ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

COURSE TITLE INTRODUCTION TO CIVICS AND ETHICS

Course Code: LART 1001

Academic Year: 2022
Section 28
Individual Assignment
Name : Feven Adefris
ID.NO: UGR/25814/14
Sub.Date Tue, Nov 15,2022

Submitted to:- Ins. Girma Bekele

CONTENT …………………………………………. ……… Page

1. The Nature and Evolution of International Relation……………………… 4
1.1. Nature and evolution of international relations………….………… 4
1.2 Actors of International Relations: State and Non-State Actors...…… 9
1.3 The levels of analysis in the International Relation……… 10
2. Contending Theories of International
Relations……………………………………………………………………… 14
2.1. What is theory? How theories help us to understanding concepts of international
relation …………………………………………………………….. 14
2.2. The main ideas of realism and Neo-realism theories in international relation
……………………………………………………………………….. 15
2.3 The main ideas of liberalism and Neo-liberalism in international
relation.................................................................................................................... 17
2.4 The main ideas of Marxism and Neo-Marxism theories in international relations
…………………………………………………………………………. 19
2.5. The main ideas of critical theory and constructivism theory in international relation
………………………………………………………….. 20
2.6. The main ideas of modernism and post -modernism theory in international
relation……………………………………………………………… 22
3. NATIONAL INTEREST, FOREIGN POLICY And diplomacy…………… 24
3.1. The determinants of National interest and Foreign policy…... 24
3.2. The objective of foreign policy………………………………. 26
3.3. Foreign policy orientations………………………………………………… 28
3.4. Instruments of foreign policy………………………………………. 28

2
Introduction
International relations have become vital for the whole humanity and are characterized
by a high degree of interaction and interdependence.
A nation-state cannot exist all alone and it plays a role of an individual of primitive past,
who could not live with other.
Actors and Influences
Principal actors in International relations are state, international relations scholars
traditionally study the decision and act of those governments, in relation to other
governments. The individual actors: Leaders and citizen, bureaucratic agencies in
foreign ministries, and multinational corporations. There are state actors and Non-state
actors:
1.State Actors
•Most important actors in international relation state. State is territorial entity controlled
by a governments and inhabited by population.

•Theoretical assumption, recognized as sovereign by other states, population form a civil

society is group identity, and state government exercises sovereignty over its territory

•International system, set of relationship among the world’s, structured according to

certain rules and patterns of interaction. Modern international system has existed for less
than 500 years, origin in treaty of Westphalia 1648.

2.Non-State Actors
• Non-Government Organization
• Private Institution
• Prominence Person
• Media Institution
• Social Media

3
1.The Nature and Evolution of International Relation

1.1. Meaning, Nature and Scope of International Relations

What is International Relation?

International Relations is an important branch of Social Science. A term

international relations first used by Jeremy Bentham in 1798. International relations
literally refer to the interrelationships of states. The study of the political and social
interactions of state, non-state actors and individuals.
Today, international relations could be used to describe a range of interactions between
people, groups, firms, associations, parties, nations or states or between these and (non)
governmental international organizations.
The Scope of International relations is the complex relations existing among the
sovereign states of the world. It is mainly concerned, among other things, with the study
in depth of all events and situations affecting more than one state. Domestically a
government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
In international politics no one has a monopoly of force, and therefore international
politics has often been interpreted as the realm of self-help. There is accepted that some
states are stronger than others.
Domestic and international politics also differ in their underlying sense of community –
in international politics, divided peoples do not share the same loyalties – people
disagree about what seems just and legitimate; order and justice.

NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Due to increasing human-activities, the relations among various states has been
changing and due to these continuous changes in international relations, the meaning,
nature and scope of international relations has been changing. In medieval Europe there
were two institutions with pretensions to power over the continent as a whole – the
(Catholic) Church and the Empire.
The Church was the spiritual authority, with its center in Rome.
The Empire – known as the Holy Roman Empire was established in the 10th C in central,
predominantly German-speaking, Europe.

