Q.

1 In your opinion can China be expected to come up with its version of

the Monroe Doctrine; the way offensive realists argue.

 offensive realism: the ultimate objective of the great powers is to achieve

global hegemony in order to assure survival.

 Which is quite challenging given the fact that every state is in continuous
struggle to maximize its power in order to deter anykind of attack by other
states in this anarchic structure.

 in the prsuit of maximum powers, states ensure their great power status and
assure their hegemony in the region.

 In order to gain the regional hegemony states struggle to oust the other great
powers, first from its backyard and than from its region of influence. Like US
did in 19th century-Monroe Doctrine.

 In case of Chinese rise Mearsheimer says, “China would attain economic

hegemony and then translate its economic power into military power and
would attain and try to maintain its hegemony in all other domains”.

 China in order to become hegemon might replicate US designs.

 China may replicate the Monroe doctrine in its own way in order to achieve
regional dominance and hegemony- where it would likely attain top position
in regional power hierarchy- maximize its relative power compared to other
regional powers like Russia, Japan and India.

 After maximizing its regional power, the first thing China would do would be
the ousting US first from its backyard that is Central Asia and South Asia and
then from entire Asia, Africa and to its maximum from Europe.

 This would result in a conflict as Mearsheimer says “history has not

advocated much of peaceful power transitions events among the hegemons.”

 In the said conflict all the powers like Russia, India, Japan, Australia,
European states and other middle powers like ASEAN and small power like
1
New Zealand, South Korea would join US.
  This would make the rise of China violent rather than peaceful.

Q.2 How do the three main variants of realism conceptualize, power

i.e., Classical, Neorealism and Neo-Classical realism?

Power is main currency in International Relations in terms of Realist school of

thought. Given that there are more than one shades of realism, every strand defines
power in a different way.

Realism

Power is the main currency in International Relations. All states are in the pursuit
to gain maximum power in order to deal with any of internal threats as According
to Machiavelli, a prince should be aware of potential dangers and be ready to
confront them decisively. He emphasized the importance of maintaining a strong
and capable military force to protect the state from external threats. Machiavelli
believed that a prince should have a well-organized army and be skilled in the art
of war to ensure the security of the state. He emphasized the need for a prince to
be aware of and effectively manage internal conflicts, dissent, and potential
rebellions. Machiavelli argued that a prince should be willing to take ruthless
measures when necessary to preserve his rule and maintain order within the state.

The causes of this struggle for power among the states is however defined by all
the shades in a different way.

Classical Realism Neo/Structural Realism Neo-Classical Realism

K. Waltz and J.
Mearsheimer

 Human nature is  Structural realists  The neoclassical realists

pessimist and self- believe that anarchic recognize the role of
centered. structure is responsible ideational elements and
for behavior of state on perception of power.
 In order to ensure
international scene.
their survival and gain  They establish that
vital interests humankind  The structure compels power maximization of
2
aspires and struggles for and constraints the states one state does not
 maximum power. to acquire power to always threaten the
either securitize existence and survival of
 Being a collective
themselves or to ascend other state as it
entity of human beings
to the highest level of recognizes the power
state aspires to maximize
power hierarchy. maximizing state as a
its power in same way
friendly state.
with same intentions.
 The perception of

power, on the other
hand, involves how
states perceive their own
power as well as the
power of other states in
the international system.

Q.3. To what extent democratic process adequately address and deal with the
question of identity?

Robert Dahl has famously argued that democracy has undergone major transformations
from its very inception until today, among others, from the democratic city-states to the
nation-states, from small-scale polities to mass democracies.

A shared identity among the people of a polity constitutes the cornerstone of the
legitimacy of majoritarian decision-making, as perceived by citizens of a democratic
system. Feeling part of the same community makes majoritarian decisions acceptable to
the minority. To the contrary, a failure to generate such feelings of commonality precludes
solidarity and challenges the legitimacy of democratic institutions. identity and identity
politics seem to play a vital role in phenomena closely related with today’s challenges to
democracy. As growing numbers of the citizenry in democratic countries are disillusioned
with liberal democracy, they become increasingly tempted by populist politics, paroles of
protectionism, and demands for secessionism (and jingoist responses to more autonomy
and decentralization), as well as attacks on minority rights. The discourse of single and
narrow identities enters into elected positions of members of populist, authoritarian, and
anti-pluralist parties and influences current political and societal debates.
3

Democratic systems have adequatly dealt the question of identity in the context of
international relations. Democratic processes can help by advocating for the idea of
national self-determination, which can help with identity-related issues. Minority groups'
rights to maintain their cultural, linguistic, or religious identities are often upheld in
democracies. Democratic nations have the option of using cultural diplomacy to address
issues of identity on a global scale. Mutual understanding, respect, and admiration for
other identities can be fostered through cultural exchanges, educational initiatives, and
people-to- people contacts. Democratic countries can help resolve identity-related tensions
and conflicts by fostering intercultural communication. The discourse on identity in
international relations is significantly shaped by international institutions and norms.

