges Confronting Liberalism
34
SEMESTER V
 Liberal ideas had firmly cemented themselves in society after the demise of the cold war
system.
 A ‘New World Order’ was hailed and the UNSC began to operate as envisaged by the
drafters of the UN Charter.
 Tony Blair (British Prime Minister) remarked “we are all internationalists now”.
 However, recurring crises and disagreements in multilateral institutions designed to
provide governance have demonstrated that cooperation is harder that liberalists
originally assumed.
 Violence in the Middle East and North America has turned the triumphalism of the
‘liberal decade’ into despondency.
 G. John Ikenberry is the most prominent analyst of influential liberal ideas. He

maps liberalism’s influence through three phases labelled ‘liberal interpretation’
1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 (1999).
– He argued that 1.0 corresponds with the inter-war period and the failed attempt to
replace the old balance of power with rule of law.
– Further, 2.0 began after 1945, when certain fundamental liberal principles were
embedded into regulatory rules and regulations of international societies. While
America had more power than other states, it also accepted a greater share of burden
when it came to setting and upholding rules of economic and security grievance. This
model of an American-led order is experiencing a crisis today because:
 American hegemony no longer appears to be an adequate framework to support
liberal international order. Even if the US had the power, states are not in favour
of a unipolar world system anymore.
 The liberal principle of sovereign equality is under threat. Security policies
driven by the US and its allies in NATO rest on a conception of sovereignty that
entails good neighbourliness.
 The western leadership came under scrutiny during the 2011 NATO-led war
against Gaddafi’s Libya.
 It is clear that the US lacks the capacity, and western institutions the legitimacy,
to maintain liberal internationalism 2.0 into the future.
– The 3.0 system requires a movement away from a sovereignty-based order, and
towards one where global institutions become the new rulers of the world.
Governance institutions of the future will too be driven by liberal values. The
dilemma for Ikenberry is that 2.0 is in crisis, yet 3.0 seems unrealistic.
 The tendency for liberalism to embrace imperialism has a long history; Machiavelli
makes a number of arguments.
– Liberty increases with wealth and the concomitant drive for new markets.
– Expansionism is one of the best means to promote state security.
 The goal of preserving and extending liberal institutions is open to a host of

criticisms.
35
SEMESTER V
– Liberal character of the institutions is assumed, rather than scrutinised; incoherence

of purpose overlooked.
– Only five states in the UNSC have been granted ‘veto’ power. This perpetuates
structural inequality and generates new patterns for dominance and dependence.
– The nature of crisis narrative can be viewed as an implicit pretext for more liberal
ordering.
– It risks misrepresenting liberalism in terms of great powers in the driving seat of
global public policy. Governance is now multi-level and the actors driving policies
are often private enterprises or government diplomats and regulators.
2.3. Marxism
The end of the Cold War marked the victory of liberal democracy and capitalist economy. It
was said that the Marxist theory had failed. Countries like China and Cuba had succumbed to
the central idea of the capitalist system; they did not continue to exist as purely socialist
economies. Despite this, the Marxist theory has not vanished completely.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) (along with Friedrich Engels) was the founders of the Scientific
Socialism of Working Men’s Movement.
Some of his most important works are:
– The Communist Manifesto.
– The Critique of Political Economy.
– Das Capital.
– Poverty of Philosophy.
At the age of seventeen itself, Marx enrolled in the study of law and then left it for the study
of philosophy, and eventually worked at a newspaper after failing to be find a job as a
professor at a university. It was often said that there were two people in Karl Marx – the
thinker, and the educated prophet.
Marx’s ideas were, inter alia, a product of the age in which he lived. Industrialisation was just
beginning to blow up and he was disgusted by the time in which he lived, calling it the ‘age
of industrial slavery’, where everything was focused on technology. He even went on to say
that slavery in the Greek times was better. He thought that this was an age of callous cash
payment. His ideas were both evolutionary and revolutionary in nature.
The phrases ‘workers of the world, unite’ and ‘the workers have nothing to lose but their
chains and the world to win’ characterised his call for the Proletariat to rise. It was believed
that after the victory of Capitalism, the ‘great experiment’ had failed, and there was no
possibility for continuance of the Marxist theory.
Communist states as they exist today, have also submitted to some of the postulates of
capitalism. However, Marxism refuses to go away and takes a new birth every time. The
reason for this is perhaps its analysis of a crisis. Liberal democracies and capitalism had
forecasted that there would be a stable system or a type of equilibrium, but events have
shown that it is not always so. The 2008 financial crisis and the credit crunch, among other
incidents, indicate that the capitalist system still faces problems and convulsions. The brilliant
future that capitalism had forecasted had not in fact materialised.
36
SEMESTER V
As a result, scholars say it eventually boils down to the structure of the system. This brings us
back to the ideas of Marxism. Indeed, Marxism had been both evolutionary and revolutionary
in nature. However, the real development started only after Marx’s death. Marxist theory in
general has the following postulates:
– Economic determinism: The economic forces determine, shape and define all
political, social, cultural, intellectual and intellectual aspects of civilisation.
– Surplus value: This is equal to the new value created by workers in excess of their
own labour cost which is appropriated by the capitalists as profits when products are
sold. Wages do not reflect the labour put it
– Class struggle or class conflict: In the struggle between the proletariat and the
bourgeoise, which was intrinsic to the capitalist industrial society, the bourgeoisie
control the capital and means of production while the proletariat provide the labour
and the struggle between the two is known as the class conflict.
– Dialectical materialism: Dialectics refers to the discourse that goes on when there
are two or more ideas that are different but want to reach a resolution which is devoid
of rhetoric. Karl Marx used dialectics in the form of dialectical materialism, which
was an outgrowth of Hegelian Dialectics.
 Thesis: Proposition or argument giving rise to a reaction.
 Antithesis: Counter proposition which negates the thesis.
 Synthesis: Tension between the two is resolved by a combination of opposing
assertions and qualitative improvement of the dialogue.
 The subject sets the thesis, negates the thesis, and then negates the negation.
 Karl Marx asserted that there was an initial form of primitive communism in
the sense that there was common ownership. Then came industrialisation, i.e.,
the historical society, leading to the concepts of monogamy, skill division, and
so emerged a class structure. Because of the problems that arose out of this,
eventually a state of higher communism would be necessitated and there would
be dictatorship of the proletariat; the oppressive capitalists would be overthrown.
 Three features of the Marxian state

– The State is an instrument of exploitation and coercion. It is manipulated by the
bourgeoisie to exploit the wage earners and its form is determined by the exigencies
of class struggle and the demands of the underlying material situation.
– Through revolutionary spirit and organisation, the workers establish a socialist
commonwealth. It is the transitional stage and the workers use the state for two
purposes – the destruction of capitalism and the construction of socialism.
– Once this task of destruction and construction is complete, there would be no need
for a state. The final ideal of the Marxian state (a classless, stateless society) is
established.
 Forms of Marxism
Form of Major Ideas
37
SEMESTER V
Marxism Proponents
They had a materialistic conception of society;
economic forces were responsible for all that happens.
They asserted that there will be internal contradictions
leading to class struggle. This class struggle will
culminate in a social, political and economic
Karl Marx and
Classical revolution leading to the emergence of a stateless
Fredrich
Marxism system. The capitalist system is doomed and will be
Engels
replaced by socialism, and ultimately communism.
The legal and political superstructure arise from the
‘economic base’, and the real foundation of society.
This ‘base’ consists especially of the economic
system – feudalism, capitalism, socialism.
It talks about retaining and seizing power, economic
management, political organisation.
Orthodox Lenin and The policies of ‘glasnost’ (openness) and
Communism Stalin ‘perestroika’ (economic restructuring) hastened the
demise of orthodox communism by exposing
structural flaws.
Neo-Marxism /
Antonio It incorporates ideas of critical theory, existentialism
Modern
Gramsci and psychoanalysis.
Marxism
Robert Cox, It analyses how social forces, the state and dominant
Neo-
Stephen Gill, ideational configuration define and sustain world
Gramscianism
Mark Rupert orders.
Difference between Marxism and Realism

Marxism Realism
International anarchy was the reason for
Oppressive capitalism leads to world politics. There was no world
international politics. government, and therefore, international
conflicts were bound to happen.
Other factors – military, political, etc.
The determining forces were economic in
Neo-Realists diluted the rigid idea of
nature.
realism.
Emphasised transnationalism. It does not
recognise state boundaries. It called for the Emphasised the sovereignty of the state.
workers of the world to unite.
 Difference between Marxism and Liberalism

Marxism Liberalism
They believed that the ideas of the They believed that free trade would lead to
liberalists were farcical. Capitalism would a realisation of the idea of justice and
38
SEMESTER V
only benefit one class, i.e., the bourgeois.

liberty.
They rejected the ideas of the liberalists and
They said that there would eventually be a
believed that class differences would harmonisation of interests of different
persist. groups.
They rejected the ideas of the Marxists and
asserted that socialism will eventually turn
They asserted the idea of socialism as a
into social tyranny due to excessive state
replacement of capitalism, which was
intervention, which will be an impediment
oppressive.
to growth, development, actualisation and
self-realisation.
 Core and Periphery Nations

In 1917, Lenin wrote the book ‘Imperialism – the Highest Stage of Capitalism’. In
attempting to explain world affairs, he stated that things had changed, and capitalism could
no longer be understood in the same manner as it used to. Now, he said, the concept of
‘monopoly capitalism’ had come into the picture and the world economy had seen a
division, wherein the core nations (developed nations) exploited the periphery nations
(developing nations).
With the development of a core and periphery, there was no longer an automatic harmony
of interests between all workers of the world. The bourgeois in the core countries could use
profits derived from exploiting the periphery to improve the lot of their own proletariat. The
capitalists of the core could pacify their own working class through the further exploitation of
the periphery.
This idea of ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ given by Lenin was taken up by the Latin American
Dependency School, the major proponents of which were Raul Prebish, Galtung and
Wallerstein, and Andre Gunder Frank. They argued that the countries in the periphery
were suffering because they were completely dependent on the core countries, which led to
declining terms of trade.
This meant that the prices of manufactured goods increased more rapidly than that of raw
materials, which was a result of periphery economies’ reliance on raw material production.
Consequently, countries of the periphery became poorer relative to the core. It was said that
“more tonnes of coffee are required to purchase a refrigerator” (i.e., finished goods were
heavily priced).
This analysis further shows how the development of less industrialised countries was directly
dependent on the more advanced capitalist societies. This kind of an analysis would
eventually lead to the ‘world system theory’ given by Wallerstein.
 World System Theory: A Tripartite Inter-Regional and Transnational Division

of Labour
Immanuel Wallerstein wrote ‘Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins
of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century’ in 1974. The world system
theory, on the other hand, understands the economy of the whole world. It was inspired by
Marx and the dependency theory; it is a sub-set of the dependency theory.
39
SEMESTER V
The theory seeks to undo the theory of modernisation. It posits that modernisation
understands the world system by taking into consideration only the nation-states as the
units of analysis. Their idea aligns with that of the neo-Marxists.
It propounds the idea that the world system is divided into the:
– Core, i.e., developed and dominant nations that have skilled and capital-intensive
economies.
– Periphery, i.e., nations that have labour-intensive and low-skilled economies and are
largely committed to extracting raw materials and providing them to core countries.
– Semi-periphery, i.e., a hybrid of the two.
This division is not static. Every nation will have a beginning, a middle, and an end. A
country that is in the core today, may be in the semi-periphery tomorrow.
Chirot (1986) posited that the five most important benefits to core nations over the periphery
are because of:
1. Access to a large quantity of raw materials.
2. Cheap labour.
3. Benefits from direct capital investments.
4. A market for exports.
5. Migration of skilled professional labour from non-core nations to core nations.
 Characteristics of Core Nations.

They are those nations which largely own the means of production, and thus produce larger
output. As a result, there is bound to be an unequal distribution of rewards or resources.
The major share of the surplus value, i.e., the profits go first to the core and then to the
periphery. The rich thus becomes richer, and the poor become poorer – the rift widens. They
obtain raw materials from periphery nations and also use their markets to sell finished goods.
1. They are economically diversified, industrialised, wealthy and powerful.
2. They have strong central governments and institutions.
3. They specialise in information, finance and service technologies.
4. They have a strong bourgeoise and proletariat.
5. They are relatively independent of external control.
6. They enjoy control of global markets.
As a result of these factors, core nations enjoy productivity dominance, trade dominance,
financial dominance and military dominance.
40
SEMESTER V
 Characteristics of Semi-Peripheral Nations.