4
 It also included parts of Italy, France and today’s Netherlands and Belgium. It too
derived legitimacy from the Roman Empire, but had none of its political power.
Meanwhile, in Germany, the pope struggled with the emperor over the issue of who of
the two should have the right to appoint bishops. While, the two were fighting it out, the
constituent members of the Holy Roman Empire took the opportunity to assert their
independence.
This was also when the kings of France and England began acting more independently,
defying the pope’s orders.
In England, the king repealed the pope’s right to levy taxes on the people. With the
Reformation in the sixteenth century the notion of a unified Europe broke down
completely as the Church began to split apart.
Before long the followers of Martin Luther, 1483–1546, and John Calvin, 1509–1564,
had formed their own religious denominations which did not take orders from Rome.
Instead the new churches aligned themselves with the new states. Or rather, various
kings, such as Henry VIII in England or Gustav Vasa in Sweden, took advantage of the
religious strife in order to further their own political agendas. By supporting the
Reformation, they could free themselves from the power of Rome.
All over northern Europe, the new ‘Protestant’ churches became state-run and church
lands became property of the state.
These lead to 30 years religious war. From the sixteenth century onwards the states
established the rudiments of an administrative system and raised armies, both in order to
fight their own peasants and in order to defend themselves against other states. Since
such state-building was expensive, the search for money became a constant concern.
The Thirty Years’ War, 1618–1648, was the bloodiest and most protracted military
confrontation of the era. As a result of the war, Germany’s population was reduced by
around a third. What the Swiss or the Scottish mercenaries did not steal, the Swedish
troops destroyed. Many of the people who did not die on the battlefield died of the
plague. The Thirty Years’ War is often called a religious conflict since Catholic states
confronted Protestants.
Yet, Protestant and Catholic countries sometimes fought on the same side and religious
dogma was clearly not the first thing on the minds of the combatants.
Instead the war concerned which state should have hegemony (or dominance) over
Europe. That is, which state, if any, would take over from the universal institutions of
the Middle Ages.
The main protagonists were two Catholic states, France and Austria, but Sweden – a
Protestant country – intervened on France’s side and in the end no dominant power
emerged. The Treaty of Westphalia, 1648, which concluded the 30 years of warfare, has
come to symbolize the new way of organizing international politics.
5
From this point onwards, international politics was a matter of relations between states
and no other political units.
All states were sovereign, meaning that they laid claims to the exclusive right to rule
their own territories and to act, in relation to other states, as they themselves saw fit.
All states were formally equal and they had the same rights and obligations.
Taken together, the states interacted with each other in a system in which there was no
overarching power. Sovereignty and formal equality led to the problem of anarchy.
It was only in the nineteenth century that relations between Europe and the rest of the
world were irrevocably transformed. The reason is above all to be found in economic
changes taking place in Europe itself.
At the end of the eighteenth century, new ways of manufacturing goods were invented
which made use of machines powered by steam, and later by electricity, which made it
possible to engage in large-scale factory production. As a result of this so called
‘industrial revolution’, the Europeans could produce many more things and do it far
more efficiently.
As cheap, mass-produced goods flooded European markets, the Europeans began
looking for new markets overseas.
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, other European countries joined in this
scramble for colonies, not least in Africa. Colonial possessions became a symbol of
‘great power’ status, and the new European nation-states often proved themselves to be
very aggressive colonizers.
Once they finally made themselves independent in the decades after the Second World
War, as an international climate of decolonization took hold, all new states had a familiar
form. They had their respective territories and fortified borders; their own capitals,
armies, foreign ministries, flags, national anthems and all the other paraphernalia of
European statehood.
There are many factors which affects nature of international relations such as evolution
of new nations, technological development, nuclear research, rise of multipolar world,
emergence of new order, non-state organizations, global problems, so and so forth.
Due to changing nature of international relation, it is very difficult to explain the nature
of international relations. However, these are the following important points explaining
the nature of international relations;
NO SINGLE DEFINITION. International relations has no single definition.
Unfortunately, till date, no universally accepted definition of international relations have
been coined because of its continuous changing nature.
1. OPERATES IN ANARCHICAL SYSTEM. International relations operates in
an anarchical system. There is no single organization to regulate relations among

6
 states. Michael Nicholson writes “international relation is study of aspects of
anarchy, though an anarchy which is not necessarily chaotic.
2. INTER-DISCIPLINARY SUBJECT.
International relations is inter-disciplinary subject. In 1998, UNESCO mentioned
international relations as a sub-field of political science because scholars of
international relations analyze political relations, economic relations, social
relations and cultural relations, etc.
3. CONCERNS WITH GLOBAL ISSUES

International relations deals with key issues which concerns public global interest.
Goldstein and Pavehouse in his book, “International Relations” write,
International relations revolves around one key problem: how to balance interest
of international states with the global interest?
For example – every country has an interest in stopping global warming, a goal that can
be achieved only by many countries acting together. Yet each country also has an
individual interest in burning fossil fuels to keep its economy going.
They proposed three principles in context to collective goods problem. These three basic
principles are – Dominance, Reciprocity, and Identity. These three offer possible
solutions to this core problem of getting individuals to cooperate for common good
without a central authority to make them do so.
DOMINANCE. The principle of dominance solves the collective goods problem by
establishing a power hierarchy in which those at the top control those below. Therefore,
instead of fighting constantly to get more scarce resources, the members of group can
fight for better position in ‘status hierarchy’. Then social conflicts such as over who gets
resources are resolved automatically in favor of the higher-ranking actor.
The advantage of dominance solution to the collective goods problem are that it can
establish order and provide stability in international system whereas its disadvantages
are that it leads to oppression
over small and weak countries as well as resentment within them against the countries
holding top position in hierarchy system.
RECIPROCITY. The principle of reciprocity solves the collective goods problem by
rewarding behavior that contributes the group and punishing behavior that pursues self-
interest at the expense of the group.
7
Reciprocity is very easy to enforce without any central authority, making it a robust way
to get individuals to cooperate for the common good. But the reciprocity operates in
both way; positively (‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’) and negatively (“an
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”). The disadvantage of reciprocity solution is that it
can lead to downward spirals as each side punishes what it believes to be negative acts
by other. It fuels arms races as each side responds to the other’s buildup weapons. But it
also allows arm control agreements and other step-by-step conflict-resolution measures.
IDENTITY. This third solution to the collective goods problem lies in the identities of
participants as members of a community. Unlike member of dominance solution and
reciprocity solution, member of an identity community care about the interests of the
community enough to sacrifice their own interest to benefit others.
In international relations, identity communities play important roles in overcoming
difficult collective goods problems, including the issue of who contributes to
development assistance, world health, or UN peacekeeping missions.

SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

International relations compose our largest society. Since the Age of Colonization in the
eighteenth century, international relations have encompassed the globe. The scope of
international relations is not yet well settle. It is continuously expending & becoming
very complex due to many factors such as LPG (globalization, privatization, &
liberalization), advancement in technology (communication, transportation, & media),
global issues (Terrorism, poverty, global warming, etc.), so on & so forth. Now, world
has become a global village.
Michael Nicholson writes in his book “international relations a concise introduction” –
that – scholars of international relations study, peace and war; imperialism and
nationalism; the wealth of some societies and the poverty of others; nuclear weapons
and the possibility of extinction; the
environment and global warming; human rights across the world; the merging of states
and the splitting up of states; the European Union; international organizations; religions
and their political impact; trade and the development of the multinational corporation;
race and gender around the globe; globalization and the information revolution.

