Noyuoro Christopher 10600322

According to Quincy Wright, International relations refers to “the relations between groups of
major importance in the life of the World at any period of history in particular those of
territorially organized nation-states”. Also, in the view of Steven Chan, International relation is
defined as “the interactions of those actors whose actions or conditions have important
consequence for others without the effective jurisdiction of their political units”. International
relations is not a single field or discipline, but a “bundle of subjects viewed from a common
angle” (Zimmern (1935) quoted by Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff, 2001). Goldstein (2002)
emphasizes that the International relations field is interdisciplinary, relating international politics
to economics, history, sociology, and other disciplines. This is evidenced by the fact that
International relations is typically divided into other subfields such as international relations
theory, international security, international law and organization, foreign policy and international
political economy. Hence, the reasons why I would encourage my colleague to study
International relations are as follows: it helps us to know the indispensable nature of the
international system, the type of units that occupy that system, and the dynamics that tell the
interactions between the various components of that system, it helps us to know the
interdependent nature of states in the World system, it enables us to know and understand the
basic values that states are usually expected to uphold to in both the domestic and international
systems, it helps us analyse or study the actions states take towards each other in the
international system, International relation helps us to understand the policies of states in the
international system and it helps us provide deeper understandings of biases, motivations, and
perceptions of foreign policies by states and other actors in the international system and it helps
us understand how uncertainties shape foreign policy decision makers’ responses to military and
systemic issues in the international system.
First of all, it helps us to know the indispensable nature of the international system, the
type of units that occupy that system, and the dynamics that tell the interactions between the
various components of that system, as well as the possibility of moral or institutional progress.
Generally, International relations helps the observer to think critically, logically and coherently
about issues , happenings and dealings in the international system to enable them make informed
foreign policy decisions to enable their states benefit or compete effectively with other states in
the anarchic international system(Goldstein 2002). As a distinct field of political science,
International relations draws on political theory, political economy, feminism, and international

1
Noyuoro Christopher 10600322

law to provide its own theoretical perspectives in explaining conflicts, competition, interaction
and co-operations between states and non-state actors, developed states such as the United States
of America, Germany, China, Japan among others and the less developed states such as Ghana,
Togo, Nigeria and so on in the modern international system. This helps people in a particular
state to formulate rational foreign policies towards other states in the World system (Goldstein
2002). The realist approach to the study of world politics assume that relations of states can be
best characterized as a world in which armed states are competing rivals and periodically go to
war with each other (Morgenthau 1960). The study of International relations actually helps
students to understand and appreciate the nature of the international system which therefore give
them the bases to help their leaders make informed and rational foreign policies towards other
states in the international system. For example, the US experience in the international system
influenced the severe tension, distress, pressure, and agitation of President Kennedy decision in
the dealing with other states in the international system especially during the Cuban Missile
Crisis which might have carried over to impact decisions unrelated to the US–Soviet
confrontation (see Zeilkow &May 2001). Also, an experience of the US dealings with North
Korea especially with Kim Jong-il may contribute to a U S diplomat’s decision not to trust a new
offer from North Korean diplomat (See Trust and Distrust).
More so, it helps us to know the interdependent nature of states in the World system. States
are independent of each other, at least legally: they have sovereignty. But that does not mean
they are isolated or insulated from each other. On the contrary, they adjoin each other and affect
each other and must therefore somehow find ways to co-exist and to deal with each other. They
are usually embedded in the international markets which affect the policies of their governments
and the wealth and welfare of their citizens. That requires that they enter into relations with each
other. Complete isolation is usually not an option. When states are isolated and are cut off from
the international system, either by their own government or by foreign powers, the people
usually suffer as a result. That has been the situation recently with regard to Burma, Libya, North
Korea, Iraq, and Iran (Watson 1992). The state system is a system of social relations, that is, a
system of relations between groups of human beings. Like most other social systems,
international relations can have certain advantages and disadvantages for the participants. That is
why international relation is defined as the study of the nature and consequences of states
relations in the World system. Therefore, it is relevant for people in a state to know and