1. They are industrialising.
2. They have characteristics of core and periphery nations.
3. They are mostly capitalist – diversified economies, but not dominant in international
trade.
4. They usually follow aggressive protectionist policies to uplift domestic trade.
5. They often act as buffers and attempt to stabilise the system.
6. They can come into existence either from the declining core (Russia) or the
developing periphery (India, China).
7. They are aiming to be in the core and trying to ensure that they do not fall into the
periphery.
 Characteristics of Peripheral Nations

1. They are the least economically diversified and have unskilled, weak government and
institutions.
2. They are often targets for investments, at the cost of exploitation. Core countries use them
to extract cheap material and labour, and also use their markets for export.
3. They usually have a small bourgeois and a larger proletariat.
4. There is rampant poverty, illiteracy, inequality.
5. They are influenced by, and are forced to follow, core nations.
Criticism of the theory: The theory has been criticised on the grounds that it tends to be too
concentrated on economic factors, and does not consider other cultural, political and social
factors.
 North-South Divide
The theme of this theory was taken by a professor of international relations, Prof.
Jayantaniya Bandopadhyay, who tried to explain the north-south divide in his work ‘North
over South – A North-Western Perspective of International Relations’ in 1984. He has tried
to explain the contemporary international system through the world system theory, which is a
product of centuries of imperialism.
The world system was structurally divided into the dominant north and the subordinate
south. The ‘north-south divide’ is a metaphor used widely in the field of international
relations. This was perhaps initially due to the geographical positioning of the nations, but is
no longer restricted by it. It refers to the division of countries according to their economic
conditions, which has now been expanded to include social, cultural and political factors
as well. It is also referred to as the ‘digital divide’; while the north is technologically
advanced (having undergone two industrial revolutions), most of the nations in the south have
not yet undergone an industrial revolution.
Further, the colonial hangover remains to this day; while transfer of power has taken place,
imperialism has been replaced by neo-imperialism and former colonies are still reeling from
an unequal balance of power, world-over.
41
SEMESTER V
 Gramscianism
Though being a Marxist, Antonia Gramsci did not agree with the notion of economic
determinism. He belonged to the Frankfurt school of theorists, which includes neo-
Marxists and other critical theorists. Antonio Gramsci was the founder of neo-Marxism,
while also being the founder of the Italian Communist Party. He had been a prisoner under
Mussolini’s reign since 1926 till his death.
He is hailed as a great creative writer; his writings during his time in prison were put together
and released as ‘prison notebooks’ and presented a new view. He tried to raise the question of
why it had been difficult to bring about revolution in Western Europe.
He discussed this idea in light of the Bolshevik Revolution, which took place in less-
advanced Russia. It was led by Lenin, farmers, workers. Russia (even though not very
developed), was able to make a breakthrough. Marx said that capitalism is doomed and will
be replaced by socialism. He questioned why it happened in other places but not in Western
Europe.
He said that the reason they are not being affected by the socialist wage and revolutionary
peasants, is due to the concept of hegemony. This explains how they were able to maintain
and retain their power. This also explains how the bourgeois was able to not only create, but
also maintain resilience against proletariat uprisings.
He used Machiavelli’s idea of centaur (half horse, half man) to make his point. According
to it, persuasive power (man) and coercive power (horse) are being used together.
Gramscianism is different from Marxism as Marx had only explained coercion to entail the
power of the state to exploit the working class. This theory might have been effective in the
Soviet Union. Now, however, coercion is not enough to maintain hegemony. There is
consent along with coercion. Those attractive cultures and ideologies which are there and
dispersed in society, people have taken them as their own. An apparent myth is created that it
is their own ideology and value-system, by the use of soft power.
Realists had talked about hegemony, but only with respect to hard power. Now, people talk in
terms of soft power. This way these cultures are spread throughout the people, not thwarted
upon them. It is not just coercion anymore, but rather acceptance by will and consent.
Dispersal of values is not done by the state directly, but by civil society and voluntary
organisations; the state merely acts as an enabler. It does not look like a deliberate attempt
of the State to disperse these values, and thus people absorb them better due to the element of
consent. The USA is a power-maximiser in terms of soft-power which may not even be
realised. People don’t even realise that they are being affected by its values.
Pax Americana is a concept used to explain the kind of political economic dominance of
America, trying to bring peace to the European part of world. It started with the Marshall
plan where they spent billion, trillion dollars to develop European economy and it was
responsible for bringing peace because it rewired the economy. It is related to idea of neo-
imperialism because in saying they’re helping, they actually dominate the rest of the world.
2.4. Game Theory

Game theory is a theory of economics. The principle of equilibrium was given by the
economist John Nash in 1980 when he gave the ‘Nash Equilibrium’. It has various
42
SEMESTER V
strategies, players (individuals, groups, nations, governments) and playoffs. Your conduct
will not just reflect what you want but will be the be the outcome of the strategies applied by
the other players.
Consider a hypothetical situation. Nation A is trying to build up its nuclear research

programme. This may cause political tensions across the globe. Nation A’s enemy nation is
Nation B, which is now concerned. To counter Nation A, Nation B also starts developing
nuclear weapons. Nation A has to now see the consequences of its nuclear research. Both
have to take cognizance of the fact that there might be a misrepresentation or
misunderstanding on either side. This is what is known as strategic interdependence. The
outcomes and strategies taken by one participant in the international domain, will depend on
the outcomes and strategies taken by other opposing nations.
Let’s say India is country A: 1974- Operation Smiling Buddha- Pokharan I
1998- Operation Shakti- Pokharan II
No first use policy. Apart from India, China is the only country. Surgical strikes were a
reaction to what had happened in Uri. When India does this, it knows the magnitude of costs
that it is going to have. It was a message that it wanted to give to Pakistan that we can do this
again if its actions don’t stop. It wanted to give another message to China about the No First
Use policy. It’s actions now depend on the actions of the other nations.
Game theory is an abstract and deductive model of policy-making. It does not give a
pattern of how people actually make decisions, or any specific ideology. Rather, it explains
how people would go about making decisions in competitive situations if they are completely
rational.
The major areas of international relations that this theory can explain are:
1. Decisions about war and peace.
2. Creation and use of nuclear weapons.
3. International diplomacy.
4. Bargaining and coalition building.
5. Purposes behind alliance-building.
6. Variety of other political situations.
s
 Origin
The theory was originally given by Neumann and Morgenstern in ‘Theory of Games &
Economic Behaviour’ (1943). In the field of politics, the theory was expounded by Morton
Kaplan, Thomas Schelling and William Riker.It came up in the post-WWII period, during
the bipolar world order. Whatever was happening could be understood perfectly through the
application of game theory.
The cold war never turned into a hot war because of the logic of deterrence. Both blocs
knew that they had the possession of power that could cause death and destruction on both
sides; there would no winner in such a war. The theory assumes that both the actors were
rational and responsible. Hence, they would not take the irrational step of going into war.
43
SEMESTER V
No political gain (in the form of expansionism or otherwise) could justify the loss they would
incur in terms of death and destruction. Larger states found bases in smaller countries,
smaller countries would have economic and political support. The Warsaw Pact emerged as a
consequence of the formation of NATO. Such was the nature of actions and reactions taking
place at the time. It was not just a battle for military power, but also for ideological prowess.
 Chicken Theory
At times people have a different notion of the outcomes and strategies. Bertrand Russel has
used this concept to explain ‘Nuclear Brinkmanship’. They wouldn’t prefer than to be
called the chicken and getting dishonoured. One situation would be you assume that the other
player would yield. Another situation would be the drunken driven situation wherein you try
to misrepresentation. The other way would be to yield yourself and be called as the chicken.
 Prisoner’s Dilemma
It is the paradox in decision analysis in which two players acting in their own self-interest do
not produce the optimum output. Pay off would be the values that you receive out of your
own and other players’ actions. It is the output of actions. Let’s assume there are two suspects
and they have been charged of possession of illegal weapons. A bank robbery is happening
and they assume that they have done it. The premise is that they have to confess to be
prosecuted. The prosecutor takes them to different room and asks them 4 questions.
Penalisation of bank robbery is 4 and possession of illegal weapons is 2. The prosecutor says
if you confess and the other does not then you go scot free and the other gets 4 years of
imprisonment. But if you don’t confess but the one does then he will go scot free and you
will undergo imprisonment. If both of you confess then both of you will get lesser
punishment say 3 years. The fourth situation was not said so but implied that if none of them
confess then they will only undergo punishment for possession of illegal weapons. The fourth
situation was already known to them. The ideal would have been if both stayed quite both of
them confessed.
 Basic Assumptions of Game Theory

1. There have to be at least two players as rational strategists. If there was only one
hegemon, with no other power controlling its conduct, the theory would not apply. The
theory also assumes here that there will be some strategies in play. The term ‘rational’
refers to someone who:
– Takes informed decisions.
– Arranges alternatives in order of priority or preference, which is transitive. If
A>B and B>C, then A>C.
– Chooses alternatives after thorough scrutiny.
– Undertakes consistent strategies.
2. All players are aware of all alternatives.
3. The approach of maximisation (of benefits) and minimisation (of losses) is applied.
4. Not only rational, but intelligent too. You should have the ability to know where
maximisation lies. Not enough to know all choices, intelligent enough to pick the best
choice.
44
SEMESTER V
5. No matter the degree of rationality and intelligence, uncertainty will be involved. There
may be various other factors that are beyond your control. If you can’t maximise your
profits, at least minimise your loss.
6. Strategy is an undefined term. Strategy will never be clear, it will always depend on the
conduct of other nations.
 Types of Game Theory

1. Zero Sum Games/ Constant Sum Games
The loss of one essentially leads to the gain of another. It is a simple competitive gain. There
can’t be gains or losses of all players at the same time. Resources are increased or decreased
on the basis of actions of other actors (sum of the gains and losses is zero). It usually involves
two players only – one loses, and one wins. In the contemporary world, zero sum conditions
are few.
2. Mixed Motive Games/Non-Zero Sum Games/ Variable Sum Games

It is a situation where there can be two or more players, and each player can either cooperate
or compete.
Assumptions:
– You can either cooperate or compete. There can be four types of situations – A
wins, B wins, both win, or both lose. For instance, disarmament – both parties
could be diametrically opposed to each other, but both can win through peaceful
cooperation. If the US and Russia both cooperate and engage in disarmament, it
is a win for both. If the two compete, both could lose as they would be investing
a large part of their budgets towards the development of weapons. In the
alternative, either one of them could gain superiority over the other and win the
battle.
– The budget here will be more or less zero.
 Drawbacks of the Theory

1. There might not be always rational/intelligent actors.
2. Values, ideologies and normative considerations are also there at times whole making
decisions. They are always talking in terms of payoffs.
3. Complete information might not be available.
 Zero Sum Games and Mixed Motive games in the fifth of the Russian federation
with the west for Ukraine
I. Introduction
2014 changed the world and the future. Although one may remember other difficult times,
like the 2008 Russian military intervention in Georgia, the Chechen conflict, or the disputes
with Ukraine over the transit of Russian energy resources to Europe, after the Cold War and
the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we witness the most tense situation between the West
and the Russian state under Vladimir Putin.
45
SEMESTER V
The West criticised the takeover of Crimea and Sevastopol and imposed economic sanctions.
The conflict in Syria, where the Kremlin supported Bashar al-Assad against Western
interests, is an excellent example of the rising tension that focused attention on governments’
militaries. In 2015, Turkish aviation shot down two SU-24 Russian jets that entered Turkish
territory due to Moscow’s Syria policies. Since 1950, NATO members shot down a Russian
military jet.
As predicted, 2014’s activities influenced scholars’ views. “Washington and Moscow are
becoming even more deeply involved in a worldwide zero-sum struggle, with no letup in
sight”. Left unchecked, the zero-sum game the US and Russia are playing would yield the
global disorder that neither country wants.
II. General Elements of Game theory

Game Theory, a strategic approach, has been employed in economics, international politics,
business, and biology. Many research centres in many nations and colleges have extended
Game Theory and related fields. It has proved effective in evolutionary biology in computer
science, where system failures are treated as competing players in a destructive game aimed
to model worst-case situations.
Game theory “[...] analyses agent interaction and formulates theories about their behaviour
and game outcomes [...]” “Game theory is concerned with how rational individuals make
decisions when they are mutually interdependent”. Theory’s central idea, instrumental
rationality, states that people behave in their own self-interest. This assumes that people can
predict their acts’ outcomes and have preferences over them. The participants optimise their
own interests due to individuality. It’s vital to note that “[...] in this condition, the welfare of
any participant in a game is, at least partially, decided by the activities of other individuals in
the game.”
The fundamental challenges to game theory posed over the last several years, the three
concerns of rationality, indeterminacy and inconsistency are the most important.
In Prisoner’s Dilemma, instrumental rationality can cause problems. Instrumental rationality

says that players in such a game should refuse to collaborate, yet they can both do better by
rejecting this strategy. Many scholars, including those above, have considered alternative
rationality definitions (and a starting point is the work of Immanuel Kant – Kantian
rationality or with the elements of bounded rationality associated with Herbert A. Simon).
The second main criticism is that Game Theory occasionally fails to provide unique
solutions, generally because the game has several equilibriums. The ideal approach is
unknown, thus players choose based on what they anticipate other players will do. Thus,
strategic selection may be irrational. The main criticism of the theory is that the set of players
in a game, the strategies or choices they confront, the way these choices are sequenced, the
preferences of actors, and the information actors possess when they make their choices are
taken to be exogenous and hence assumed to be given and to remain constant. This leaves
unresolved a fundamental question: why is one game, as opposed to a spectrum of other
potential games, played when it is?
46
SEMESTER V
Despite the foregoing criticisms, a theoretical model that can explain and forecast does not
necessarily hold the key to all analyses. Thus, this study assumes that Game Theory is a
consistent tool (some games are more complicated than others, thus complexity should
illuminate a topic) to grasp as much as possible, but not completely, the dynamics of the
world stage.
III. Actors in the Russia Ukraine Conflict

1. Russia
Putin’s Russia is assertive because of the persistent dread of invasion, the new leadership
(after 2003), and global power aspirations. The fact that “the country was often in an
unpredictable and turbulent external environment and could only exist by continually
protecting its fragile boundaries against the expansionist desires of its neighbours” fueled this
concern
The author utilises the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, authorised on
November 30th, 2016, announced on February 12th, 2013, to determine Russia’s position
toward the West and Ukraine. Two official publications and those listed below do not fully
explain Russia’s views on the West and Ukraine, but they give a good idea.
“For the first time in contemporary history, global rivalry takes place on a civilizational level
[...],” “Russia conducts an autonomous foreign policy guided by its national interests and
based on uncompromising respect for international law” (Concept of The Foreign Policy of
the Russian Federation 2013). Russia will “[...] build up ties with Ukraine as a priority
partner within the CIS, [and] contribute to its participation in prolonged integration
procedures” in the Foreign Policy Concept. (2013). This shows Ukraine’s political,
economic, military, and other importance to Russia (relevant for the main objectives of the
Commonwealth of Independent States).
The 2016 document states that “The world is currently going through fundamental changes
related to the emergence of a multipolar international system [...] The struggle for dominance
in shaping the key principles of the future international system has become a key trend at the
current stage of international development” (The Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian
Federation 2016). The Russian Federation “[...] conducts an assertive and autonomous
foreign policy directed by its national interests and based on absolute respect for international
law”. T he Russian Federation’s “assertive and autonomous foreign policy” will be
increasingly focused on its own interests after 2016.
Under “Strengthening International Security,” Russia “facilitates the resolution of regional
conflicts by political and diplomatic means through collective action by the international
community, believing that such conflicts can only be resolved through inclusive dialogue and
negotiations involving all sides rather than isolating any of them”. The Russian state is “[...]
interested in developing political, economic, cultural and spiritual ties with Ukraine in all
areas based on mutual respect and commitment to building partnership relations with due
regard for Russia’s national interests.” This portion of the second statement emphasises
Russia’s regional importance and its refusal to give up its interests, notably in Ukraine.
President Vladimir Putin adopted the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation on
December 31, 2015. The Russian Federation’s adoption of an independent foreign and
domestic policy is giving rise to opposition from the United States and its allies, who are
47
SEMESTER V
striving to retain their control in international events. The ongoing expansion of NATO and
the deployment of its military assets closer to Russian borders pose a threat to national
security. The Kremlin also believes the West incites coloured revolutions. “[...] the assistance
of the United States and the European Union for the anti-constitutional coup d’etat in Ukraine
led to a significant division in Ukrainian society and the formation of an armed war”. Thus,
the Kremlin blames the West for what transpired in Ukraine after 2014. The 2015 National
Security Strategy, like previous government papers, is vitriolic, defends the Kremlin, and
emphasises Russia’s vulnerability. The Russian president’s public statements reflect the
Russian Federation’s attitude on Ukraine and Crimea, together with the image separated from
official papers. “Crimea is our common historical inheritance and a very significant
component in regional stability,” Putin (2014) said. This crucial land should be part of strong
and stable sovereignty, which now can only be Russian.” Putin (2014) stated that “We are
opposed having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our
historic region” and that the Russian Federation had to “respond proportionately” if NATO
expanded. The Russian leader has regularly voiced this opinion on Ukraine and the West,
fiercely opposing any move that harms Russia. His opinion aligns with official papers (Russia
is a major power in a multipolar international structure; NATO is a menace; the international
community must consider Russia’s interests in the “common neighbourhood”).
2. USA and NATO