8
1.2. Actors of International Relations State and Non-State Actors
The participants in international relations, often called actors, have a great influence on
the relationships between nations and on world affairs. They are two types of actors
involved in international relations include State and non-state actors. State actors
represent a government while non-state actors do not. However, they have impact on the
state actors.
The major participants include:

The state (nations themselves, the leaders of those nations)

Sub-state actors (groups or organizations within a nation),

Transnational actors (organizations operating in more than one country), and

international organizations..

State Actors in International relation

Among other things, they regulate international trade, coordinate joint military missions
among states, deter military aggression, promote important principles like respect for
human rights, and help to settle disputes among states.
International politics come to be defined in terms of interactions between states. All
states have their own capitals, armies, foreign ministries, flags and national anthems. in
an international system of states where these are ‘sovereign’ entities, territorially bound,
and independent ultimately of any external authority.
Nations vary in size and power
The great powers include the United States, Great Britain, Russia (formerly the Soviet
Union), France, China, Germany, and Japan.
These powers are the most important actors in international relations.
Leaders (The most important individual actor within a nation is the top leader of that
country, i.e. The president/The Prime Minister)

9
Non state international relation

Non-state actors are individuals or organizations that have powerful economic, political
or social power and are able to influence at a national and sometimes international level
but do not belong to or a lied themselves to any particular countries or state. Are groups
and individuals within that nation that influence its international relationships. These
domestic actors, include particular industries with distinct interests in foreign policy
(such as the automobile or tobacco industry) and ethnic constituencies with ties to
foreign countries, as well as labor unions, cities, and regions.
These groups can influence a nation’s foreign policy in several ways, such as by
lobbying political leaders, donating money to political candidates or parties, or swaying
public opinion on certain issues.

According to pealman and cunninghem, non-state actors are define as “an

organized political actor not directly connected to the state but pursing aims that affect
vital state interests” (Perlman and Cunningham,2011).
Others than having characteristics such as having power and the ability to
influence. Non-state actors have a base or headquarter in a certain state but there
activities will not only be operating in the state itself but will also be operating beyond
the border of the state.
Types of Non state actors
Sub-state actors
Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)
Transnational Actors
Transitional Corporation (TNCs)/Multinational Corporations (MNCs)
Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)

10
1.3 The level of analysis in the International Relation

System level analysis examines state behavior by looking at the international system. In
this level of analysis, the international system is the cause and state behavior is the
effect. Characteristics of the international system cause states to behave the way they do.
There are four imperative levels of analysis in international relations theory; individual-
level, group-level, state-level, and system-level. research to encompass the major
assumptions at each level of analysis, and major proponents of each theory, beginning
with the systemic-level theory.

1.The individual level

International relations can be analyzed from the perspective of individuals. Here we
would look at the behaviors, motivations, beliefs and orientation of the individual in
affecting a particular international phenomenon.
This can be seen in the psychology and emotions behind people’s actions and decisions,
their fears and their visions as well as their access to information and capacity to make a
difference.
2.The group level
A group-level analysis focusing on foreign policy would look at the role of lobbying
groups, special interest groups and the way they influence national decision-making on
an issue.
3.The state level
Also known as ‘state-centrisim’
In this level of analysis the state acts as the arena in which state officials, politicians and
decision-makers operate.
The state is seen as the framework that encapsulates society and as the main point of
reference for the individual.
A state-level study would also require careful consideration of what kinds of states we
are looking at
How they are ordered politically,
Their geographical position,
Their historical ties and experiences and their economic standing.
4.The system level
This level of analysis conceive the global system as the structure or context within
which states cooperate, compete and confront each other over issues of national interest.

11
It is a level above the state.
It is usually distributed into three main types of systems i.e.
Uni-polar system
Bipolar system and
Multipolar system.
In a uni-polar international system there is one state with the greatest political,
economic, cultural and military power and hence the ability to totally control other
states.
In the case of the bipolar system, there are two dominant states (super powers) and the
less powerful states join either sides through alliance and counter alliance formations.
(E.g.. Cold war period).
The problem with bipolar system is that it is vulnerable for zero-sum game politics
because when one superpower gains the other would inevitably lose.
Multipolar system usually reflects various equally powerful states competing for power.

In such system, it is possible to bring change without gaining or losing power.

Power, Anarchy and Sovereignty in the International System

Power

Power is the currency of international politics. As money is for economics, power is for
international relations (politics).
In the international system, power determines the relative influence of actors and it
shapes the structure of the international system.
Power can also be defined as ‘A’ s’ ability to get ‘B’.
Anarchy
Anarchy is a situation where there is absence of authority (government) be it in national
or international/global level systems.
Within a country ‘anarchy’ refers to a breakdown of law and order, but in relations
between states it refers to a system where power is decentralized and there are no shared
institutions with the right to enforce common rules.
An anarchical world is a world where everyone looks after themselves and no one looks
after the system as a whole.
Sovereignty
Sovereignty is another basic concept in international relations and it can be defined as
an expression of:
12
A state’s ultimate authority within its territorial entity (internal sovereignty) and,
The state’s involvement in the international community (external sovereignty).
In short, sovereignty denotes double claim of states from the international system, i.e.,
autonomy in foreign policy and independence/freedom in its domestic affairs.