Q.4.Explain John Ikenberry’s Liberal Internationalism; 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.

A well-known expert in international relations who has written extensively on liberal

internationalism is John Ikenberry. He has put forth a system, commonly referred to
as Liberal Internationalism 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, that distinguishes between various
stages or iterations of liberal internationalism. These variations reflect various
historical eras and developing liberal internationalist concepts. Below is a list of
these versions' specifics:

John Ikenberry's Liberal Internationalism 1.0, influenced by Woodrow Wilson's

ideas, aimed to establish a global order based on collective security, open trade,
national self-determination, and progressive change, with the League of Nations as
the central institution. It emphasized cooperation through shared liberal ideas and
principles, while expecting non-democratic states to transition to democracy and
embrace liberal norms over time. However, the implementation of this vision fell
short due to insufficient security commitments and a lack of thick norms for
compliance and collective action.

Liberal Internationalism 2.0, as conceived by John Ikenberry, refers to the evolution

of the post-World War II liberal international order. It involved American-led liberal
hegemony, where the United States assumed a dominant role in upholding rules,
institutions, and providing public goods. This version of internationalism differed
from Wilsonian ideals by embracing hierarchical relationships and allowing for
exceptions within a rule-based framework. The order expanded to include economic
and political dimensions, and the United States occupied a superordinate position 4

while still operating within a liberal framework. Throughout the Cold War, this order
remained influential, with the United States playing a central role in maintaining
cooperation and institutions.

Liberal internationalism 3.0 refers to the potential future direction of the liberal
international order. It suggests that the current liberal internationalism, known as 2.0,
is facing challenges and needs reform. The key question is what the character of this
new order will be. Three important issues shape the evolution of liberal
internationalism 3.0: scope and hierarchy, legitimate authority and post-Westphalian
sovereignty, and democracy and the international rule of law. The reformed order is
expected to become more universal and less hierarchical, with the United States
ceding some of its hegemonic rights and privileges to other states. The new order
may involve greater concern for the internal governance of states, intervention in
weak and troubled states, and the balancing of international authority with domestic
democratic principles. Liberal internationalism 3.0 could take the form of a far-
reaching reworking of the American-led order, with a shift towards more public rules
and institutions of governance, expanded membership in international bodies, and an
erosion of Westphalian sovereignty. Alternatively, a modified version of liberal
internationalism 2.0, where the United States retains its hegemonic position but
renegotiates its bargains and institutions, is also a possibility. The future liberal
international order will likely involve a mix of sovereignty, rules, institutions, and
authority, and its success will depend on shared norms and the ability to foster
collective action.

The current state of liberal internationalism, known as liberal internationalism 2.0, is

facing a crisis of authority rather than a breakdown of the old order. The American-
led liberal international order no longer provides a stable foundation for an open and
rule-based system. The success of the liberal project has contributed to this crisis by
eroding the old foundations of the order. However, the old liberal order is unlikely to
completely disappear, and instead, it will evolve based on changes in power and
authority among states. The future of liberal order depends on the willingness and
ability of the United States to make new commitments to rules and institutions while
relinquishing some of its privileges. Although the United States is ambivalent about
institutional commitments, it still has incentives to operate within a rule-based order.
Moreover, the liberal global order has taken on a life of its own beyond American 5

power and interests, necessitating American accommodation.

Q.5. Discus the Constructivist Liberal Theory of Cooperation.
Incorporates both theories
Liberal constructivism, commonly referred to as constructivist liberalism, is an approach to
international relations that blends constructivism and liberalism. It focuses on how common
standards, viewpoints, and identities influence interstate cooperation. This viewpoint
emphasizes how social contact, norms, and ideational elements influence state preferences
and cooperative options. According to the constructivist liberal view, social interaction and
norms have a significant role in determining the preferences and actions of the state. It
implies that cooperation results from the common perceptions and standards that emerge
from social contact between states. Norms impact governments' preferences and provide a
framework for collaboration, such as respect for each other's sovereignties, human rights, or
democratic governance. Additionally, it contends that interactions between states and
international organizations help to shape the identities of states. Constructivist liberals
contend that states' actions are impacted by how they perceive the international environment
and the dominant ideas rather than only by their practical interests. Lastly, domestic
variables that affect state preferences for cooperation include domestic institutions, public
opinion, and civil society. Domestic institutions have the power to influence decision-
making and foster a cooperative mindset. Public sentiment and civil society activism can
also impact government actions and encourage collaboration on particular topics. The
constructivist liberal theory offers a deeper understanding of how cooperation develops in
the international system than classic materialist explanations of cooperation by placing
greater emphasis on ideas and social interactions.