NATO’s position on the Eastern space and Ukraine is relevant to Ukraine. The goal for
Ukraine was to “[...] continue and develop the partnerships with Ukraine and Georgia within
the NATO-Ukraine and NATO-Georgia Commissions, based on the NATO decision at the
Bucharest Summit 2008, and taking into account the Euro-Atlantic orientation or aspiration
of each country”. At the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit, Vladimir Putin voiced worries
about Ukraine joining the Alliance. In addition, a post-2014 North Atlantic Alliance strategy
document that addresses the international situation is important.
At the 2014 NATO Summit in Wales, the Alliance denounced Russia’s military action in
Ukraine and the unlawful annexation of Crimea, calling it “a flagrant breach of international
law and a substantial danger to Euro-Atlantic security” At the 2016 Warsaw Summit, NATO
members restated their support for a conflict resolution. As noted above, the Russian
Federation is ready to resolve the Ukraine issue, but not on Western conditions.
The European Neighbourhood Policy, launched in 2003 and developed in 2004, aimed to
“[...] share the benefits of the EU’s 2004 enlargement with neighbouring countries in
strengthening stability, security and well-being for all concerned” It also stressed the need
“[...] to prevent the emergence of new dividing lines between the enlarged EU and its
neighbours and to offer them the chance to participate in the EU’s future”
ENP was reassessed after the 2011 Arab Spring. The 2015 “Review of the European
Neighbourhood Policy” followed suit. The new ENP “[...] proposes how the EU and its
neighbours may create more effective relationships in the area.” The goal is political, socio-
economic, and security stability. It is also vital to note that “Differentiation and more mutual
ownership will be the hallmark of the new ENP, recognising that not all partners aspire to EU
laws and standards, and reflecting the desires of each nation concerning the form and
emphasis of its engagement with the EU”. The EU will work with Ukraine, Georgia, and
48
SEMESTER V
Moldova, which signed the Association Accords/Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas,
to “further expand their relations and to optimise the benefits for both parties to those
agreements.”
The Eastern Partnership was created after the 2008 Russian military intervention in Georgia.
The joint declaration of the Eastern Partnership Summit in Riga reaffirmed that. The
November 24, 2017 proclamation from the 5th Eastern Partnership Summit echoes this aim.
The inclusion of the US/NATO-EU and Russian Federation positions is crucial since game
models reflect participants’ aims through preferences. As said, the countless strategy papers
and public comments of the important political variables helped shape an accurate reality as
we cannot know the actors’ genuine objectives. Even while mixed-motive games and zero-
sum games are important, this stage sets the groundwork for everything else.
IV. Zero Sum games
In a pay-off matrix of a zero-sum game we can see a lot of strategies (the rows coincide with
a pure strategy for player 1 and the columns are the equivalent for player 2. At the
intersection between a row and a column we find the pay-off for the player 1. The second
player’s pay-offs are the negatives of those included on the matrix), but a player must select
the optimal one. One way of doing that is by applying the maximin strategy. If one tries to
define this concept, will sound as follows: ‟[...] a maximin strategy of player 1 maximizes the
minimal (with respect to player 2’s strategies) payoff of player 1, and a minimax strategy of
player 2 minimizes the maximum (with respect to player 1’s strategies) that player 2 has to
pay to player 1. The zero-sum games category may provide light on 2014 events, but it
doesn’t answer everything. The actors in zero-sum games have opposing interests. One must
lose if one wins (but in reality the interests of the two players, as we will see in what follows,
are not totally opposed nor coincident). Because of the richer offer of the next category,
neither a zero-sum game nor an endless zero-sum game can be used here (as described above,
they are part of the same theory and would provide comparable outcomes). But, for example,
what happens if the struggle over Ukraine is an indefinite zero-sum game? Only certain
infinite games have solutions, and this can also be stated regarding the disagreement between
the Russian Federation and the West, as this fight is still ongoing. Thus, another portion of
Game Theory may apply.
V. Mixed Motive Game

Mixed-motive can be played a finite or infinite number of times. The way of playing them
will lead to the existence of different strategies and manners of solving the game. Amongst
the most well- known and used games are: the prisoner’s dilemma, the leader, the battle of
the sexes, chicken. What is important to mention regarding mixed-motive games is that the
sum of the pay-off differs from strategy to strategy, so they are sometimes called variable-
49
SEMESTER V
sum games. They rarely produce pure solutions, but they are interesting for the real-life
situations they represent and for providing an insight into the nature of conflict resolution.
In the case of zero-sum games, it is more expressive to use infinitely iterated games in
describing the fight for Ukraine because the main actors do not know when this dispute will
end and we have to take into account that the international system is far more sophisticated
and interconnected (the relationship between the Russian state and the West is not limited
only to the subject of Ukraine). A useful concept to mention here is “the shadow of the
future”, which supports cooperation. This basic concept of Game Theory expresses the idea
that the choices made today not only determine the outcome of this move but can also
influence the later choices of the players. The future can, therefore, cast a shadow back upon
the present and thereby affect the current strategic situation.
These elements support the argument that the reality can no longer be seen only in terms of
zero-sum games, and it must be analysed with instruments which are much more expressive.
The possibility of cooperation which can be found in the category of mixed-motive games is
difficult to be achieved but it can bring benefit for both parties.
50
SEMESTER V
3. CONCEPT OF POWER
3.1. Understanding the Notion of Power
Power entails the ability to achieve the desired outcome. However, it does not stop there. It
also entails the ability to influence the outcomes of events. Harold Lasswell in ‘Politics –
Who Gets What, When and How’ (1936), summed up the notion of power of politics. Joseph
Nye in ‘Bound to Lead’ (1990), ‘Paradox of American Power’ (2002) and ‘Powers to Lead’
(2008) posited that powers are complex and difficult to measure, but real, nonetheless.
J. A. Columbis & J. H. Wolfe (1985) defined power as something which established and
maintained control over other actors. They said that power may be achieved by three means.
It is a very simplistic understanding but makes sense.
1. Force: It is the explicit threat of the use of military, currency or similar instruments of
coercion by one actor against another in the pursuit of its political objectives. Giving of
rewards would also constitute force since it is coercive.
2. Authority: Compliance by one actor to the directions issued by another, nurtured by its
own perceptions of respect, solidarity and knowledge, among others, regarding that
actor. In the domestic regime, authority can be clearly located. That is not the case in the
international regime, where it is difficult to locate an authority clearly, but some
structure of authority still persists.
3. Influence: Use of instruments of persuasion, incentive to maintain or alter the behaviours
of another actor, short of force. It entails the use of soft power.
Power can be understood in terms of capabilities, relationships and structure.

 Capabilities
They entail attributes that the state or non-state actors would possess. This is the oldest and
most traditional method of understanding power. This conceptualisation posits that the
possessions and capabilities of states make them powerful. Military strength, per capita
income, landmass, geographical location, population and technology are all attributes that
would further a nation’s pursuit of power.
Through these quantifiable elements, we are able to get a clear picture of the power of states
and determine where they stand in the international arena. However, it is not the only aspect
of power. If it were, we would not be able to explain why the United States failed in
Vietnam.
51
SEMESTER V
We may, through a country’s capabilities, determine a country’s latent or potential strength.

However, such strength may not always actualise. Why does this happen?
– The relative importance of the attributes of power cannot always be understood; is a
matter of uncertainty. Whether one attribute is more important than the other, is
contingent on the situation and cannot be set in stone. The value of attributes is
dynamic and changes from time to time. No permutation and combination can create
a system where one factor is always more important than the other.
– Some elements of national power may be less beneficial than they appear.
Population may seemingly be an attribute, but it may not be so if resources are not in
proportion with it. An educated, literate, vigilant citizenry would not take orders and may be
an obstacle in a war-torn situation.
Further, the paradox of plenty (resource curse) also applies – an abundance of resources
may not always be beneficial. In the 1970s-80s, oil-producing nations such as Venezuela and
Nigeria were in debt. Conversely, nations such as Singapore, despite not possessing many
resources, are now doing very well.
For example, Dutch disease in the 1960s in Netherlands. It turns to a curse because economy
never gets to be strong due poor policies, poor decision making etc. Usually, this resource
curse can be attributed to the resources found on the ground. There is hardly any
diversification of other industries; everyone focuses on that one resource. In this case, it was
oil
There is a lot of interference from global strategic forces and a lot of influx from other lands
and the regime cannot build that. A lot of other problems arise like corruption increases,
democracy decreases. Popular will is not taken into consideration and other countries
penetrating the state is also a problem
For example, Singapore and South Africa are not rich in resources but have good education
and governance.
Significance of subjective factors

Sometimes, there are certain factors were neither thought to be attributes or potential
capabilities. Sometimes, capabilities which we not even think are existing end up being
important and end up giving a different picture to the conclusion. They have not taken into
consideration the subjective factors, which can at times play a significant role.
The national morale, i.e., the motivation of the armed forces (irrespective of size),
strategic and decisive leadership, are examples of such factors. The application of such
factors can be seen in asymmetrical wars, including guerrilla wars, wars for independence,
insurrections and terrorism.
Inability to translate your possessions into actual power

Nuclear power, for instance, may become unusable in situations where there is a civil war in
the nation, or when an ethnic group within a country is asserting its independence. This
cannot be attributed to all situations; only a few. Only in a few situations potential was not
converted to actual. If you are facing intra state war or guerrilla insurgency, you are
incapable to use your potential. You cannot use weaponry to fight with the non state actors.
Something else is required- maybe skilful or charismatic leadership
52
SEMESTER V
Dynamic and ever-changing environment of the global order

Things are never constant. Natural disasters may occur, the economy can collapse (or
prosper), and nuclear power may be acquired.
 Relationships
It is termed as relational power. When trying to define power, we used a simple definition-
ability to make you do something that you would not have done otherwise. Relational power
is often understood in terms of actions and outcomes i.e., the effect one actor has on another
rather than in terms of contrasting assessments of capabilities. Power relations reflect the
balance of their respective capabilities.
It is not just capabilities that give you power; the kind of relationships you have between
nations. US helps Pakistan with their F16 nuclear jet- this was sustenance program that was
frozen by Trump and revived by Biden. Pakistan asks US for aid and this is done by US for
Pakistan. The relations between India and USA are improving but suddenly, US does this. US
and Pak have common enemies now i.e., Afghanistan. US helping Pak is a strategic interest
they have
Relationships contribute to an ‘influence process’, which entails the exercise of influence
over other actors. Here, perceptions play a key role. While capabilities are about strength,
relationships are related to influence. They may be understood in terms of actions and
outcomes, and not possessions or attributes. How one actor will be influenced by other actors
will depend upon the perceptions. Actions depend on anticipated outcomes, which might be
correct or incorrect.
When dealing with perceptions, you are prone to miscalculations. Reputations matter, and
can be based on perceptions. These perceptions may not always be correct. Foreign policy is
often based on overestimations, or underestimations. States and another actors deal with one
another on the basis of their calculations of relative power. There was an overestimation of
the power of Britain until the fact actually presented itself. In US – Vietnam, there was
underestimation of Vietnam.
Reputation can sustain powers – look at the way the USSR declined with the fall of the Berlin
Wall.
Influence may be of two kinds – compelleance and deterrence. A may exert influence on B in
one of the two ways:
– Either by getting B to do what B would not have done otherwise [compellance]; or
– By preventing B from doing what it would have otherwise done [deterrence].
An example of compellance may be seen in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. While the US
claimed that the attack was a war against terrorism, no weapons of mass destruction were
found. The US merely assumed that Iraq possessed WMDs. The apparent reason for invasion
was to trigger a regime change, i.e., to compel Iraq to do what it would not have otherwise
done.
An example of deterrence may be seen in the US declaration of certain areas in Iraq as no-fly
zones, i.e., zones over which aircrafts are not allowed to pass.
 Structure
53
SEMESTER V
It entails the ability to control the political agenda, i.e., to control resources, the behaviour
of other states and the outcomes of their interactions. Power is distributed in some of the
social structures which exist in the environment, through which the actors function.
Structural power links the distribution of power within the social structures through which
actors relate to one another and make decisions.
The framework within which actors act and gain power is structurally designed. Structural
power can be recognised as an international organisation or regime. A regime in international
relations is a set of rules or norms with which states and non-state actors function. It is a
subset of international society, within which the non-state actors would function and govern
their interactions.
Susan Strange (1923-98) defines structural power as the power to decide how things shall be
done, the power to shape frameworks within which states relate to one another, relate to
people or relate to corporate enterprises. She says that power is derived from structures
which constitute the framework within which the actors function. These structures derive
their power from four sectors:
1. The knowledge structure, which influences actors’ beliefs, ideas or perceptions, i.e., the
ability to develop, acquire or deny access to others of knowledge that is respected and
sought by others.
2. The financial structure, which controls access to credit or investment (power to create
credit).
3. The security structure, which shapes defence and strategic issues (the power to provide
protection from external threats).
4. The production structure, which affects economic development and prosperity (the
power to decide what shall be produced, by whom, by what means, and by what
combination of land, labour, capital and technology).
All nations might not have all the structures. There are two inferences which can be made
from this analysis:
1. This kind of power provides an alternative to state-centrism and highlights the
importance and growing role played by regimes and international organisations.
2. This also answers the question about the nature of power and its close links with the
constantly-changing and shaping of the new world order.
Power is attributed not to states, but to structures – international organisations such as

the UN, the NATO and the WHO, as well as economic systems such as Bretton Woods.
3.2. Shift in Power