13
2. Contending Theories of International Relations
2.1 What is theory? How theories help us to understanding Concepts of
International Relations?
What is theory?
- A theory is a logical abstraction about a phenomenon or the conclusions of such an
abstraction. Contemplative and rational thinking are frequently associated with
processes such as observational study or research.
- Is a well-thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that was built
using the scientific method and incorporates many facts and hypotheses.
- The term "theory" in modern science refers to scientific theories, which are well-
confirmed types of explanations of nature that are made in accordance with the scientific
method and fulfil the requirement essential for modern science.
Why theory is important
o Theory provides concepts for labelling what we see and explaining relationships
between concepts. Theory enables us to explain what we see and determine how
to achieve change. Theory is a tool that allows us to identify a problem and plan a
solution to change the situation.
o Theory is to justify reimbursement to get funding and support need it explain what
is being done and demonstrate that it works theory and research
o theory is to enhance the growth of the professional area to identify a body of
knowledge with theories from both within and without the area of distance
learning. That body knowledge grows with theory and research.
International relations theory :-is the study of international relations (IR) from a
theoretical perspective. It seeks to explain causal and constitutive effects in
international politics.
Understanding international relation theories
-Theories of International Relations allow us to understand and try to make sense of the
world around us through various lenses, each of which represents a different theoretical
perspective. In order to consider the field as a whole for beginners it is necessary to
simplify International Relation theory.
International relations are a complex dynamic process that spans centuries, involving
individual psychology as well as socio-political dynamics. A given socio-political
environment influences situations, with numerous elements that can also be referred to
as environment in terms of how humans react, influencing possible outcomes. Having a
broad and deep understanding of various “theories” history and human psychology
allows individual to utilize them all in conjugation with each other achieving synergies
as particular events may resonate with a given perspective or multiple ones at a given
point.
This can allow us to anticipate events and affect outcomes or at least predict them within
the dynamic itself instead of just analyzing it after the fact. We can reach a point where
Page 14
we see a set of evets occurring and because of our awareness and knowledge base we
can see the future and therefore sometimes alter outcomes I real time.
-There are about 5 theories of international relations those are
1. Realism - is a straightforward approach to international relations that asserts that all
nations are attempting to expand their own power, and that the countries that manage
to horde power most efficiently will prosper, as they can easily overshadow the
accomplishments of less powerful nations.
2. Liberalism -is based on the belief that the current global system is capable of
engendering a peaceful world order. Rather than relying on aggressive force, such as
military involvement, liberalism emphasizes international collaboration as a means of
advancing the best interest of each nation.
3. Constructivism - is the theory that states instead of inactively absorbing
information, learners build knowledge..
 Assimilation -refers to the process of taking new information and fitting it
into an existing schema.
 Accommodation -refers to using newly acquired information to revise and
redevelop an existing schema.
4. Marxism- offers an alternative understanding of International Relations or (IR),
particularly of the realist theory of international relations.
5. Feminism - involves looking at how international politics affects and is affected by
both men and women and also at how the core concepts that are employed within the
discipline of IR (e.g., war, security, etc.) are themselves gendered.
-As I broadly understood I can summarize by saying, international relations attempt to
explain the interactions of others whose behavior originates within one country and it’s
targeted towards the members of other countries.
2.2 What are the main ideas of Realism and Neo-realism in International
Relations?
The ideas of realism come from the writings of such historical figures as Sun
Tzu of ancient China, Thucydides of ancient Greece, Italy’s Niccolò
Machiaelli. Thomas Hobbes, and Max Weber.
The first assumption of realism is that the nation-state (usually abbreviated as "state") is
the main subject of international affairs. There are other groups, such as individuals and
organizations, but their power is limited. Second, the nation is a unified actor. National
interest means that the nation speaks and acts in one voice, especially during the war.
Third, decision makers are rational actors in the sense that rational decision-making

Page 15
leads to the pursuit of national interests. It is not rational here to take steps to weaken or
make your state’s condition vulnerable. Realism suggests that all leaders, regardless of
political persuasion, are aware of this when trying to control national affairs in order to
survive in a highly competitive environment. After all, the nation lives in the context of
anarchy. In other words, no one calls shots internationally. The commonly used analogy
of "no one to call" in an international emergency helps to emphasize this point. In our
own states, there are usually police, military, courts, and so on. In an emergency, these
agencies are expected to "take action.".

Internationally, there is no clear expectation that someone or something will "do

something" because there is no established hierarchy. After all, states can rely solely on
themselves. Since realism often makes use of past examples, the emphasis is on human
beings being held hostage to repetitive behavioral patterns determined by their nature.
At the heart of this assumption is the view that humans are selfish and hungry for power.
Realists believe that our self-interest, our thirst for power, and our inability to trust
others lead to predictable results. Perhaps that is why war was so common in recorded
history. Since individuals are organized into the nation, human nature influences the
behavior of the nation. with this In honor, Niccolò Machiavelli focused on how basic
human traits affect national security. And in his time, the leaders were mostly men. It
also affects the realistic depiction of politics. In The Prince (1532), Machiavelli
emphasized that the leader's main concern was to promote national security. To
successfully perform this task, the leader must Be vigilant and effectively deal with
both internal and external threats to his control. He must be a lion and a fox. Power
(lion) and deception (fox) are important tools in carrying out foreign policy. In
Machiavelli's view, rulers follow "ethics of responsibility" rather than the traditional
religious morals that guide the average citizen. To ensure the survival of the nation, we
need to be prepared to use force as needed.