2
Noyuoro Christopher 10600322

understand that there is interdependence of states and human beings in the international system
by which their policies and actions affect all human beings in the states or the whole World at
large (Watson 1992). For instance, the dealings between Ghana , US and the international
organizations like the International Monetary Fund(IMF) which forced the President of Ghana to
implement certain policies in Ghana serving as their bond of agreement which now have serious
negative effects on the people(www.wikipedia.com). Also, the global inflation of the 1970s and
early 1980s caused by a sudden dramatic increase in oil prices by the OPEC cartel of oil
exporting countries was a reminder of how the interconnectedness or interdependency of the
global economy can be a threat to national and personal welfare anywhere in the world (Watson
1992).
In addition, it enables us to know and understand the basic values that states are usually
expected to uphold to in both the domestic and international systems. The first value states are
expected to uphold to in the World system is freedom. Every state is obliged to adhere to certain
values such as freedom (both personal freedom and national freedom or independence), order
and justice and the population’s socio-economic wealth and welfare. A fundamental reason for
having states and putting up with the burdens that governments place on citizens, such as tax
burdens or obligations of military service, is the condition of national freedom or independence
which states exist to foster. We cannot be free unless our country is free too: that was made very
clear to millions of Czech, Polish, Danish, Norwegian, Belgian, and Dutch citizens as well as
citizens of other countries that were invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany during the Second
World War. The second basic values that states are usually expected to uphold are order and
justice. States have a common interest in establishing and maintaining international order so that
they can coexist and interact on a basis of stability, certainty, and predictability. To that end,
states are expected to uphold international law: to keep their treaty commitments and to observe
the rules, conventions, and customs of the international legal order (Claude 1971).The final basic
value that states are usually expected to uphold is the population’s socioeconomic wealth and
welfare. People expect their government to adopt appropriate policies to encourage high
employment, low inflation, steady investment, the uninterrupted flow of trade and commerce,
and so forth. Because national economies are rarely isolated from each other, most people also
expect that the state will respond to the international economic environment in such a way as to
enhance or at least defend and maintain the national standard of living (Bull 1995). But most

3
Noyuoro Christopher 10600322

people especially non-international relations students usually take these basic values (security;
freedom; order and justice; welfare) for granted. They only become aware of them when
something goes wrong for example, during a war or a depression, when things begin to get
beyond the control of individual states. On those learning occasions people wake up to the larger
circumstances of their lives which in normal times are a silent or invisible background. We
become aware of national independence and our freedom as citizens when peace is no longer
guaranteed. We become aware of international order and justice when some states, especially
major powers, abuse, exploit, denounce, or disregard international law or trample on human
rights. We become aware of national welfare and our own personal socioeconomic well-being
when foreign countries or international investors use their economic clout to jeopardize our
standard of living (Claude 1971). Hence, the study of international relations aids students and
people in the World to be aware of the values that states must uphold to in both the domestic and
international levels and these values are so important to our existence as human beings. For
example, the First World War made it dreadfully clear to most people just how devastatingly
destructive of lives and living conditions modern mechanized warfare between major powers can
be, and just how important it is to reduce the risk of great power war. Also, the anti-colonial
movements in Asia and Africa of the 1950s and 1960s and the secessionist movements in the
former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia at the end of the Cold War made it clear how
important self-determination and political independence continue to be.
Furthermore, it also helps us analyse or study the actions states take towards each other in the
international system. States can both defend and threaten peoples’ security because of fear and
that paradox of the state system is usually referred to as the ‘security dilemma. Just like any other
human organization, states present problems as well as provide solutions and because of the
motive of fear, profit and honour most states are likely to be friendly, non-threatening and peace-
loving. But a few states may be hostile and aggressive and there is no world government to
constrain them. That poses a basic and age-old problem of international national security. To
deal with this problem most states possess armed forces. Military power is usually considered a
necessity so that states can co-exist and deal with each other without being intimidated or
subjugated. Many states also enter into alliances with other states to increase their national
security. To ensure that no great power succeeds in achieving a hegemonic position of overall
domination, based on intimidation, coercion, or the outright use of force, it is also necessary to