 Military Power to Economic Power
Military prowess was the original currency of power. It was understood only in terms of
armed forces. There has occurred a huge change in the above understanding and a shift is
54
SEMESTER V
seen from military power to economic power. The reasons for this shift lie in the ‘democratic
zone of peace’.
The idea of ‘democratic zone of peace’ dictates that there is a realization amongst nations,
leaders and people that:
a. Wars are obsolete and redundant. They lead to loss of voting public, and issues
can be settled through diplomacy instead.
b. Trade is cheaper and easier. Trade would lead to more benefits and lesser costs.
Trade and interconnectedness are a better alternative to war.
c. Some wars may be unwinnable.
 Hard Power to Soft Power

Characteristics of hard power:
– Includes both military and economic power (power over).
– Command.
– Coercive or forceful in nature.
– Inducements (payments, sanctions, bribes, force, threats, etc.).
Carrots & sticks: sticks is coercive diplomacy, sanctions and embargos. In giving the carrot,
the threat of the stick is already there. For example, it is trade deal or war. There is a coercion
involved in the carrots as well.
Characteristics of soft power:

– Cooperative (power with).
– Collaboration.
– Culture, language, ideology, moral values, foreign policy, etc.
– Reputation depends on the aforesaid soft skills.
Joseph Nye did a lot of work on soft power. He creates 3 kinds of resources of soft power, in
2008:
1. Culture: set of practices which give meaning to society.
2. Value system: this refers to the political values, ideologies, government policies etc.
Countries known for their liberal policies, capitalism, socialism, etc. reflect diff value
systems.
3. Foreign policy: your value system will reflect in your foreign policy. For example,
hypocritical, authentic, goodwill.
Pyramid of Soft Power Resources
55
SEMESTER V
The pyramid does not tell us the goal of soft power, but rather how it is placed.
Agent: who creates it

Sphere: Where it is created
Instrument: through what
For example, fullbright scholarship programme offered by the state: State would be the agent,
the Sphere would be the education, and the instrument would be the exchange programme
Soft power is not just yielded by the states but also non-state, such as NGOs etc. Outcomes
are achieved more smoothly through soft power since you voluntarily accept it.
People are literate and well-educated today. They have better cognitive skills and therefore,
improper ideas cannot be floated over them. There are values of promotion of peace and
security. This knowledge component of the people in general has led to a shift from hard
power to soft power.
 Criticism of Soft power

Soft power definitely works but the promotion of soft power is fractured, bureaucratic,
organisation problems etc. things that make it difficult. Soft power has no real tangible
outcome.
Soft power is also not the ready-made solution to all problems of state, some things need hard
power. and to make soft power effective a lot of finesse, expertise needed:
1. Have to identify soft power resources
2. Have to mobilise state support
3. And eventually how to deploy it
 Smart Power
These loopholes were recognised by Joseph Nye too. Here he came with the idea of smart
power. Definition given by centre for strategic studies: “an approach that underscores the
necessity of a strong military but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships and
institutions of all levels, to expand one’s influence and establish legitimacy of one’s
actions.” Given the complexity of IR, effective strategies of power would require a combo of
both hard power and soft power: both a pull and push strategy. Barack Obama resorted to
the employment of smart power, which is a combination of soft and hard power.
3.3. Cold War

The world was divided into two major blocks – one in the east and the other in the west. Both
blocs had military strength and while the western bloc (led by the US) advocated
liberalism and democracy, the eastern bloc (led by the USSR) advocated communism.
Japan and Germany suffered a major loss in WWII and the hegemony of UK was also
declining. Alliances such as the NATO (1949) and the Warsaw Pact (1955) were formed and
they further consolidated the bipolar world order.
56
SEMESTER V
The battle between the two blocs grew intense but never culminated into a third world war. A
thaw (is a temporary dip in the icy tensions between two or more nations) in the Cold War
came in what is referred to as the period of détente (an improvement in the relationship
between two or more countries who have been unfriendly towards each other in the past).
The iconic Cuban Missile Crisis was a learning experience for both. They learned that both
blocs were equally powerful and their options were either co-existence or non-existence.
The logic of deterrence was applied.
Earlier, the US had the upper hand in terms of power but eventually, there was parity
between both the blocs. John F. Kennedy openly declared in 1963 that both powers were
equally strong. This resulted in a security dilemma. The chief architects of détente were
Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger (National Security Advisor).
 Causes of Détente
- Attainment of strategic parity by the superpowers
Earlier, the US had an upper hand in terms of military strength but eventually they were at
parity.
- American compulsion
Till the US recovered its nerve, it was necessary that they ease out tensions with the other
superpower. The Vietnam war had happened, and they had to come out of it clean, in an
honourable way. Détente was almost a compulsion for them they enter into peaceful
relations.
- Soviet compulsion
After Stalin’s death and during the Nikita Khrushchev era, the Soviet Union embarked upon
the policy of peaceful co-existence. Besides, there were also some economic compulsions
such as shortage of wages and other consumer goods because of which the unemployment
was at rise. An easing of relations was seen to be beneficial for the economy.
- The China factor

There was constant tension between China and Russia and the communist world was
splitting. Nixon and Kissinger played their cards well. Nixon made a historic visit to China
and the ping-pong policy was implemented (exchange of table tennis players between the US
and China). The US recognised the Mao regime and this strategic recognition led to building-
up of relations between the US and China, causing tension between Moscow and Beijing.
- Increasing multi-polarity
Countries like Germany and Japan were emerging as economic superpowers and therefore,
they felt the need of easing the relations between the two blocks.
 Implications of Détente
i. Setting-up of a hotline between the White House and Kremlin.
ii. The Partial Test Ban Treaty (1963), which placed a ban on the testing of nuclear
weapons in the atmosphere, outer space and underwater.
57
SEMESTER V
iii. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968), which was entered into to prevent the
spread of nuclear weapons, encourage the peaceful use of nuclear energy and further the
goal of disarmament
iv. Strategic Arms Limitation Talks – SALT I (1972) and SALT II (1979)
 End of Détene
Various factors triggered the end of the détente period in the war between the eastern
and western blocs:
The Prague Spring took place in Czechoslovakia. Around 1968, there was a revolt for
democratisation led by Alexander Dubcek, which was supported by the US. In response, the
USSR, along with the Warsaw Pact countries invaded Czechoslovakia. A resolution was
passed at the United Nations, to which no heed was paid. The incident was like a proxy war
between the US and the USSR and heightened tensions between the two blocs again.
The blocs were also divided in support during the Indo-Pak War (1965-1966) and the
Bangladesh War (1971).
Tensions were also heightened due to unrest in the Middle-East (the Arab-Israel conflict).
The US was supporting Israel and providing weapons. The USSR did the same for Syria and
other countries. The USSR placed an embargo on trade with nations supporting Israel.
During the Soviet-Afghanistan war, the Mujahedeen rebels were being supported by the US,
while the USSR supported the Afghan government. Non-ratification of SALT II by the US
Senate was another irritant in the dynamic between the two blocs.
These developments ushered in the new Cold War era, with US President Ronald Reagan
promising to “take the war to space.” This reignited the rhetoric of confrontation between the
two nations, leading to a complete end of the détente period.
However, even though it was believed that a third world war would break out, that did
not happen.
Gorbachev tried to restructure the USSR democratically. The rise of Gorbachev’s policies of
glasnost (openness) and perestroika (economic and political restructuring) prevented a third
world war.
Both countries agreed to reduce nuclear armament. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(START) was signed in 1991 at the Moscow Summit. However, Gorbachev’s policies were
overly optimistic. The resources the USSR had did not match his ideas. The nation was not
ready for Gorbachev’s policies and public opinion went out of hand, with the government
losing its control over the mass media narrative.
The collapse of the USSR was cemented in November 1989, when ordinary citizens gathered
and the Berlin Wall was broken. This market the victory of liberalism, and there was
jubilation in liberalist camps due to the end of communism and the victory of democratic
ideals.
The USSR disintegrated, and Boris Yeltsin became the first president of the Russian
Federation. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was formed in 1991.
Some important works supporting and celebrating liberalism are:
– The End of History and the Last Man (1992) by Francis Fukuyama. A thesis which
celebrated the victory of liberalism.
58
SEMESTER V
– Clash of Civilisations (1996) by Samuel Huntington.
 How did the Bipolar World Order Impact the Contemporary World Order?
The Cold War provides us with an understanding of the bipolar world order. Does the bipolar
order lead to peace and stability? Was the bipolar world order the reason behind the peace
and stability that prevailed during the Cold War era, or was there some other reason behind
it? These are some of the academic questions that arise.
– One view, expounded by the neo-realists, posits that a bipolar world order does
lead to peace, order and stability
They argue that when the two blocs existed as they did, the logic of deterrence was working.
The strength of the two blocs was almost equal. When they were at parity, both had reached
the stage of mutually assured destruction. Both had the capability of destroying each other
completely. This, they argue, is the reason that peace was maintained after 1945; there was an
equal balance of power in the international system. The two blocs cancelled each other out.
They posited that when two clear blocs exist, the chances of miscalculation are minimal. This
is not the case in a multipolar system, where there would be no clear distinction of power
dynamics.
In a bipolar world system, the powers depend on their own internal resources for strength.
They do not rely on any external resource or factors like culture. Thus, the picture is
comparatively clearer.
– The other view argues that a bipolar world may not always lead to peace
It is argued that a tragic consequence of the bipolar world order is that it leads to neo-
colonisation. In the post-Cold War era, signs of imperialism arose – look at Hungary,
Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia.
A bipolar world order also allows for interference by powerful nations, in the domestic
affairs of weaker states. This is an inevitable and undesirable consequence of such a structure.
The fact a third world war did not break out could be because of some other reason. Perhaps,
it could be because of some good decisions taken at the correct time. The factors of good
leadership and good fortune also cannot be overlooked.
3.4. Balance of Power

Every state needs to build up its own security systems; it is a self-help system. In doing so,
they inadvertently spur other states to build their security systems; it becomes a source of
insecurity for other states. This is known as the security dilemma. States try to deal with this
situation through the concept of balance of power.
The basic assumption behind balance of power is that as long as power is not abolished, it
must be met by countervailing powers. To rely on the goodwill of powerful neighbours
would be naïve and only matching powers can provide can adequate protection under all
circumstances. Power is distributed in such a way that a kind of equilibrium is maintained.
When one state builds up its power, another state can equalise it by building up its own
59
SEMESTER V
power, or multiple states can come together the counter the threat posed. It entails a
rearrangement and adjustment of power.
Mutual deterrence is the means by which this is achieved. Through it, any potential
aggression is deterred by the combined powers of other states. Therefore, in such a case,
balancing power either by one single nation or by a group of nations will prevent any one
particular nation from imposing its will on others. This balance of powers helps maintain
status quo and ensures that no radical change occurs in the configuration of the
international system. The aim, thus, is to ensure long periods of peace, akin to the kind
that existed from 1945-91, which was referred to as ‘Pax European’.
Kenneth Waltz, in ‘Theory of International Politics’ stated that “the very fact that states
start noticing the existing configuration of their surrounding power and start making their
policies and arrangements according to the prevalent configuration of power, eventually
leads to a balance emerge.”
.
Martin Wight stated that balance of power can be understood through two lenses:
1. Grotian: It is a more moralistic perception. Distribution of power to maintain
equity.
2. Machiavellian: No power becomes so predominant that it endangers others. It
should be ensured that there is no concentration of power in any one state.
Morgenthau states that Balance of Power is a basic universal principle from human body to
domestic politics to international community.
Chris Brown stated that the depiction of Balance of Power is not proper. To explain Balance
of Power it should be a chandelier, rather than weighing scales.
 Assumptions on Balance of Power
1. Naturally, States are inclined to protect their vital interests. They are determined to
protect the means at their disposal which could be war also.
2. The relative power positions of states can be measured with a significant degree of
accuracy.
3. A situation of Balance will either deter a threatening state from launching an attack or
permit the victim to avoid defeat, if an attack should occur.
4. Statesmen or leaders will make foreign policy decisions intelligently and on power
considerations.
5. Any actor or coalition or alliance that tries to assume dominance must be
constrained.
6. Negotiating is always better than fighting and fighting is always better than giving up.
 Conditions of Success for Balance of Power

1. Power should not be highly concentred. It should be shared by a number of states.
60
SEMESTER V
2. Policy should not be controlled by skilled professional players of the diplomatic

game, free of impediments to action on the basis of power considerations. The
elements of power should be simple and stable.
3. The potential costs of the war should be sufficient to have a deterrent value but not
so great that the threat of power becomes incredible.
 Different Measures that States would adopt to maintain Balance of Power

1. Alliances and counter alliances
This is one of the most frequently uses methods to maintain and ensure balance of power. An
alliance is a group of states brought together to address some common issue faced. Such
alliances usually have a formalised structure and arise out of a written agreement.
Alliances may be either offensive or defensive. While an offensive alliance seeks to upset
the balance in favour of its members, a defensive alliance aims at restoring the balance in its
favour. Some, such as NATO, may be both offensive and defensive. Usually, it is seen that
counter-alliances are formed in response to alliances.
There is also fluidity of alliances. This means that treaties and conventions are made in
furtherance of national interest. If there comes a point where an alliance is no longer in
consonance with national interest, restructuring may be undertaken. Thus, alliances are fairly
fluid. Nixon cooperated with China against the USSR. The US supported the Afghani
militants to counter Soviet forces, but later attacked Afghanistan.
2. Interventions and non-intervention
Intervention entails dictatorial interference which might be used by powerful states to
interfere in the internal affairs of another state to extract necessary concessions.
For example, US and Cuba, Germany in the Spanish civil war, and the USSR in Afghanistan.
Non-intervention suggests a kind of policy usually followed by small states, and also by those
great powers that are satisfied with the political order and can follow peaceful methods to
preserve the balance.
3. Armament and Disarmament
States place a lot of emphasis on military preparedness, in terms of conventional armed
forces as well as in terms of military arsenals. This requires huge national budgets and an
ever-deepening fear, suspicion and insecurity.
When one state builds up its own national powers, it becomes necessary for other nations to
follow suit. This is known as the security dilemma. While armament is a means of balancing
power, it also poses disastrous risks. Building up of arsenals ends up becoming a never-
ending race, with stockpiling of countless weapons.
Fortunately, the world has also seen moves towards disarmament, which stabilises the
balance of power by means of a proportionate reduction of armaments. The NPT, the
CTBT, the SALT talks, START, etc. are all attempts towards disarmament.
61
SEMESTER V
4. Buffer States
The geo-strategic positioning of some states (which may be territorial or satellite states) is
such that they prevent two rivals from coming into contact with each other. This is known as
the ‘cushioning effect’. Great powers usually compete with each other for winning the
support of the buffer states by luring them with military and economic aid.
For example, Tibet was seen to be a buffer between India and China. The eastern European
states of Hungary and Poland among others, separated the USSR from the non-communist
states of western Europe and the Americas.
5. Divide and Rule