In Theory of International Politics (1979), Kenneth Waltz modernized IR theory

by moving realism away from the unprovable (convincing) 17 human nature
assumptions of international relations theory. His theoretical contribution is called
"neorealism" or "structural realism" because he emphasized the term "structure" in his
explanation. National decisions and actions are not based on human nature, but on
simple formulas. First, all states are constrained by being in an international chaotic
system of "this is a structure." Second, the course of action they take is based on relative
strength compared to other states. So, Waltz provided a version of realism that advised
theorists to look at the characteristics of the international system to get answers, rather
than delving into the flaws in humanity. In doing so, he led a new era of IR theory that
sought to use social science methods rather than political theory (or philosophy)
methods. The difference is that we can measure waltz variables empirically / physically
(international disorder, the magnitude of the power of the nation, etc.). Thoughts like

Page 16
humanity are assumptions based on certain philosophical views that cannot be measured
in the same way.

2.3 The main ideas of Liberalism and Neo- Liberalism in International Relations
Liberalism is a school of thought within international relations theory which
revolves around three interrelated principles:
1. Rejection of power politics as the only possible outcome of international relations; it
questions security/warfare principles of realism
2. Mutual benefits and international cooperation
3. The role of international organizations and nongovernmental actors in shaping state
preferences and policy choices
This school of thought emphasizes three factors that promote greater inter-state
cooperation and less conflict: International organizations, such as the United Nations,
that provide a forum for nonviolent conflict resolution; International trade is important
because when countries' economies are linked through trade, they are less likely to go to
war with one another. Spread of democracy, because well-established democracies do
not go to war with one another, so interstate war will be less common as there are more
democracies. Liberals believe that international institutions play an important role in
state cooperation through interdependence. Interdependence has three major
components. States interact in a variety of ways, including economic, financial, and
cultural means; security is rarely the primary goal in state-to-state interactions, and
military forces are rarely used. Liberals also argue that international diplomacy can be a
very effective way of getting states to interact honestly with one another and support
nonviolent problem-solving solutions. Liberals believe that with the right institutions
and diplomacy, states can work together to maximize prosperity and minimize conflict.
One of the major schools of thought in international relations theory is liberalism.
Liberalism derives from the Latin liber, which means "free," and originally referred to
the philosophy of liberty. Its origins can be traced back to Enlightenment-era liberal
thought. The central issues it seeks to address are the problems of achieving long-term
Page 17
peace and cooperation in international relations, as well as the various methods that
could help to achieve these goals. Libertarians frequently believe that democracy can be
spread through cooperation.
Liberalism is based on the moral argument that ensuring the right of an individual
person to life, liberty and property is the highest goal of government. Consequently,
liberals emphasize the wellbeing of the individual as the fundamental building block of a
just political system.
Neoliberalism, also known as neo-liberalism, refers to the twentieth-century revival of
19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism. A significant factor in the rise
of conservative and libertarian organizations, political parties, and think tanks, and one
that they primarily advocate. it is generally associated with policies of economic
liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade,
monetarism, austerity and reductions in government spending in order to increase the
role of the private sector in the economy and society. However, the defining
characteristics of neoliberalism in both thought and practice have been the subject of
extensive scholarly discussion.
As an economic philosophy, neoliberalism emerged among European liberal
scholars in the 1930s as they attempted to revive and renew central ideas from classical
liberalism as these ideas faded in popularity, overtaken by a desire to control markets in
the aftermath of the Great Depression, and manifested in policies designed to counter the
volatility of free markets and mitigate their negative social consequences. One impetus
for the formulation of policies to mitigate free-market volatility was a desire to avoid
repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, failures sometimes attributed
principally to the economic policy of classical liberalism. Neoliberalism is frequently
used in policymaking to refer to what was part of a paradigm shift that followed the
alleged failure of the Keynesian consensus in economics to address the 1970s
stagflation.

Page 18
 2.4 The main ideas of Marxism and Neo-Marxism in International Relations
In the nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels predicted that capitalist
globalization would be the primary source of instability in the international system,
specifically the conflict between two classes: the national bourgeoisie and the
cosmopolitan proletariat. Marxism's guideline for understanding processes in domestic
and international affairs was going to be historical materialism. Thus, according to
Marx, human history has been a struggle to meet material needs while also resisting
class dominance and exploitation. Despite ideological criticism, Marxism has significant
empirical advantages. To begin with, by emphasizing injustice and inequality, it is very
relevant to all times because these two failures of human society have never been absent.
Marxism, like neorealism, is a structural theory, but it focuses on the economic
sector rather than the military-political one. Its analysis reflects the relationship between
the base (production modes) and the superstructure (political institutions). Not anarchy,
but the capitalist mode of production that defines unjust political institutions and state
relations, is the source of structural effects. This economic reductionism is also regarded
as a major flaw. The neo-Gramscian school proposed a further development as a
solution. They were able to develop a theory of global hegemony by combining global
capitalism, state structure, and political-economic institutions (ideological domination).
According to this theory, hegemony is maintained through close cooperation among
powerful elites both inside and outside the world system's core regions. Political and
economic institutions exert pressure on less developed and unstable peripheral countries
as part of global governance.