Q.6. Comment that how English Schools methodologically and theoretically fall
between realism and Idealism.
The English School of International Relations presents a distinct viewpoint that, in terms of
methodology and philosophy, lies halfway between realism and idealism. It incorporates
aspects of both traditions to offer a thorough examination of international relations.
 The English School uses both positivist and interpretive techniques in its
6
methodological pluralism approach.
  whereby realist researchers frequently emphasize empirical analysis and the
study of power relations,
 idealism scholars typically concentrate on normative principles and ideals.
 It blends interpretive examination of norms, laws, and institutions with empirical
analysis of state behavior and power dynamics.
 differs from realist and idealist viewpoints in that it places a strong focus on the
idea of international society.
 This idea emphasizes the presence of a world society built on the values of
independence, diplomacy, and collaboration.
 The English School integrates these aspects by acknowledging the importance of
both power and norms in forming international society, in contrast to realists
who frequently prioritize the state-centric system and power dynamics and
idealists who focus on moral and normative issues. In terms of its theoretical
outlook, the English School also straddles the line between realism and idealism.
In line with realist viewpoints, it recognizes the significance of power, security,
and self-interest in international affairs. It also emphasizes, in line with idealist
viewpoints, the importance of norms, values, and ethical principles in directing
governmental behavior. Last but not least, the English School approaches the
study of international relations from a historical and normative perspective. It
emphasizes how crucial historical analysis is to comprehending the development
of norms and institutions across time as well as the evolution of global society.

Q.7. Discuss the point of departure of Marxism from Liberalism and Realism.
Marxism differs most from liberalism and realism in that it places a strong emphasis on
sociocultural issues. Social practices are the foundation of this philosophy, but social
practices are a neglected issue in liberalism and realism. Marxism questions the presently
accepted, wellestablished theories. Liberalism is an agency-based philosophy, while realism
is a state-based theory. For proponents of Marxism, the economic foundation is crucial
since it determines all political and cultural connections. They place a strong emphasis on
the significance of social structures and economic linkages and argue that societies
developed via class conflict. Marxists think that human nature is evolving rather than the
same self-centered nature as realists do. Additionally, they firmly support a
7
multidimensional perspective on the world that includes economic and social dimensions
rather than being limited to a political one like realism proponents. On the other hand, it
reacts to liberalism by pointing out that the process of globalization is inherently
exploitative and predicated on the marginalization of the working class and profit
maximization.
Q.8. Philosophically, in your understanding of the International Political Theory
where can be placed and why?
A branch of international relations known as international political theory studies the
normative facets of world politics. It covers the investigation of the intellectual, moral, and
ethical dimensions of international relations. Justice, human rights, sovereignty, global
governance, financial flows, foreign direct investments, import and export control regimes,
and the function of international organizations are some of the topics covered by IPT.
International Political Theory can be viewed as a component of the normative theory of IR
when viewed in the context of the larger topic of IR. since it aims to comprehend and assess
the moral and ethical implications of international relations. It examines issues including
whether political authority is legitimate, what obligations both nations and individuals have,
and what moral standards ought to govern international relations.

Q.9. Discuss similarities and differences both philosophically and theoretically

between Social and Critical constructivism.
There are significant distinctions between them even though they have some philosophical
and theoretical elements in common.
The notion that social realities, such as knowledge, meanings, and identities, are created
through social interactions and processes are emphasized by both social constructivism and
critical constructivism.
Both points of view contend that knowledge is socially and contextually situated.
They contest the idea of objective, all-encompassing knowledge and emphasize how social,
cultural, and historical variables have shaped our perception of the world.
Both viewpoints reject positivist ideas of knowing and express greater skepticism towards
assertions of ultimate truth.
They cast doubt on the idea of knowledge being objective and emphasize the subjectivity
and intersubjectivity of knowledge.
In contrast, critical constructivism emphasizes the function of power relations and agency in
8
creating social realities.
It draws attention to how hierarchies and power systems impact the creation and sharing of
information.
Critical constructivism aspires to advance social change and emancipation by exposing and
contesting repressive power structures. It is focused on how prevailing discourses and
behaviors perpetuate injustice and inequality. Critical constructivism has a stronger
normative perspective than social constructivism, which focuses more on describing and
understanding social construction processes. To create a society that is more just and equal,
it aims to examine and modify the current social arrangements.
Both approaches have a constructivist ontology in terms of theoretical affinities, which
means they think that social reality is created through interactions and interpretations
between individuals. The importance of concepts, standards, and discourses in influencing
social and political outcomes is emphasized by both social constructivism and critical
constructivism. They contend that common perceptions and standards influence behavior
and form international interactions. Both viewpoints reject the idea of structural
determinism, which contends that only material or structural forces can affect social
outcomes. They contend that ideas, norms, and agency all have a significant impact on how
social and political realities are shaped.
In contrast, critical constructivism lays more attention on power relationships, social
structures, and how power shapes social reality. Even if social constructivism acknowledges
the importance of power, it may not give it as much of a front seat. Critical constructivism
takes a more overtly normative stance. It strives to change social and political institutions
by identifying and opposing oppressive power structures. On the other side, social
constructivism might be more interested in descriptive investigation and comprehension of
social construction processes.