This method is used by nations to keep their competitors weak by dividing them, or
keeping them divided.
For example, the policy followed by the United Kingdom during the British Raj, and the
policy followed by the USSR towards the rest of Europe, are examples of this method.
6. Domestic increase in power
 Limitations
1. Uncertainty
The capabilities of states keep on changing. It is no longer possible to make strict
categorisations of strong, weak and middle powers. The parameter for judgement of strength
used to be military power at a point. Later, economic prowess assumed importance. Now,
philanthropic efforts and environmental factors play a vital role. The understanding of
strength is ever-changing. It is difficult to assess how much strength a state has.
2. Inadequacy
It’s not Balance of Power that gives peace, there are other factors also. Realists, who
supported the idea of balance of power, agreed that though it has played a vital role in
maintaining stability in the international system, it was not only balance of power at play.
Good decisions taken at the right time, good leaders, and good fortune play a role; it is not
solely attributable to balance of power.
3. Unreality
Because there is uncertainty and no clear calculation of the results, there is scope for the
theory being distinct from reality. The uncertainty of power calculations makes the balance of
power incapable of practical application and leads to its very negation in practice.
Since no nation can be sure that its calculation of distribution of power at any particular
moment in history is correct, it must have a margin of safety that will allow it to make
erroneous calculations and still maintain the balance of power. This means that nations are
always working on that risk factor, since they never know how much strength has been built
by the other nation.
62
SEMESTER V
To that effect, all nations actively engaged in the struggle for power must actually aim not at
balance or equality of power, but at superiority of empowerment on their own behalf.
4. Ideological issues
Different nations seek to either justify their own policies or discredit those of others in the
name of maintaining or restoring balance of power. A nation which is interested in the
preservation of a certain distribution of power tries to make its interest appear as a common
interest of all nations; states seek to serve their own selfish interests in the name of the
principle of balance of power.
5. Nuclear weapons
The balance of power is reinforced as a deterrent to war for countries possessing nuclear
weapons. This is true if the two states trying to balance each other have the capacity to absorb
the first nuclear strike and still retaliate with a powerful second strike. Thus, a balance of
terror is said to have existed between the USSR and the US because of their mutually assured
destructive capabilities.
6. Unnecessary war
War plays an important role in the balance of power system. It does not indicate the failure of
conflict resolution; rather, war is a means of conflict resolution. If all other means like
alliances and arms race fail to achieve intended outcomes, war becomes inevitable. Thus,
balance of power politics often leads to unnecessary war and the unnecessary extension of
war.
3.5. Collective Security

It is another tool that tries to secure – prevention of war, deter aggression, bring peace. It
started with the League of Nations and ended with United Nations.
The term is divided as —
Collective: Means Security:
Goal
The goal is to be collectively secure and this goal is based on the understanding of
concentration of preponderance of power. The concept has been derived from what happens
in domestic politics and internal experiences. Collective Security is premised on the fact that
War is a reality. It is the middle ground between World Federation and Balance of Power.
Collective security institutionalises Balance of Power. Therefore, it is better than Balance
of Power but is not as good as say World Federation which is essentially a global
government.
 Tenets of Collective Security

1. It is a device for power management.
2. It accepts the universality of aggression.
3. All nations pool their powers to fight aggression.
4. There is a global preponderance of power.
63
SEMESTER V
5. It admits the presence of an international organisation.

6. It acts as a deterrent against war.
7. It views aggression / war to be the enemy, and not the state that commits it.
 Collective Defence
Refers to the organisation of collective machinery for meeting any aggression by the enemy
against any member of the collective defence system. A collective defence system
arrangement is made by a group of nations who have a common perception of threat to their
security from a common enemy.
 Dissimilarities between Collective Security and Collective Defence

COLLECTIVE DEFENCE COLLECTIVE SECURITY
- Collective defence is a limited - Collective Security is a global

group arrangement. system.
- In collective defence, mostly the - In collective security, the enemy

threat and the enemy are known in could be any aggressor.
advance.
- Collective defence admits advance - Collective security does not admit

planning. advance planning.
 Similarities between Collective Security and Balance of Power

1. Both are defensive in nature.
2. Both are similar in method.
3. Both accept war as a means.
4. Both accept the presence of will to end aggression.
5. Both have similar perceptions of peace.
 Differences Between Balance of Power and Collective Security
BALANCE OF POWER COLLECTIVE SECURITY
- It is a competitive system. - It is a cooperative system
- Only major states are actors. - All states are actors.
- Alliances are definite. - Cooperation is general.
- The enemy is usually from the outside. - The enemy is always from within.
64
SEMESTER V
- It is a group system. - It is a global system.
- It admits neutrality. - It rules out neutrality.

- It operates in the absence of a global - It involves the existence of an international
organisation. organisation.
 Criticisms of Collective Security

1. It is too utopian and idealistic in nature and scope. States may be, in the real world,
choose to be neutral.
2. It is not always possible to identify the aggressor. Often, there is no consensus as to who
the aggressor is, or the aggressor acts in the name of self-defence.
3. It accepts war as a means. It is self-negating in that it first denounces war as an illegal
activity, and then indirectly accepts that war and aggression are bound to remain
present in international relations.
4. It rules out neutrality completely. In reality, many states choose to remain away from
war.
5. It is a limited concept. This is because:
- It accepts the right of states to undertake war as a measure of self-defence against any
aggression. This essentially gives a legal basis to an aggressor in the name of self-
defence.
- It admits the right of the nations to establish regional defence pacts and
organisations for protecting their security. Thus, it admits regional security systems as
devices for preserving peace and security.
6. There is an absence of a permanent international peace-keeping force.
7. There is dependence on powerful states. Thus, states do not have an equal say in
arriving at decisions.
8. It is dangerous. It has the capability to transform a local war into a global war involving
all nations.
4. FOREIGN POLICY
4.1. Theoretical Significance of Foreign Policy in International Relations
Importance
Lenin made remarked that a state is not an isolated island but a member of a society of states,
participation in which is inescapable. Thus, the framing of foreign policy is a necessary
activity of the modern state.
Morgenthau viewed that all foreign policies tend to confirm to and reflect the patterns of
activity: maintain the balance of power, imperialism and politics of prestige.
65
SEMESTER V
Meaning
Foreign Policies are the strategies, methods, guidelines, agreements that usually national
governments use to perform their actions in the international arena. Sovereign states conduct
their foreign relations and interact with each other through their foreign policies and thus,
foreign policies in international politics are like a charter containing national interests
showing the areas of agreement and disagreement.
Objectives
National interests are the primary objectives of sovereign states. George Modelski believes
that it is only a desirable change in the behaviour of other states which is the end of foreign
policy. Other scholars: objective is to not only change but also to regulate the behaviour of
other states in a desirable manner.
For instance, India has received the support of the Soviet Union for many years on Kashmir,
whereas the United Kingdom has been diplomatically withholding such a support. The
interest of India needs a favourable change in the British attitude and a continuation of the
Soviet attitude. Thus foreign policy is concerned with both change and status quo (i.e.,
regulation) in so far as they serve the national interest.
Means and Ends Approach: The end is the national interest of a state and the means are the
power and capabilities of nation state.
Three categories of objectives:

 Short Range: These are core objectives, i.e., core values and interest, territorial
integrity as well as political independence. These are the matters related to the
basic existence of a nation and every state seeks to safeguard it without any
compromise.
 Middle Range: These objectives are related to trade, foreign aid as well as
economic progress of people along with raising their life standards,
 Long Range: Plans, visions concerning ultimate political or ideological
organization of the international system. These objectives are indefinite and vague
as there is no prediction about the outcome of the pursuit.
Principles of Foreign Policy

 Maintenance of territorial integrity with other countries and maintenance of its
political independence;
 Acceleration of social and economic development and strengthening its place in the
world.
 A nation state must increase its individual strength so that it can secure its foreign
policy ends.
 States foreign policy goals must comprise those conditions such that disruptive effects
of power exerted by other states cannot harm the state.
66
SEMESTER V
Stages of Foreign Policy Decision Making

 Understanding international and domestic political environment within which foreign
policy is made;
 Setting goals, particularly for foreign policy objectives;
 Determining the policy options (i.e., the means) to meet the determined goals;
 Formally deciding the best relevant policy alternative(s);
 Implementing the best foreign policy alternative
Determinates of Foreign Policy

There are two main determinants: one is international/external determinates and another is
domestic or internal determinates. These are the two types of factors which provide assistance
in shaping and moulding foreign policy.
While some debated that domestic politics and foreign policy are two ‘independent’ concern,
others are of the view that foreign policy and domestic politics are ‘interdependent’ and could
tumble into each other.
External Determinates
1. International System or Power Structure: Ever since the Treaty of Westphalia
(1648), the concept of modern State system has evolved. The creation of friendly and
cooperative relations between states is the chief goals of a sound foreign policy.
2. International Law: International law denotes a set of rules that control the relations
between states. It is constituted by interstate agreements and treaties. It limits a state
in one way or another. In this way, international law regulates the foreign policy of
states.
According to the supporters of Realism debated that international law has little or no
independent effect on foreign policy. In contrast, liberal institutionalist viewed that
international law can be intensely important. They emphasise that when states sign a
treaty or agreements, it supposedly becomes costlier to take actions that the law
prohibits and less costly to pursue policies the law condones
3. International organizations: IOs, such as UN, IMF, World Bank, etc. have provided
a very influential role as a determinates of foreign policy.
Realist approach has usually had less assurance in the effectiveness of international
organizations. They only believe in a minimum effect on the foreign policy. This is
called ‘bottom-up’ perspective that stress on how the foreign policies of states impact
international organizations.
On the other hand, the Constructivist and liberal institutionalist followed ‘top-down’
perspective and emphasised on how international organizations impact the foreign
policies of states.
4. Alliances: It is regarded as the basis of security policy. Alliances may constrain the
state in some areas while allowing it freedom to act in others. For instance, during
67
SEMESTER V
1945-90, both the United States and USSR used alliances as the way for consolidating
their respective positions.
5. Military Strategy/Arm Race: When negotiations do not work, conflict is inevitable; in
this situation, the use of military power is measured as the ultimate tool of
international relations. Generally, a state possessing sufficient military strength has
greater initiative and bargaining power.
Domestic Determinates
1. Culture and History: Culture provides people with ways of thinking, seeing and
interpreting the things around them; through their culture, States interpret happenings
around them. Historical experiences, like culture and traditions of a state provide
ample influence on its foreign policy. In the real world, States with integrated culture
and common history finds it more convenient to formulate effective foreign policy.
2. Geography (Size, Population): Geography is an element of natural power. Some of
the geographical factors are maps, size, climate, topology, location, etc. of the
country. Inter alia, geography determines climate and influences the economic system
and has a direct impact on war strategy and also can make a state a land power.
3. Economic development and natural resources: Many advance industrialist countries
play dominant role in world politics, and formulate their foreign policies to maintain
such superiority (United States, Russia, Germany, France, China, etc.). They have
large resources at their disposal to build military capabilities on one hand, and
disperse monetary benefits on other states in the form of aids and loan.
On the other hand, the developing and undeveloped countries remain dependent on
these advance industrialist countries to a larger extent to get development loans,
import of technologies, provision of health care, access to higher education, and even
foodgrains to meet their needs.
4. Military capabilities: The capability of a state to defend its borders against armed
aggression plays a profound role. Militarily capable states exercise greater
independence from external forces in the formulation of their foreign policy.
5. Political system: Political organization and institutions greatly influence foreign
policy. Under authoritarian or totalitarian forms of government, there is easier and
faster foreign decisions (there are sole decision makers without any
constraints/consultations). On the other hand, in a state democratic system, foreign
policy implementation tends to be difficult and slow as compared to that of an
authoritarian structure (citizens in this system can freely express and voice their
opinion on the domestic as well as foreign policies).
Foreign Policy Analysis

Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) is the study of management of external relations of a nation.
FPA was academically established after World War II. It is concerned with the study of two
major implications. One is how the governmental institution responsible for the formulation
and implementation of foreign policy and another is a more ideological one for the
68
SEMESTER V
democratization of foreign policy, i.e., why and how public values and interest should be
introduced to every stage in the formulation and execution of such policy.
FPA involves the study of how a state makes foreign policy as well as the study of the
process, effects, causes or outputs of foreign policy decision making in either in a
comparative or a case-specific manner.
Approaches to FPA
 Traditional Approach: This approach focused on the activity of foreign policy maker
on the basis of their experience as well as careful scrutiny of past and present foreign
policy. Traditional Foreign Policy was a body of wisdom and insights which could be
gained by lengthy study and reflection. A few scholars are Machiavelli, Grotius,
Henry Kissinger, etc.
 Analytical Approach: This focuses upon the study of the elements and objectives of
foreign policy. The means and methods of policy makers may change depending onn
situation but its respective objectives remain the same. This is a complex process in
which multiple factors (such as, policy makers, principles of foreign policy, policy
aims, etc.) play interacting roles.
 Ideological Approach: This approach believes that foreign policy of a nation is the
product of the beliefs and ideological commitments of the leaders and policy-makers.
It is through this approach that the policy makers give shape and meaning to national
interest.
 Comparative Approach: Influenced by behaviouralists, main focus is to build
systematic theories and the process involved by collecting large amount of data,
describing the content of different countries’ foreign policies.
 Cognitive processes and psychology Approach: This approach focuses on the
psychological aspect of decision making as well as individual decision maker.
Margaret Herman (1984) studied personality characteristic of 54 heads of government
and their experience in foreign affairs and their views on world should be focused on
to understand their foreign policy behaviour.
 Multilevel and Multidimensional approach: This approach was developed over
several decades. This approach believes that there is no specific theory of Foreign
policy. However, particular aspects of foreign policy making study can be possible by
using different theory of International Relations (realism, liberalism, etc.).
 Social Constructivist Approach: focuses on role of ideas, identities and scrutinise the
discourse of the inter subjective world to the foreign policy analysis. They examine
the influence of ideas and discourse of policymakers
 Rational Approaches:
a. Rational-institutional approach — This approach gives importance on interagency
coordination as a technique for rationalizing the processes of foreign policy
formulation.
b. Rational-individual approach — It attempts to understand the factors in human
choice and the logic of administrative structure in foreign policy field by
69
SEMESTER V
examining the processes of individual and group decision making in institutional

settings.
 Ideological-institutional Approach: focuses on the role of nongovernmental or
organized interest groups and insists that the various general ideologies should be
applied to an understanding of the international community
4.2. New Geometry of India’s Foreign Policy