From an epistemological point of view, Marxism created the foundations for

critical theory and it is superior in this sense to the dominant approaches of Anglo-
American international relations that are problem-solving theories. As any other critical
theory, Marxism has a normative interest in identifying possibilities for social

Page 19
transformation and how theory is instrumental to power. This is why Marx wrote about
capitalism with an interest in the social forces that would bring about its downfall
hoping that humanity would be free from domination and exploitation. Realists, in
particular, believe that this is politically motivated rather than objective and neutral.
The normative disadvantage of Marxism is that it promotes the Enlightenment
ideal of cosmopolitanism, which can be seen as Eurocentric. relation certain concepts
are key to an understanding of Marxism, a political theory that has shaped world politics
for over 150 years. Key Marxist concepts are diametrically opposed to capitalism, and
some believe they have created a 'them and us' mentality in society. Marxism holds that
capitalism can only survive by exploiting the working class. There was a clear conflict
between human nature and the way we were expected to work in a capitalist society.
Marxism takes a dialectical approach to life, believing that everything has two sides.
Capitalism, according to Marxism, is both an economic and a political system.
Karl Marx's ideas are the foundation of Neo-Marxism. Marx believed that
economic power led to political power, and that understanding societies hinged on this.
According to Neo-Marxists, the economic system produces a wealthy class of owners
and a poor class of workers. They also believe that certain social institutions, such as
churches, prisons, and schools, were established to maintain the power divide.
2.5The main ideas of Critical theory and constructivism theory in International
Relations?
Critical theory
The leading scholars of this theory are Jurgen Habermas, Robert Cox and Andrew
Linklater.
In 1937, Max Horkheimer, one of the founders of the Frankfurt Institute of Social
Research, coined the term critical theory. While the school did not produce a systematic
theory, it did draw on and intertwine various philosophical strands and prominent
themes of political and social thought, such as historical materialism (Marxism/Western
Marxism), Freudian analysis, cultural disenchantment, Hegelian dialectics, and totality.
However, by the 1940s, many first-generation Frankfurt School thinkers sought to
counter the emasculation of critical reason, dialectics, and self-conscious theory by
focusing on dialectics' negativity. Later critics would claim that they had abandoned the
Enlightenment's progressive platform, or the project of emancipation from social and
political oppression. By resituating reason and social action in linguistics, Jürgen

Page 20
Habermas' communicative action theory would provide a so-called critical turn in
Frankfurt school critical theory in the 1980s.
During this period, international relations (IR) theorists would draw on Habermas'
and other critical theorists' theories to critique the limits of realism, the dominant
structural paradigm of international relations at the time. The seminal works of Robert
Cox, Richard Ashley, Mark Hoffman, and Andrew Linklater were among the early
1stages of this critical theory intervention in international relations. Perhaps more than
any other critical IR theorist, Linklater was instrumental in repositioning the
emancipatory project in IR theory, intertwining various social and normative strands of
critical thought. As a result, two seemingly diametrically opposed critical IR theory
approaches emerged: one emphasizing the role of universal principles, dialogue, and
difference, and the other emphasizing the revolutionary transformation of social
relations and the state in international political economy (historical materialism). These
critical interventions collectively reflected an important "third debate" (or "fourth," if
one counts the earlier inter-paradigm debate) in IR concerning the opposition between
epistemology (representation and interpretation) and ontology (science and immutable
structures). Perhaps more importantly, they emphasized the importance of taking stock
of the field's growing pluralism and what this meant for understanding and interpreting
the growing complexity of global politics (i.e., the rising influence of technology, human
rights and democracy, and nonstate actors).
The growing emphasis on promoting "rigorous pluralism" would then include a
wide range of critical investigations into the transformation of social relations, norms,
and identities in international relations. Critical globalization studies, critical security
studies, feminism, postmodernism, and postcolonialism.
It is important to note that critical theory incorporates a wide range of approaches all
focused on the idea of liberating people from the modern state and economic system - a
concept known as emancipation to critical theorists. The concept derives from the work
of authors such as Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx, who advanced various revolutionary
ideas about how the world could be reordered and transformed in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. Both Kant and Marx were committed to the Enlightenment theme
of universalism, which holds that there are universal social and political principles that
apply to everyone, everywhere.
Both authors became pivotal figures for theorists seeking to replace the modern state
system by promoting more just global political arrangements such as a federation of free
states living in perpetual peace (Kant) or communism as a global social and economic
system to replace the unequal capitalist order (Marx). Critical theory seeks to criticize
today's repressive social practices and institutions while also advancing emancipation by
promoting ideas and practices that adhere to universalist principles of justice. This type
of critique has a transformative dimension in that it seeks to change national societies,
international relations, and the emerging global society, beginning with alternative ideas
and practices that linger in the background of the historical process.

Page 21
Constructivism
is another theory commonly viewed as a middle ground.
Constructivism is a distinctive approach to international relations that focuses on the
social interaction of agents or actors in world politics.

Nicholas Onuf coined the term Constructivism in 1989, defining it as "people and
societies construct or constitute each other." Constructivists believe that the fundamental
structures of international politics are social, and that these structures shape actors'
identities and interests. As a result, the world is structured by both knowledge and
material factors; constructivists believe that the most important relationship is between
agents and structures. Furthermore, constructivists share a common concern in
understanding and explaining how international structures are defined by ideas, and how
the structures influence the identities and interests of states and non-state actors.
Constructivism primarily seeks to demonstrate how, contrary to the assumptions of
neorealism and neoliberalism, core aspects of international relations are socially
constructed. This means that they take shape as a result of ongoing social practice and
interaction. "The structures of human association are determined primarily by shared
ideas rather than material forces," writes Alexander Wendt, "and the identities and
interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by
nature." This is not to say that constructivists believe in "ideas all the way down," but
rather that international politics is characterized by both material and ideational factors.
Constructivism is based on the ideas that ideas matter and that agents are socially
constructed.
Constructivist research focuses on both causal explanations for phenomena and analyses
of how things are built. The emphasis in the study of national security is on the
conditioning that culture and identity have on security policies and related behaviors.
Identities are required to ensure at least some level of predictability and order. The
arrival, as a critical factor in international relations, of recent debates on epistemology,
sociology of knowledge, the agent/structure relationship, and the ontological status of
social facts can be conceived as the object of constructivist discourse.
Writers who identify as constructivist theorists believe that international relations are
influenced not only by power politics, but also by ideas. The fundamental structures of
international politics, according to this viewpoint, are social rather than strictly material.
As a result, social constructivists argue that changes in the nature of state-to-state social
interaction can result in a fundamental shift toward greater international security.
2.6 The main ideas of modernism and post-modernism theory in International
Relations
Modernization scholars believed that the transition to modernity, the condition of
being modern, would recapitulate the European experience.