4
Noyuoro Christopher 10600322

construct and maintain a balance of military power. Therefore, International relations students
get to know that more powerful or high level military states tend to formulate hostile relations
towards other countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan because of their strategic locations which
made them to withstand military threats from other states. The less powerful states are most
likely to formulate or take friendly actions towards other states especially the powerful ones in
order not to violate their principles which might surmount to military attack from these core
states (Claude 1971).
Moreover, International relations helps us to understand the policies of states in the
international system. This discipline helps us to read meaning into the policies that states
formulate in the World system since policy orientation and objectives may affect international
events and vice versa, hence, the need for people to study international relations(G.K Bluwey
2002). An analysis of foreign policy decisions states make towards others in the international
system can help uncover the cognitive processes that lead to foreign policy making and “get into
the minds” of leaders who make the decisions. It can also help identify unique and general
patterns of decisions and policies and generate insights about the leadership styles and
personalities that cannot be revealed through a systemic approach to foreign policy analysis.
The analysis or study of foreign policies and actions of states in the World system has the
potential to make a broad and important contribution to the welfare of states and their people
which makes the study of International relations very relevant (Voss and Dorsey 1992). For
example, in 1991, President George Bush senior called Saddam Hussein ‘another Hitler’ with
little attention to what was different either about the two men or about Iraq and in 1990 and
Germany in 1938. Fitting Saddam Hussein in to an existing framework through the use of
analogical reasoning gave the President a readily accessible script about how to respond to Iraq’s
invasion of Kuwait. May be different leader of the same country would have different view point
or understanding of the situation (Zaara Zain Hussain 2011).
Last but not least, it helps us provide deeper understandings of biases, motivations, and
perceptions of foreign policies by states and other actors in the international system. The growth
and development of theories of cognitive psychology and decision theory directly spurred
advances in foreign policy decision making in the international system (Voss and Dorsey 1992,
5–6). For example, many international relations theories apply specifically to great powers. A
foreign policy decision making approach, in contrast, can speak to issues that affect all nations

5
Noyuoro Christopher 10600322

(M. Hermann 2001). Nations have security considerations, trade disputes, and myriad other
agenda items – environmental, political that require decisions. Joe Hagan has outlined several
other compelling reasons for the study of foreign policy from a decision-making perspective
(Hagan 2001). Therefore, the study of International relations helps the students and people in the
World to carefully analyse the issues and factors that motivate a particular country foreign policy
decision makers to make certain decisions towards other states in the World system.
Lastly, International relations help us to understand how uncertainties shape foreign policy
decision makers’ response to systemic and military capacity ratios. Hagan tells us uncertainties,
value trade-offs, and dispersion of authority are important influences on foreign policy decision
making. Security decisions, for example, involve a great deal of uncertainty because policies are
often sorted out in debate between moderates and hard-liners, as is the case, for example, within
the current Iranian leadership. Therefore, international relations and foreign policy decision-
making theories can help us to understand the biases and perceptions of leaders in the
international system and these enables international students and other people interested in
international affairs to make informed and rational decisions towards other states and the
decisions are made to implement the position of the winning side(Hagan 2001). For instance, the
Corinthians in the Peloponnesian war after analyzing the biases, motivations and the perceptions
of the Athens invoked the motive of honour by arguing that the Athenians had an insatiable
aggressive character in an attempt to put the Spartans to shame, comparing that character with
the passive nature of the Spartans in general and Spartan pacifists in particular (William. O
Chittick and Annette Ferberg-Inan 2001).
In a totality, the points outlined and explained above such as, it helps us to know the
indispensable nature of the international system, it helps us to know the interdependent nature of
states in the World system, it enables us to know and understand the basic values that states
expected to uphold to in the domestic and international systems, it helps us analyse the actions
states take towards each other in the international system, it helps us to understand the policies of
states in the international system, it helps us provide deeper understandings of biases,
motivations, and perceptions of foreign policies by states and it helps us understand how
uncertainties shape foreign policy makers’ responses towards military and systemic issues in the
World system are the reasons why I would encourage my colleague to study International
relations and I believe he or she will never regret.

6
Noyuoro Christopher 10600322

References

 Renshon Jonathan and Lerner Jennifer S (2012). “Decision Making, the Role of Emotions

in Foreign Policy”, The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology, First ed. Edited by Daniel J.

Christine. Black Well Publishing Ltd, PP1-5

 Alex Mintz etal (1997). “Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making” (extracts),

Cambridge University Press , London, PP54-55

 Chittick William O. and Ferberg-Inan Annette, (2001), “Chiefly for fear , next for

honour, and lastly for profit”: an analysis of foreign policy motivation in the

Peloponnesian war, Review of International Studies PP.69-89

 Zain Z. Hussain (2011). “The effect of domestic politics on foreign policy decision

making” (www. e-ir.info/201102/07/the effect- of- domestic-politics-on-foreign –policy-

decision –making) PP1-10

 G.K Bluwey (2003). “The Study of International Relations” Press Print PP1-2

 Bull, H., and Watson, A. (eds.) (1984). “The Expansion of International Society”.

Oxford: Clarendon Pres

 Watson, A. (1992). “The Evolution of International Society”. London: Routledge

 Dougherty J, Pfaltzgraff R (2001). “Contending Theories of International Relations”: A

Comprehensive Survey, 5th Edition. New York: Longman.

 Goldstein J (2002). “International Relations”: Brief Edition. New York: Longman.