India’s aim is to maintain its strategic autonomy (Strategic autonomy is defined as the ability
of a state to pursue its national interests and adopt its preferred foreign policy without
depending heavily on other foreign states) so that it can protect and promote its national
interests regardless of what’s happening in the world environment.
Even in times of non-alignment of the Cold War era, which the West erroneously projected as
“neutrality,” reservation on world affairs has never been in Delhi’s DNA. Therefore, at a time
when Delhi’s military, diplomatic, and economic resources provide it more latitude than ever
before, its positions on matters of international concern are watched with more scrutiny.
So, with Russia and US’s relations facing issues, India has to balance the two sides. In a
conflict scenario where India can’t influence the outcome, India would aim to evacuate its
own citizens. This is why in the Ukraine crisis the Indian government has focused on safely
bringing back Indian students caught in the conflict. However, India’s absentation in the UN
is because India’s strategic partnership with the United States and its allies has grown
stronger, and is aimed at managing China. India’s defense partnership with Russia continues
to be a primary ingredient of India’s military preparedness and India and US don’t align on
seeing Russia as a threat.
So while India carries out sophisticated interoperability exercises and signs
foundational agreements with the U.S wrt the quad, the defense purchases and co-
production with Moscow remain a backbone of India’s military hardware. China and
Russia’s growing relationship makes India’s balancing act even more delicate, as China-
Russia want to keep the US in check.
China threat
India’s abstention at the United Nations carries a deeper geopolitical rationale. India's defense
partnership with Russia continues to be a primary ingredient of India's military preparedness.
The growing strategic alliance between China and Russia, with an intention to keep the West
in check, at a time of fragile India-China security dynamics.
While India has condemned the violence and loss of lives in Ukraine, it’s been careful to not
call out Russia’s invasion as a whole. The aim is to keep distance from a conflict that has
deep historical and geopolitical roots.
Due to China’s threat, the India US alliance has grown stronger, but the China Russia alliance
has also grown closer.
Ultimately, India’s foreign policy may take a more flexible path and manage to balance all
relations. These formulations may at the outset seem contradictory, but the test of a foreign
policy is in holding contrasting directions and still finding the dexterity to operate and move
in order to protect and promote India’s national interests.
70
SEMESTER V
5. DISARMAMENT
Armament and disarmament, both are suggested as ways by which the war may be prevented.
ARMAMENT
The supporters of the armament theory argue that the more frightful war became, “the less
likelihood there was of its becoming a reality.” But this theory lands in very dangerous
situation as the creation of cast armament in itself calls for a condition midway between
war and peace. Therefore, it is counterproductive.
DISARMAMENT
Morgenthau: Disarmament is the reduction or elimination of certain or all armaments for the
purpose of ending the armament race.
 KINDS OF DISARMAMENT
1. General and local disarmament
GENERAL DISARMAMENT LOCAL DISARMAMENT

- All or most of the great powers - Only limited numbers of nations are
participate. involved.
- For example, Washington Treaty of - For example, Rush-Bagot agreement
1922 for the limitation of naval of 1817 between the United States
armaments was signed by all major and Canada.
naval powers.
2. Quantitative and qualitative disarmament
QUANTITATIVE DISARMAMENT QUALITATIVE DISARMAMENT

- Overall reduction of armaments of - Aims at the reduction or abolition of
most or all types. only certain special types of
armaments.
- For example, World Disarmament - For example, Atomic Energy
Conference of 1932. Commission of the United Nations.
3. Total disarmament
Total disarmament aims at complete elimination of armaments. There would be no weapon of
any kind whatsoever.
4. Disarmament and arms control
71
SEMESTER V
DISARMAMENT ARMS CONTROL

- Concerned with the reduction or - Concerned with regulating the
elimination of armament. armaments race in the future.
- Applies only to the control of - Applies to the control of future
existing weapons. weapons.
- Seeks to control armaments. - Tries to check the armaments race.
 NEED FOR DISARMAMENT

1. Prevention of War and Establishment of Peace
Disarmament is considered to be the most effective means of preventing war and
guaranteeing peace. The only direct cause of war according to disarmament approach is the
existence of armaments. The amassing of armaments and their instant availability make war
probable and feasible. The theory of disarmament proceeds on the assumption that by
limiting armaments, the nations would be deprived of the very means of fighting.
When a nation increases its military strength, other nationals develop feelings of fear and
insecurity and they also seek to increase their military strength. This develops war hysteria.
While the armaments encourage conflict and war, it would be incorrect to argue that it is the
sole cause of war.
2. Nuclear Threat
A nuclear war will lead to total destruction. But at the same time the view has been expressed
that the fear of total destruction is so great that a nuclear war would never occur. Any war
may turn ultimately into a nuclear war and the very threat of a nuclear war has restrained the
nations from going to war in the nuclear age. If disarmament, both of nuclear as well as
conventional weapons, is possible, war may be prevented.
3. Economic
If nations had not expended their means for military purposes, they could have put those
resources to many other uses. The military expenditures affect both the immediate
consumption as well as future economic growth.
The nations are deprived of the mutual economic aid they could otherwise receive from one
another. International trade and exchange of technological “know how” have been impeded.
A halt to the arms race could by itself be an important stimulus towards the relaxation of
other existing barriers.
4. Social Argument
The problem of poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, housing and that of raising standard of
living is not only confined to the developing countries. These problems are also present in the
rich countries. Military expenditures absorb resources which would otherwise be released for
providing social services. Nuclear tests and explosions have polluting effects on the physical
environment and thus bring environmental devastation.
5. Political
72
SEMESTER V
Armaments poison relations in the political sphere. Political differences become sharpened
by the fear and suspicion which the amassing of armaments generates. The amassing of
armaments also increases the possibility that force might be resorted to as a means of dealing
with international problems. It should be borne in mind that war is not an answer to any of
man’s imminent problems. The spirit of militarism is opposed to the spirit of democracy and
peaceful progress in the world.
6. Psychological
Everybody feels that he lived in a world in which violence has become a common place, and
which is stocked with sufficient lethal to create a psychological background of uncertainty,
fear and anxiety. Some western social psychologists have expressed the view that the arms
race and the horrors of war have developed a belief in the younger generation that world is an
irrational place in which the improvement of society is a hopeless cause.
 HINDRANCES IN THE WAY OF DISARMAMENT

1. Problem of security
There is an inverse relationship between disarmament and security. Unless some system can
be evolved whereby nations will actually be more secure with less armed strength,
disarmament will indeed remain a ‘pipe dream’.
International tension and the mutual fear among the nations develop in them a feeling of
insecurity. So long as the nations are not assured of their security, any effort for disarmament
would meet with failure. No guarantee can be provided to nations in view of the nature of the
present international society. In the conditions like this, every nation is bound to depend upon
its own power for its security.
2. Fear and mutual distrust

Every nation views with suspicion the disarmament proposals put forth by others. Every
nation feels suspicious about the intentions of others nations that while it may effect a
reduction in its armaments, other may not do so. This mistrust functions in two ways as it
hampers initial agreement and it might lead to the break down should a disarmament scheme
be put into operation.
3. National Interest
During disarmament negotiations such conditions are placed by some of the participants,
which are not acceptable to others. As a result, the disarmament conferences fail. In fact,
the nations lack the real desire for disarmament and that is why they put such condition which
may not be acceptable to others.
4. Unstable Balance of Power

The developments after WWII divided the world into two blocs, and that gave birth to the
cold war. Every nation is concerned about its security because of unstable balance of power.
In the realm of armaments, the super powers have achieved the maximum limit. They have
gained such a potential capacity in armaments that it would not be worthwhile to go any
further.
73
SEMESTER V
Today, both the USA and the USSR are in the possession of overkill capacity. It is now in
their interest to put a halt to arms race. But the nations which are much behind in the arms
race want disarmament only when they have reached a parity in arms with the super powers.
They consider the power equality as the ideal situation for disbarment. Since this situation is
highly improbable, disarmament also appears improbable in the near future.
5. Ratio among the armaments of different nations after a reduction in the

armaments has been effected
This question is always the first on the agenda of disarmament. What should be the ratio
among the armaments of different nations and within that ratio, how different types and
quantities of armaments are to be allotted to different nations.
 EFFORT FOR DISARMAMENT

PROVISION OF THE UN CHARTER EXPLANATION
Article 11(c) Authorized General Assembly to make
recommendations to the member state
regarding the general principles governing
disarmament and regulation of armaments.
Article 26 While promoting the establishment and
maintenance of international peace and
security, there should be least diversion of
armaments of the world’s human and
economic resources.
Article 47 There shall be a military staff committee
to advise and assist the Security Council on
all questions relating to the regulation of
armaments and possible disarmament.
1. Atomic Energy Commission

2. Commission on Conventional Armaments
3. Disarmament Commission
4. Atoms of Peace Plan
5. Helsinki Conference
6. Biological Weapons Convention
7. Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
8. Partial Test Ban Treaty
There was a lot of anxiety in the domain of nuclear warfare, especially during the period of
détente, when nuclear fallout was constant. Nuclear fallout refers to the
residual radioactive material propelled into the upper atmosphere following a nuclear blast.
The real progress on a test ban between the great powers came in 1963 when the Partial Test
Ban Treaty (PTBT) was adopted. It has 126 members at present. The PTBT banned nuclear
testing in the atmosphere, underwater and in space; however, nuclear weapons testing
continued underground.
There were some essential propositions of this treaty:
74
SEMESTER V
a. Under Article 1, each of the parties to the treaty undertook the responsibility to
prohibit, prevent, and refrain from carrying out any nuclear weapons test explosions
at any place under its jurisdiction or control.
– Clause 1 provided that tests would not be done in the atmosphere, in outer space,
underwater, and in territorial waters or high seas;
– Clause 2 provided that tests would not be conducted in any environment where
the explosion would cause radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial
limits of the State under whose jurisdiction or control such explosions are
conducted;
b. Each of the parties to the treaty undertook further responsibility to refrain from
causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in carrying out any nuclear weapon
test explosions in any environment referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 1;
This treaty tried to prevent tests, but the US and the Soviet Union still continued to conduct
underground tests. China and France never became parties to the treaty, and the only success
that was a result of this treaty was the reduction in atmospheric radioactive material . As a
result, the PTBT was a significant instrument to address environmental issues rather than
disarmament.
9. Non-Proliferation Treaty
The treaty of Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons was signed on July, 1968 and came into
force in 1970. 190 countries have joined the Treaty, including the five States recognized
under the Treaty as possessing nuclear weapons. The five nuclear states under the treaty are;
China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Three countries, which have or are suspected of having nuclear weapons programmes, are
currently outside the NPT. These countries are India, Israel and Pakistan. The Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea announced its withdrawal from the Treaty in 2003. The NPT
stipulates that States Parties meet every five years to assess the implementation of the
Treaty.
The 1995 meeting agreed to extend the Treaty indefinitely. The NPT has three “pillars” or
main areas;
1) Non-proliferation (stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and related
technology),
2) Disarmament (getting rid of existing nuclear arsenals), and
3) The right to peacefully use nuclear energy (including access to nuclear technology,
which is the right of all States Parties to the NPT).
Since coming into force in 1970, the NPT has largely been successful, although not perfect,
at containing the spread of nuclear weapons globally. The United States and the Russian
Federation, which possess the vast majority of the world’s nuclear weapons, have
substantially reduced their nuclear arsenals since the Cold War.
The third pillar of the NPT relates to the inalienable right of all Parties to the NPT to develop
research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.
The Parties also undertake to facilitate and have the right to participate in the fullest possible
exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the
75
SEMESTER V
peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The parties of the treaty are encouraged to consider the
needs of the developing parts of the world in matters of peaceful use of nuclear energy
10. Strategic Arms Limitation Talks

Amidst the Cold War, a series of treaties was issued under the Strategic Arms Limitation
Treaty to curtail the build-up of nuclear weapons. SALT-I, as it is commonly known, was
the first of the Strategic Arms Limitation talks between the USSR and the US. The
Communist leader Leonid Brezhnev, who was the general secretary of the Soviet Communist
Party, met with US President Richard Nixon in November of 1969 to come up with a treaty
that would contain the arms race. The two treaties signed that day were the Anti-Ballistic
Missile treaty or ABM, and the Interim Agreement on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive
Arms. Provisions of the ABM treaty included regulation of antiballistic missiles that could
possibly be used to destroy incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM’s) launched by
other countries. This treaty was ratified by the US Senate on August 3, 1972. The Interim
Agreement on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms was to have a five year duration
that would freeze the number of strategic ballistic missiles, such as the ICBM’s and the
submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM’s), at the current 1972 level.
In late 1972, negotiations began for SALT-II and continued for seven years. Finally on June
18, 1979, in Vienna, Brezhnev and President Jimmy Carter signed the SALT-II treaty. Since
the two countries had developed different strategies, with the USSR focusing on larger
warheads and the US concentrating on missiles with a greater accuracy, specifications of the
previous treaties had to be changed. SALT-II set more specific regulations on the different
missiles.
SALT-II was sent to the Senate to be ratified, but due to tensions between the two countries,
Carter pushed the treaty aside. In the years following, some of the standards set in SALT-
II were voluntarily being observed by the two sides, but the treaty was never ratified. Later
negotiations took place in Geneva that was known as the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks or
START. Tensions continued up until the end of the Cold War, but war never broke out again
and the race to stockpile weapons finally ended in the early 1990’s.
11. Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties [START-I and START-II]