Page 22
 Modernity: typically denotes "a post-traditional, post-medieval historical period",
in particular, one marked by progress from agrarianism via the rise of industrialism,
capitalism, secularization, the nation-state, and its constituent forms of
surveillance.
Hence, to be modernized you need to “change in a value and attitude”
According to this theory, development in developing countries would come
about and would be engineered through the diffusion of innovations, capital,
technology, modern ideas, entrepreneurial ship, democratic institutions, and
values from the developed western societies.
Postmodernism is a period of time between the beginning and end of modernity,
measured in years. Postmodernism emerged as a concept and as a continuation and
reaction to modernity, which fails to provide an objective understanding of world events.
The postmodernist perspective on international relations focuses on how language,
ideas, abstract concepts, and norms influence political action and activities. (1984,
Lyotard)
Since the 1980s, postmodern international relations has been a part of
international relations scholarship. Although different schools of thought exist, a key
component of postmodernist theories is a distrust of any account of human life that
claims to have direct access to the truth. Theories such as Marxism that provide an
overarching metanarrative to history are criticized by postmodern international relations
theory.
One criticism leveled at postmodern approaches to international relations is that
they place too much emphasis on theoretical concepts while ignoring empirical
evidence.

The reflection of post-modernism thoughts in international relations

Most of post-modernism/post structuralism writings in international relations are as
using concepts, methods, fundamental thoughts of this movement in international
relations and we should talk cautiously of the post-modernism theorists in this field as
most of
them have shown that they don’t resort fully to post-modernist views. Evaluation of the
effects of post-modernism, Vasquez refers to the international relations study field and

Page 23
five dimensions of this thought are as follows:
• Modernism's favorite nature: In post-modernism thought, two important elitist ideas
are rejected: progress as rising instead of "separation," and modernity as the end of
history and the perfection of humanity.
• Raising choice rather than reality: According to post-structuralisms, nothing is
necessary, and the existing arrangements are the result of people's efforts; everything is
"raised," and what exists is the result of "choices."
• Reality as social constructivism: If what exists is "favorite" and the result of human
choice, it is constructed by people, and beliefs and behaviors are "human imposition."
• Self-realizing preventions are exposed to conceptual frameworks. Parts of the world
represented by images are created in practice by developing beliefs and practice based
on them. Nonetheless, scientific inquiry is not entirely value-free because it aids in the
construction of structures that approve some lifestyles while rejecting others. As a result,
science is not a useful tool; it is a procedure that creates a lifestyle.
The origin of modernism and postmodernism theory of International relations
Modernism refers to the main cultural lifestyle of the period from the 1890s to the start
of World War II, which included ideas and values in painting, music, sculpture,
architecture, design, and literature. Modernism is a component of the social movements
and transformations in political, sociological, scientific, sexual, and family life that have
occurred in Europe and other colonized and imperialized parts of the world. These
movements and transformations in scientific and technological fields have both positive
and negative effects on people's socio-political and economic well-being.
Another social science discipline uses the term or concept postmodernism to describe a
way of thinking that has become common in western society cultures. Postmodernism is
also an approach to reality that has had a significant impact on architecture, art,
education, law, literature, psychology, science, theater, history, and theology.
Main assumptions of postmodernism theory of International relations
Postmodernism, like critical theorists, seeks to familiarize theorists and scholars with
their conceptual prisons. Postmodernism also attacks or criticizes modernity, arguing
that the most significant prison is that of modernity itself, as well as the entire notion
that modernization leads to progress and a better life for all. Postmodernism challenged
classical liberalism's faith in Enlightenment thinkers such as Immanuel Kant and Waltz,
a Neorealist who believes in scientific methodologies to explain how the world works.

Page 24
3. National Interest, Foreign policy and Diplomacy
3.1 The Determinants Of National Interest And Foreign Policy
3.1.1 What is Foreign Policy?
A country’s foreign policy consists of self-interest strategies chosen by the state to
safeguard its national interests and to achieve its own goals through relations with other
countries. The approaches are strategically employed to interact with other countries.
• Foreign policy dictates how a country will act with respect to other countries
politically, socially, economically, and militarily.
• Also known as diplomacy.
• Often aimed at protecting national interests.
• Foreign policy can promote both national interest and internationalism.
• Accordingly, while exercising its power of foreign policy designing the federal
government shall:
• Protect national interest and respect the sovereignty of the country.
• Ensure that the foreign relation policies of the country are based on mutual interests
and equality of states as well as those international agreements promote the interest
of Ethiopia.
• Observe international agreements which ensure respect for Ethiopia’s sovereignty and
are not contrary to the interest of its peoples
• Forge and promote ever growing economic and fraternal relation of peoples with
Ethiopia’s neighbors and other African countries.
• Seek and support peaceful solutions to international relations.
3.1.2 What is National Interest?
means:
• Nations and nation-states try to act in their national interest
• National Interest: The interests of the people of a nation; their prosperity, security and
survival.
“National Interest is, that which states seek to protect or achieve in relation to each
other. It means desires on the part of sovereign states.”
• A state ‘s national interests are its primary goals and ambitions (economic, military,
or cultural). Foreign policies are implemented to ensure that these national interests are
met.