Q.10. To Post-structuralist, how identity is relational and performative in the domain

of foreign policy?
Identity is viewed as a relational and performative notion in the field of foreign policy from
a post-structuralist angle. The concept of permanent or essential identity is challenged by
poststructuralism, which proposes that identity is instead created through a complex
interaction of power relations, discourses, and performances. Post-structuralists contend that
identities are continually negotiated and produced in connection to other actors and
9
discourses in the framework of foreign policy and are not predetermined or static. They
emphasize that identities are dependent on the social and political environment in which
they function rather than being inherent qualities of states or individuals.
According to post-structuralists, identity is continuously formed by foreign policy players
as a result of their interactions with other actors, institutions, and discourses. This process
entails engaging in specific roles and actions that are accepted as genuine within a particular
culture. Power dynamics, cultural norms, historical narratives, and discursive practices all
influence these presentations. Post-structuralists also emphasize how language and
discourse shape identities in foreign policy. They contend that actors' self- and other-talk, as
well as the categories they employ and the narratives they create, are all very important in
the formation of identity. Discourses not only reflect the power dynamics that already exist,
but they also help to maintain or change them.

Q.11. To what extent do technology and material facts (materialism) play a role in
changing the discourse on Climate change?
The discussion of climate change has changed significantly as a result of technology and
materialism. The development of technology has improved our understanding of climate
change by supplying more precise and thorough data on its sources, effects, and mitigation
techniques. To understand the intricate processes of climate change, specialists and
scientists rely on cuttingedge technologies including climate models, satellite observations,
and data analysis tools. Their conclusions, which are supported by material facts, shape
policy discussions, inform international negotiations and influence diplomatic interactions
to advance the conversation on climate change within IR.
International collaboration and climate change negotiations have benefited from empirical
data and technological breakthroughs. For instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) uses data and research from science to develop comprehensive assessments
that direct international climate negotiations. The development of consensus among
governments and the promotion of coordinated responses have been aided by tangible
evidence of the effects of climate change and the necessity of action. Remote sensing and
satellite-based systems for monitoring and verifying emissions are further technologies that
support accountability and transparency in global climate agreements. Material facts are
widely disseminated, affecting public opinion and forcing governments to act. Examples
include scientific papers and data visualizations. By extending its reach and allowing a
10
variety of viewpoints to participate in the conversation, this technological application
increases the discourse on climate change.
Q.12. According to Post-Structuralist what does it mean to say that abstraction,
interpretation, and representation are indispensable and unavoidable?
Post-structuralist perspectives believe that abstraction, interpretation, and representation are
necessary and inescapable components of comprehending and analyzing the field of
international relations (IR). Post-structuralists contend that abstraction is necessary for the
study of international relations because it entails the conceptualization of complex political
realities. In IR, abstraction frequently takes the form of theories, models, or categories that
are used to explain how states, institutions, and relationships between players, as well as the
international system, work. Post-structuralists warn against viewing these abstractions as
impartial or objective depictions of reality, nonetheless. They assert that power dynamics,
ideologies, and discourses shape how abstractions in IR are socially created. Divergent
understandings of international relations might result from using various abstractions,
highlighting the contentious and ad hoc character of these ideas.
Additionally, post-structuralists emphasize that understanding interpretation is a key
component of researching IR. They contend that different interpretations of international
events, processes, and players exist because meaning-making is essentially subjective and
contextual. Poststructuralists emphasize that a variety of elements, such as the researcher's
history, social position, language, and the discursive frameworks in which they operate,
impact interpretations in IR. Therefore, multiple interpretations might result in conflicting
understandings of global occurrences, casting doubt on the idea of a single, unchanging
truth. Last but not least, according to post-structuralists, representation is a crucial
component of IR because it affects how political actors, events, and concepts are portrayed
and comprehended. They maintain that IR representations aren't simple mirrors of reality,
but rather are created through language, discourse, and power relations. Representations can
shape our perception of power relations, identities, and norms by influencing how we view
and interpret global events. Post-structuralists contest the notion that representations are
universal or objective, highlighting their subjectivity and the potential they hold to reinforce
existing power relations and disparities.
In conclusion, post-structuralist viewpoints contend that abstraction, interpretation, and
representation are both necessary and inevitable in the study of IR. These ideas are seen as
socially produced, subject to change, and shaped by discourses and power relations.
11
Q.13. To what extent post-colonialist analysis is useful to understand current
International Relations?
By providing light on the historical legacies and power dynamics that continue to define the
international order, the post-colonialist analysis provides insightful ways to comprehend
and analyze contemporary international relations. Traditional IR theories' Eurocentric biases
and colonial foundations are contested by post-colonialism. The post-colonial analysis aims
to decolonize knowledge production by uncovering the historical and intellectual legacies of
colonialism and highlighting alternative viewpoints and voices from the Global South. It
investigates the persistence of colonial-era power structures and hierarchies in modern
international politics. It draws attention to how colonial legacies still influence cultural
norms, political institutions, and economic structures. The continuous exploitation,
marginalization, and oppression that formerly colonized communities and places face are
highlighted by post-colonial research.
It also looks at how colonialism affected how people constructed their identities and how
nonWestern actors were portrayed in international politics. Post-colonial viewpoints
investigate how prevailing discourses and representations support stereotypes, exoticize, or
marginalize particular geographic areas, cultures, or populations. The post-colonialist
analysis contributes to a deeper understanding of identity dynamics in IR by contesting
these portrayals and emphasizing the agency and diversity of post-colonial actors. The study
of global governance and development intersects with post-colonialism, providing critical
insights into the post-colonial condition. It examines how economic principles, international
institutions, and development discourses have affected post-colonial states. The power
dynamics within international governance systems are revealed by post-colonial research,
which also critiques the unequal allocation of resources and decision-making power.
examines the difficulties and chances that post-colonial governments face as they work to
achieve development, sovereignty, and self-determination.