START-I and START- II were designed to reduce the weapons that Russia and the US have.
While the major nuclear powers have agreed to eliminate their nuclear arsenal at a UN review
of the NPT, it remains to be seen how much of that will be rhetoric and how much real
political will there will be to follow it through. Unfortunately, the nuclear weapons states, and
particularly the United States, seem to have made virtually zero progress in the past five
years.
Despite its pledges to do otherwise, the United States has failed to ratify the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; opposed a verifiable fissile material cutoff treaty;
substituted the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which is fully reversible, for
the START treaties; scrapped the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, opening the door for
deployment of missile defenses and moves toward placing weapons in outer space; kept
nuclear weapons at the center of its security policies, including research to create new nuclear
weapons; and demonstrated no political will toward the elimination of its nuclear arsenal.
76
SEMESTER V
12. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

The CTBT was designed to prevent testing of nuclear weapons and hence reduce the chance
of an arms race. It bans all nuclear explosions in all environments, for military or civilian
purposes. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September, 1996. It
had been signed by more than 165 states and ratified by more than 100 by the early 21st
century but had failed to enter into force because some of the 44 states whose signatures were
required for its enactment (including the United States, China, India, Israel, North Korea, and
Pakistan) chose not to sign.
13. Geneva Protocol

This was a protocol for the prohibition of the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases in
war, and of bacteriological methods of warfare. This Protocol was ratified by 65 States, and
was registered in the League of Nations Treaty Series in 1929. However, a number of nations
did not sign or ratify this, since it did not talk about the production, storage or transfer of
these weapons. The failure of this treaty was in how:
a. It did not prohibit use against non-ratifying parties;
b. It did not prohibit retaliation by use of such weapons;
c. It did not prohibit the use of nuclear weapons in civil conflicts;
d. It did not prohibit research, development or stockpiling of such weapons;
Many elements of this Protocol find relevance and have now become part of customary
international law.
14. Outer Space Treaty

This was a treaty on the principles governing the activities of States in the exploration and
use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies. It was effective from 1967,
and there are 109 parties to this treaty at present. This treaty allowed the use of outer space
only for scientific and peaceful purposes. It also stated that outer space was free for all
nations, who could use it for research.
Article 4 of the treaty stipulates that parties to the treaty should undertake not to place in the
orbit around the earth, any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of
mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies or station such weapons in outer
space in any other manner. It also provides that the moon and other celestial bodies shall only
be used for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and
fortifications, and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies is forbidden. The
usage of military personnel for research and peaceful purposes is not permitted.
AFTER COLD WAR

Following the breakup of the Soviet Union in late 1991, newly sovereign Russia under took
efforts to drastically reduce its nuclear and conventional armed forces through unilateral
actions and agreements with the United States. The newly independent republics of Ukraine,
Belarus, and Kazakhstan inherited some of the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal but quickly
pursued complete nuclear disarmament; all three became nuclear free by 1996.
77
SEMESTER V
 INDIA AND DISARMAMENT

The first prime minister of India Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru made it abundantly clear
immediately after the independence that India had no plan to develop nuclear weapons and
the India’s nuclear programme is meant for peace and development. While supporting the
proposal, India appealed the world community for limiting the use of atomic energy for
peaceful purposes only and the elimination of nuclear weapons. India supported and become
party to 1963’s Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
YEAR EVENT
1950s India supported the UN Nuclear Energy Commission’s proposal for the control on
the use of nuclear energy.
1954 India appealed to the international community to ban all nuclear tests.
1974 India conducted its first nuclear test which is popularly known as peaceful
nuclear explosion. Even after the nuclear test, India did not embark on nuclear
weapons programme and continued to work for nuclear disarmament.
1978 India proposed negotiations for an international convention that would prohibit
the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
1982 India called for a “nuclear freeze” i.e. prohibition on the production of missile
material for weapons, on production of nuclear weapons, and related delivery
systems.
1988 The then Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi proposed an action plan for global
and regional nuclear disarmament in the phased manner at UN General Assembly.
The plan proposed regional disarmament along with global. The plan titled as
Action Plan for Ushering in a Nuclear weapon free and Non-Violent World Order.
1998 India conducted nuclear tests on 11 and 13 May, 1998 and declared itself as a
nuclear weapons state. It immediately announced a self-imposed moratorium on
further nuclear tests. India also declared that it will maintain minimum credible
nuclear deterrence for its security. India formulated a draft doctrine to guide its
nuclear weapons immediately after the nuclear tests of 1998.
2010 The Action Plan was designed for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, in three
stages by 2010.
Several analysts observe that the Indian nuclear policy is characterized by ambiguity.
 COMPULSIONS OF NUCLEARIZATION
1. Deteriorating Security Environment in South Asia
The increasing security threats both from China and Pakistan created strategic problems for
India. Both states possessed nuclear weapons and put India in a precarious situation where
India was forced to develop comparable capabilities. India pointed out the Chinese nuclear
aid to Pakistan and how an overt nuclear state like China is helping Pakistan to become a
covert nuclear state.
2. The China Threat
78
SEMESTER V
After the defeat by China in 1962 followed by its nuclear tests, the national security threat for
India had naturally inflated which led to India’s first nuclear test in 1974. The decision for
second nuclear test in 1998 was also influenced by the China factor. The growing military
power of China and its covert hostility with India mainly due to the unresolved border issue
mounted pressure on India.
3. China Pakistan Nuclear Nexus

China is believed to have assisted Pakistan in building its nuclear programmes since 1970s.
China has also reportedly trained Pakistani engineers and scientists. The Pakistani nuclear
bomb as observed in several intelligence reports is based on the blueprint supplied by China.
4. Discriminatory Nuclear Regime

The nuclear regime created by the NPT and CTBT Treaties failed to offer a universal
mechanism for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. These treaties were designed to
legalize the nuclear arsenals of the nuclear haves and prevent other to go for nuclear.
 INDIA’S DRAFT DOCTRINE

1. Civilian control over nuclear weapons
2. Emphasis on developing a Minimum Credible Deterrence
3. No-first-use
4. The nuclear retaliation will be colossal and designed to inflict massive damage. India
will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon state.
5. India will observe strict control on export of nuclear and missile related materials
and technology. India will participate in the fissile material cut off treaty negotiations.
6. India will put moratorium on nuclear tests.
7. India will remain committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament.
8. India will build effective, enduring diverse forces based upon a nuclear tread of air-
craft, mobile land based missiles and sea based assets.
79
SEMESTER V
6. INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION
6.1. International Relations and International Law
Law consists of a set of compulsory and enforceable rules; it reflects the will of a sovereign
power. And yet, no central authority exists in international politics that is capable of
enforcing rules, legal or otherwise. However, international law is obeyed and respected,
meaning that it provides an important – and, indeed, an increasingly important – framework
within which states and other inter-national actors interact.
There are two branches of international law: private and public. Private international law
refers to the regulation of international activities carried out by individuals, companies and
other non-state actors. As such, private international law relates to the overlapping
jurisdictions of domestic legal systems, and so is sometimes called ‘conflict of laws’.
Public international law applies to states, which are viewed as legal ‘persons’. As such, it
deals with government-to-government relations as well as those between states and
international organizations or other actors. International law nevertheless differs from
domestic law, in that it operates in the absence of an international legislative body and a
system of enforcement.
 International Law v. Domestic Law
International law cannot be enforced in the same way as domestic law. There is, for example,
no supreme legislative authority to enact international law and no world government or
international police force to compel states to uphold their legal obligations. The closest we
have come to this is through the establishment in 1945 of the United Nations, which is
endowed, at least in theory, with certain supranational powers, and through its principal
judicial organ, the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, the ICJ has no enforcement
powers, and even the UN Security Council, which has the ability to impose military and
economic sanctions, possesses no independent mechanism for ensuring compliance with its
80
SEMESTER V
resolutions, even though its decisions are technically binding on all UN members.
International law is thus ‘soft’ law rather than ‘hard’ law.
 Sources of International Law
As defined by the Statute of the International Court of Justice, there are four sources of
international law:
International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly
recognized by the contesting states.
International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law.
The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.
Judicial decisions and teachings of the most highly qualified legal scholars of the various
nations.
The most common form of international convention, and the most important source of
international law, is treaties, formal, written documents through which states agree to engage
in, or refrain from, specified behaviours. Treaties may be either bilateral or multilateral.
Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states, such as the START treaties through
which the USA and Russia have agreed to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Most
treaties are nevertheless multilateral treaties, in that they are concluded by three or more
states. Some multilateral treaties have specific provisions, such as the 1968 Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while others are broad and far-reaching, such as the Charter of
the United Nations.
First, with the possible exception of the UN Charter, they violate one of the usual
characteristics of law, which is that law applies automatically and unconditionally to all
members of a political community. Treaties, by contrast, only apply to states that are party to
the agreement in question, although it is sometimes argued that certain treaties, such as the
NPT, are so widely respected that they impose customary obligations even on states that have
not signed them.
Second, the legal obligations that arise from treaties are very clearly rooted in consent, in that
states enter into treaties freely and voluntarily.
The contractual nature of treaties and conventions places them clearly within the tradition of
positive law, as international law in these cases is a product for negotiations between
sovereign states, not the command of God or the dictates of higher morality. International law
has therefore come to assume the character of reciprocal accord.
International custom, or what is often called customary international law, is the second most
important source of international law, although until the rapid expansion of treaties during the
twentieth century, it was the most important.
Customary international law derives from the actual practice of states, in that practices among
states that are common and well-established come, over time, to be viewed as legally binding.
Customary obligations thus arise from the expectation that states should carry out their affairs
81
SEMESTER V
consistently with past accepted conduct. Unlike treaties, customary law does not require
explicit consent; rather, consent is inferred from the behaviour of states themselves. On the
other hand, unlike treaties, customary international law is often assumed to have universal
jurisdiction, particularly when it is grounded in deeply held norms and moral principles, in
which case it is closely associated with the natural law tradition. Examples of customary law
include many of the laws regarding how diplomacy is carried out, which developed over time
as rules of conduct shaped by the mutual convenience of the states concerned. These, for
instance, include the practice of granting diplomatic immunity to foreign diplomats.
The weakness of customary law is that, being based on practice rather than formal, written
agreements, it may be difficult to define, and it may be difficult to decide when and how
common practices have acquired the force of law. For this reason, there has been a growing
tendency to translate customs into treaties and conventions.
 Nuremberg Trials
Facts: The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals that took place 1945–49,
which were used by the victorious Allied forces of WWII to prosecute prominent figures
from the defeated Nazi regime.
Significance: The trials brought to light many details about Nazi atrocities, that they
appeared to ignore the responsibility of countries other than Germany for waging aggressive
war, and that, in highlighting the personal responsibility of individual Nazi leaders, they
appeared to exonerate German society at large for the WWII and other atrocities. However,
from the perspective of global politics, the Nuremberg Trials had their greatest influence on
the development of inter-national criminal law, in particular by extending international law
into the areas of human rights and humanitarian standard-setting.
The Nuremberg Principles helped to shape the provisions of, and the thinking behind,
documents such as the Genocide Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
both introduced in 1948. The Nuremberg Trials went a long way to preparing the ground for
the later establishment of international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and Bosnia and the
creation of the International Criminal Court, which came into operation in 2002.
Controversy: Concepts such as ‘crimes against peace’ or ‘crimes against humanity’ were ill-
defined and, perhaps, inherently vague. Others have viewed the Nuremberg Trials as an
example of ‘victors’ justice’, the punishment of a defeated country and its leaders that has
little or no basis in law. The principles applied at Nuremberg have therefore been seen as an
example of ex post facto law: the defendants were prosecuted for actions that were only
defined as crimes after they had been committed. A wider criticism is that the Nuremberg
Trials drew international law into questionable areas. By emphasizing issues of human rights
and humanitarian considerations, the trials created, at minimum, confusion about the proper
role and scope of international law and, more seriously, created circumstances in which
international law might be used to challenge, rather than uphold, state sovereignty.
 Why is International Law Obeyed?
82
SEMESTER V
Countries tend to obey international law for a variety of reasons, including the following:
- Self-interest and reciprocity
- Fear of disorder
- Fear of isolation
- Fear of punishment
- Identification with international norms
 International Court of Justice

The role of the ICJ is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted
to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized UN
organs and specialized agencies. The ICJ is composed of 15 judges elected to 9-year terms of
office by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council voting separately. One-third of
the Court is elected every three years. Permanent members of the Security Council always
have a sitting judge, but if a state appearing before the Court does not have a judge of its own
on the Court, it may appoint an ad hoc judge.
Significance: It has drawn baselines concerning issues such as territorial waters, fishing
rights and methods of calculating the continental shelf beneath the sea. The Court has also
had a number of notable successes in settling international disputes, including the border
dispute between El Salvador and Honduras, which led to the so-called ‘soccer war’ of 1969,
and the violent dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria over the ownership of an oil-rich
peninsula, which was settled in 2002.
Weaknesses:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court is strictly limited to states. Individuals, corporations, NGOs and
other non-state bodies are excluded from direct participation in cases. This prevents the Court
from taking action over a wide range of human rights and humanitarian issues, meaning that
other tribunals and courts (such as the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and former
Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Court) have had to be established, with the ICJ
not being able to establish umbrella responsibility for these thematic courts.
2. The greatest weakness of the ICJ is that it lacks compulsory jurisdiction and has no
mechanism for enforcing its judgements. States that have signed the treaty creating the ICJ
are allowed to choose whether they want to be subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the
Court by signing the optional clause (the clause that gives countries the option of agreeing or
not agreeing in advance to be bound by the decisions of the Court), and only about one-third
of states have agreed to do so. Moreover, states are able to revoke their commitments under
the optional clause, as the USA did in 1984 when Nicaragua asked the IIs the International
Criminal Court an effective means of upholding order and justice?
CJ to determine whether the mining of Nicaraguan harbours by the CIA constituted a
violation of international law. In theory, the Court can appeal to the Security Council to
enforce its judgements; however, this has never happened.
83
SEMESTER V
3. The Court, especially in its early days, was widely criticized by developing countries for
operating in the interests of western states and interests, in part because of their preponderant
representation on the Security Council, and therefore on the Court itself. Nevertheless, this
criticism has been advanced less frequently since the end of the Cold War, as the number of
cases brought before the ICJ annually has more than doubled with the parties appearing
before the Court also becoming more diverse.
 International Criminal Court
The ICC has codified norms and principles of international humanitarian law that have been
widely accepted since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, in the process providing the most
authoritative and detailed definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
currently available. By comparison with the system of ad hoc tribunals, the ICC brings a
much needed coherence to the process of enforcement, and also, by keeping Security Council
interference to a minimum, (potentially) prevents the P-5 from exempting themselves from
their responsibilities.
Tackling the global justice gap
The global justice gap condemns millions of people to abuse and oppression either because of
the repressive policies of their own governments or because of their government’s unwilling-
ness or inability to prevent gross human rights violations. The ICC has been designed
specifically to address this problem, providing the basis for external intervention when
internal remedies are unavailable. This task is nevertheless being put in jeopardy by a
collection of powerful countries that are unwilling fully to sign up to the ICC, either because
they want to protect their own military freedom of manoeuvre, or in order to shield allies
from criticism. This amounts to a serious failure of global leadership.
Deterring future atrocities
The aim of the ICC is not merely to prosecute crimes that have been committed since its
inception in 2002, but also to shape the future behaviour of political and military leaders
throughout the world. In this view, atrocities occur, in part, because leaders believe that their
actions will go unpunished. The significance of the trials of heads of government is that they
demonstrate that this may not be the case in future. No leader is now above international
humanitarian law. The fear of possible legal proceedings by the ICC may, indeed, have been
instrumental in persuading leaders of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda to attend peace
talks in 2007.
Threat to sovereignty and national security
The most common criticism of the Court is that it is a recipe for intrusions into the affairs of
sovereign states. The ICC threatens state sovereignty because its jurisdiction extends,
potentially, to citizens of states that have not ratified the Rome Statute. This happens if their
alleged crime was committed in a state that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, or
when a situation has been referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council. This issue is of
particular concern in the USA, because, as the world’s sole remaining superpower, the USA
deploys its military to ‘hot spots’ more often than other countries.
84
SEMESTER V
Unhelpful obsession with individual culpability