Q.14. Discuss the philosophical and theoretical differences and similarities between
Empirical Feminism, Analytical Feminism, and Normative Feminism.
Three diverse schools of feminist thought—empirical, analytical, and normative—have
different philosophical and theoretical philosophies but share the same objective of
advancing gender equality. The study of gender inequality in society and empirical research
are the main foci of empirical feminism. It aims to comprehend and record the experiences
12
of women as well as the ways that gender influences different facets of social, political, and
economic life. Empirical feminism uses social science approaches to look into power
dynamics, patterns of discrimination, and how gender intersects with other social categories
like race, class, and sexual orientation. Its goal is to raise awareness of gender inequality
and provide information for advocacy and policy. Analytical feminism uses philosophical
ideas and justifications to examine and refute genderrelated problems. From a feminist
viewpoint, it critically examines conventional philosophical frameworks, theories, and
conceptions using the tools of analytic philosophy. Gender identity, gendered language, the
nature of gender oppression, and the place of women in epistemology, ethics, and political
theory are just a few of the topics covered by analytical feminism. It aims to dissect and
reassemble philosophical notions to accommodate feminist viewpoints and findings. The
normative or prescriptive notions of gender justice and equality are the main focus of
normative feminism. To achieve gender equality and alter social structures, it aims to offer
moral or ethical principles. Normative feminism investigates issues of justice, fairness, and
rights about gender. It talks about things like the necessity for gender-inclusive policy,
violence against women, reproductive rights, and gender-based discrimination. To provide
guidelines and suggestions for gender equality, normative feminism may draw from a range
of ethical frameworks, such as feminist ethics, rights-based theories, and social justice
theories.
Empirical feminism, analytical feminism, and normative feminism all share the primary
goal of attaining gender equality and combating gender-based oppression and
discrimination, even though they each have different emphases and techniques. The
interaction of gender with other social categories including race, class, and sexuality is
acknowledged by all three strands. They realize that there are many intersecting forms of
oppression and privilege and that gender oppression cannot be understood in isolation.
These feminist movements all question and criticize the patriarchal hierarchies and systems
of dominance that support gender inequality. The social, political, and economic structures
that support gender-based oppression are something they aim to uncover and change. Even
while each strand has a unique concentration, all three are interested in bringing about
societal change. To achieve more gender equality, they aim to inform activism,
policymaking, and cultural reform.

13
14