By high-lighting the criminal responsibilities of individuals rather than states, the ICC
contributes to a worrying trend to use international law to further moral campaigns of various
kinds. Not only are questions of personal culpability for humanitarian crimes highly complex,
but once international law is used as a vehicle for advancing global justice, its parameters
become potentially unlimited. Moreover, by prioritizing individual culpability and criminal
prosecution over wider concerns, the ICC may damage the prospects of peace and political
settlement, as, arguably, occurred over the indictment of President Bashir of Sudan.
A political tool of the West

The ICC has been criticized for having a western or Eurocentric bias. In the first place, it is
based on western values and legal traditions that are grounded in ideas of human rights,
which are rejected in parts of Asia and the Muslim world, thus demonstrating the absence of
a global moral consensus. Second, the ICC is sometimes seen to be disproportionately
influenced by EU member states, all of whom have ratified the Rome Statute. Third, the cases
brought before the ICC overwhelmingly relate to events that have occurred in the developing
world. The ICC is therefore seen to perpetuate an image of poor countries as chaotic and
barbaric.
6.2. International Organizations and Individuals as Subjects of International Law

(Confined to Requisite Political Science Basics)
Meaning
An international organization (IO) is an institution with formal procedures and a membership
comprising three or more states. IOs are characterized by rules that seek to regulate the
relations amongst member states and by a formal structure that implements and enforces
these rules.
IOs as Instruments IOs as Arenas IOs as Actors

They are mechanisms They facilitate debate and They enable states to take
through which states pursue information exchange, concerted action, which
their own interest. serving as permanent requires some measure of
institutions of conference ‘pooled’ sovereignty.
diplomacy.
Rise of IOs
The earliest embryonic international organizations were created after the Napoleonic Wars
(such as Congress of Vienna), which established the Concert of Europe (this continued until
WWI).
85
SEMESTER V
The number and membership of such organizations gradually increased during the 19 th and
20th centuries. Following the end of WWI, there was a surge in new IOs. The end of WWII
marked a new boom, with the number of IOs (including UN and World Bank) soaring to 123
by 1949.
Features: They have membership, competence, functions, and decision-making authority.

 It is an association of States as distinct from an association of private individuals,
professional organizations or religious groups
 It has a conventional basis, a multilateral treaty which forms the constitution of the
organization.
 The constitutive instrument will have established organs of the institution.
 The institution thus established assumes corporate identity distinct from that of the
component member States
The rights and duties of an international organization will of course depend upon its purposes
and functions as specified or implied in its constituent document and developed in practice.
international organization means an intergovernmental organization [Article 2, paragraph
1(i), VCLT].
STATES INT’L ORGANISATIONS

Existence from GPL and GPL did not give existence.
circumstances.
Sovereign Body Composed of Sovereign Bodies
It has a generic competence (it can It has specific competence and is
bind itself in any way, there is full confined by its Charter.
autonomy).
Operates independent to other Operation is dependent on
States. participating States.
Legally, States are equal. They are unequal (as structure and
powers of each organization are
entirely dominated by its
constituent instrument)
Perspectives: Liberalism versus Realism
Liberalism Realism Critical

Liberals argue that IOs reflect Realists argue that power Social constructivists
the collective interests of states, politics operates in IOs, challenge both neorealist
based on a recognition of what which are viewed simply as and neoliberal on their
Keohane and Nye (1977) called instruments controlled by assumption that states are
‘complex interdependence’ powerful states, and do not rational actors guided by
theory and an awareness of constitute a separate realm. objective interests.
mutual vulnerabilities that affect
powerful and weak states alike The others ignore the role
86
SEMESTER V
of ideas and perceptions.
League of Nations: The League of Nations had been founded at the Paris Peace Conference
(1919) with very similar goals, namely to enable collective security, to arbitrate over
international disputes and to bring about disarmament. The League of Nations was inspired
by US President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points.
Neorealists versus Neoliberals:
Neorealists Neoliberals
Neorealists have insisted that states are Neoliberals argue that the neorealist
preoccupied with making relative gains. In position is simplistic. While not rejecting
this view, anarchy makes states fear for their the concerns about relative gains, they hold
survival, and because power is the ultimate that states may be more concerned about
guarantor of survival, they constantly making absolute gains (improvements in a
monitor their position in the international state’s position in absolute terms).
power hierarchy.
Principal Aims of UN:

 To safeguard peace and security in order ‘to save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war’
 To ‘reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights’
 To uphold respect for international law
 To ‘promote social progress and better standards of life
UN’s Legal Personality

The question therefore arose as to whether the United Nations (UN) only had personality
under municipal law, or also, to some extent, under international law. The answer was given
by the International Court of Justice in the Advisory Opinion on Reparations for Injuries
suffered in the Service of the United Nations. In the opinion of the Court, UN was intended
to exercise and enjoy functions and rights which can only be explained on the basis of the
possession of an international personality. UN is the supreme type of international
organization, and it could not carry out the intentions of its founders if it was devoid of
international personality. The State Members, by entrusting certain functions to it, with the
attendant duties and responsibilities, have clothed it with the competence required to enable
those functions to be effectively discharged.
UN’s Working
BODY ROLE
Security Council (SC) Responsible for maintenance of international peace and
security; enforces UN’s role as negotiator, observer,
peacekeeper and, ultimately, peace enforcer.
87
SEMESTER V
The Security Council has 15 members. The Big Five (or

P-5) – the USA, Russia, China, the UK and France – are
permanent ‘veto powers’, meaning that they can block
decisions made by other members of the Council.
The other 10 members are non-permanent members

elected for two years by the General Assembly, in line
with an established, if imperfect, regional balance.
General Assembly (GA) This is dubbed as the parliament of nations. GA debates
and passes resolutions (on any matter covered by the
Charter), and has a specific responsibility to examine and
approve the UN’s budget, determine the members’
contributions, and elect, in conjunction with the SC, the
UN Secretary-General and the judges of the International
Court of Justice.
Secretariat This services the other principal organs of the UN and
administers the programmes and policies laid down by
them.
At its head is the Secretary-General, who functions as the

public face of the UN as well as its chief
administrative officer.
Economic and Social This consists of 54 members elected by the General
Council (ECOSOC) Assembly. Its chief role is to coordinate the economic and
social work of the UN and the UN family of
organizations.
These include the so-called ‘three sisters’ – the World

Bank, the IMF and the WTO – and also bodies such as
ILO, WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF.
How does UN promote peace and security?

The principal aim of the UN is “to maintain international peace and security” [Art. 1, UN
Charter], with responsibility for this being vested in the Security Council.
The fact that the two world wars of the twentieth century have not been followed by WWIII
has sometimes been seen as the supreme achievement of the UN. On the other hand, realist
theorists in particular have argued that the absence of global war since 1945 has had little to
do with the UN, being more a consequence of the ‘balance of terror’ that developed during
the Cold War as a nuclear stalemate developed between the USA and the Soviet Union.
The capacity of the UN to enforce is severely limited to its member states, and particularly
the permanent members of the Security Council, permit. Its role has been confined essentially
88
SEMESTER V
to
providing mechanisms that facilitate the peaceful resolution of international
conflicts. Even in this respect, however, its record has been patchy (India-Pakistan in 1959,
Belgian-Congo in 1960, etc.).
Lastly, due to Cold War, Security Council could not adopt position — US and Russia had
opposing views. The only occasion on which the Security Council agreed on measures of
military enforcement was in relation to the Korean War in 1950, but the circumstances
surrounding this were exceptional. UN intervention in Korea was only possible because the
Soviet Union had temporarily withdrawn from the Council, in protest against the exclusion of
‘Red China’ (the People’s Republic of China). The UN’s intervention in the Gulf War of
1991, being only the second time (after Korea) that the UN authorized large-scale military
action.
New era of UN activism appeared to be a major component of the ‘new world order’, as
announced by President Bush. Since 1990, the Security Council has approved non-military
enforcement measures on numerous occasions.
UN Peacekeeping — Works?
UN peacekeeping has been both effective and cost-effective when compared with the costs of
conflict and the toll in lives and economic devastation.
Success: Eight UN-led peacekeeping operations determined that seven of them had
succeeded in keeping the peace and six of them had helped to promote democracy. These
cases included the Congo, Cambodia, Namibia, Mozambique, El Salvador, East Timor,
Eastern Slavonia and Sierra Leone.
Failure: However, there have been a number of peacekeeping failures, notably in Rwanda,
Somalia and Bosnia. UN peacekeepers were little more than spectators during the genocidal
slaughter in Rwanda in 1994. UN-backed US intervention in Somalia led to humiliation and
withdrawal in 1995, with warlord conflict continuing unabated. The Bosnian-Serb military in
1995 carried out the worst mass murder in Europe since WWII in the ‘safe area’ of
Srebrenica, which had been under the protection of a UN battalion of Dutch peacekeepers.
Since the UN report (1992), An Agenda for Peace, there has been an acknowledgement that
peacekeeping alone is not enough to ensure lasting peace. The growing emphasis on peace-
building — identifying and supporting structures that will tend to establish, strengthen, and
solidify ‘positive’ peace.
Is UN needed?
AGAINST FOR
Proto-World Government: UN is An Indispensable Body: For all its flaws
89
SEMESTER V
fundamentally flawed, it was designed as a and failings, one central fact must be borne
supranational body, therefore, it has all the in mind: the world is a safer place with the
drawbacks of a would-be world government UN than it would be without it.
– a lack of legitimacy, accountability and
democratic credentials. Although the UN will never be able to
prevent all wars and resolve all conflicts, it
provides an indispensable framework for
cooperation, should the international
community choose to use it.
Irrelevant debating society: Main problem Peacekeeping Successes: Highly-
is its ineffectiveness. The UN is side-lined publicized peacekeeping ‘failures’ have
when major events occur. Even Security distorted the image of the UN. Most studies
Council is commonly paralysed. show that UN peacekeeping operations are
more often successful than unsuccessful.
Lack of Moral Compass: the UN New Agendas and new thinking: It has
expanded and drifted towards a kind of succeeded in adapting and redefining itself
moral relativism in which it seeks to be all in the light of new global challenges.
things to all members. It is not able to fulfil
its primary functions of protection of HR
and fundamental freedoms.
Outdated and unreformable: The Mend it, don’t end it: The UN could
organization itself is simply dysfunctional confer legitimacy on international action,
sprawling and complex and fraught with rather than always implementing action
duplication and over laps itself; and relationships with regional
organizations could be strengthened.
90
SEMESTER V

Political Science III

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Political Science III

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Political Science III

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL SCIENCE III (COMPILATION)

Political Science Syllabus

1. DISCIPLINE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

INTERNATIONAL PARADIGM GLOBAL PARADIGM

Assertions of International Relations

Is it possible for a country/individual to be indifferent and not be opinionated?

3. Globalisation is internationalising us (to be discussed later)

1.2. Difference between international politics, international relations, and global

International Relations: This is similar to the broader/global view. International relations

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

 Why did it take so long for international relations to develop as an academic

 Revision of Previous Semester

1.3. Globalisation and Global Politics

 Does International Relations mean the same thing as Global Politics?

1) Planetary Existence: Everything is interconnected and integrated; it is difficult to

Global Politics — Dimensions of Globalisation = (World + National + Sub-National +

 Difference between Global Politics and International Relations

 What are the major reasons which made politics go global?

1. Emergence of new global actors and influences

2. Increased interdependence and interconnectedness

Consequences of this model: Domestic-international divide. The inside is domestic and

Criticism of this model:

3. Trends towards global governance

 Globalisation- Myth or Reality

1.4. Stages within International Relations

1st Stage: Diplomatic Historical Stage

A. Initial Attempts (pre-WWI): This is the phase where no concrete/substantial work in IR

4th Stage: The Contemporary Stage (The end of WWII)

1.5. Great Debates

1.6. Actors of Global Politics

The actors in international relations can be divided into two categories:

2. This sovereignty of states is recognised by other states through diplomatic relations

b) The mixed-actor view

1.7. Levels of Analysis

THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

THE DOMESTIC LEVEL

together also influence international relations – should a nation adopt democracy or

THE INTER-STATE LEVEL (SYSTEMIC LEVEL)

Individual Level Perceptions, cognitions, decision, learning patterns, accidents of history.

Nationalism, ethnic conflict, type of government, political parties, interest

Inter-State Level Power balances, interdependence.

Global Level Religious fundamentalism, terrorism, world environment.

1.8. Models of Decision Making

1. The Rational Actor Models

2. The Incremental Models

3. The Bureaucratic Organisation Models

iv. The Cognitive Processes and Belief-System Models

1.9. Core Principles of International Relations

There are 2 principles herein

CORE PRINCIPLES FOR SOLVING THE COLLECTIVE GOODS PROBLEM

Principle Advantages Disadvantages

Order, stability, predictability,

Downward spirals, complex

Identity Redefining interest, sacrifice, benefits. Demonising groups.

2. THEORIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

 Two Core Assumptions of Realism

 Major Proponents of Realism

THE REALIST TRADITION

Thinker Key Text Big Ideas