Page 25
 • In the past, foreign policy was primarily military-related. Now, in a globalized
world, foreign policies involve other areas as well such as trade, finance, human rights,
environmental issues, etc.
A country’s goals and ambitions whether economic, military, or cultural. Primary is the
state’s survival, welfare, and security. Also important is the pursuit of wealth, economic
growth, and power
“The values, desires and interests which states seek to protect or achieve in relation to
each other” “desires on the part of sovereign states”.
•National Interests can as defined as the claims, objectives, goals, demands and interests
which a nation always tries to preserve, protect, defend and secure in relations with other
nations.
•National interests commonly include:
•Self preservation (primary duty of any government)
•Independence (Sovereignty)
•Economic well-being
•Military security.

3.1.3 National Interest And Foreign Policy

 Policy: A plan of action that has been deliberately chosen to guide or influence future
decisions.
 Domestic Policy: A plan of action that guides a government’s decisions about what to
do within a country.
 Foreign Policy: A plan of action that guides a government’s decisions about
its official relations with other countries.
 National identity and national interest both have profound impacts on the policies set
by government.
 Policy decisions can have lasting effects on many people and may define the course
of history
• This can be achieved by continuous efforts for pursuing defined national interests with
the help of country’s foreign policy. National interests are decided in the term of
needs, aims or expectations that are communicated to the policymakers through the
citizens of a country.

Page 26
• National interest can also be defined in the context of protection against aggression,
increasing the standards of living or considering right place in international
institutions.
3.2 Objective of foreign policy
What is objective of foreign policy?
Let us, then, take up the foreign policy objectives in the following section.
Such classifications of foreign policy objectives is based on the combination of the three
criteria:
• The value placed on the objective
• The time element placed on it is achievement and
• The kind of demands the objective imposes on other states in international system
The means of foreign policy can be divided into direct and indirect.
• Indirect Foreign policy means:-
Indirect means of foreign policy are the reflection of the position of a coun-try in the
international community.
A country can put them to good use and rely on them when it promotes or protects its
own interests.
Among indirect means, the following should be listed:
the country’s international status;
its membership in international organisations;
its alliances;
the credibility and reputation it enjoys in international public opinion, and
ultimately,
the image of its political, economic, and military power.
• These indirect means are usually not considered foreign policy means that a country
can use in its foreign policy activities, but they provide the background for the use of
those other means which are regarded as direct means of foreign policy.
Direct Foreign Policy Means
• Direct means are the means which are usually dealt with and defined both in the
theory practice of foreign policy as ‘means of foreign policy’.
• The direct means of foreign policy are usually divided into the means of coercion and
the means of persuasion.
• The means of coercion are those used in a country’s foreign policy in an attempt to
force another country to behave in a certain way, to abandon or change certain

Page 27
 practices, or to meet the requests of the country which is using the means of coercion
(enforcement).
• The means of coercion are rarely used even by those States that have them in their
possession.
• In addition, the use of some of the means of coercion is limited or prohibited by
international law
3.3 Foreign policy orientations
• Only policy makers in great-power nations can aspire to realize grand strategies. They
rarely succeed. In the contemporary international environment, coherence is more likely
to be achieved by aiming at something more modest, a principle around which foreign
policy might be oriented. Responsible sovereignty is the most promising candidate.
Responsible sovereignty focuses on the need to create states capable of governing
effectively within their own borders and to realizing, where possible, mutually beneficial
bargains with regard to global public goods.
• Irresponsible sovereigns and failing states threaten the well-being of their own
populations and the security, domestic norms, and authority structures of even the
world’s most powerful countries. There is no alternative to responsible sovereigns; no
regional much less global authority structure can replace the state.
• Another important aspect of the foreign aid is the conditions attached to the aid by
the grantee country. As foreign aids are given to persuade a country, openly or indirectly,
to behave in a certain way, these aids would be linked most of the time to various kinds
of limitations on their usage. At he least, all the aid agreements include a clause to the
effect that the “aids received could only be used for the purpose(s) of their distribution”.
• Diplomacy is a way of dealing with other nations through compromise and
communication. It requires different governments and leaders to meet and discuss
various issues. Modern diplomacy is one of the main elements of foreign policy.
Individuals view diplomacy as a form of peacemaking without the externalities that war
brings about.
3.4 Identify Instruments Of Foreign Policy
Foreign policy refers to how the state manages international relations, from the initial
agenda to executing the policy. There are three major instruments that conduct foreign
policy including:
• Diplomacy,
• Foreign Aid, And
• Military Force.
Instrument /techniques are the tools /device through which government achieved his
objective at regional and international levels

Page 28
 • Alliances
• International organization
• Collective security
• Military power

Conclusion
International relations is attempts to explain the interactions of states
in the global interstate system, and it also attempts to explain the
interactions of others whose behavior originates within one country
and is targeted toward members of countries.
So we have to develop international relations with other countries.
International relations theory:- is the study of international relations
(IR) from a theoretical perspective. It seeks to explain causal and
constitutive effects in international politics.
Realism theory in IR, it can be concluded that the main keys areas of
realism are power and capabilities of the state, National Interest,
seeking security for survival in international anarchy and state is the
unitary actor in the international politics.

Page 29
 References
1. https://books.google.com.et/books?
id=5CVpDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+nature+and+evolution+of+Intern
ational+Relations+PDF&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLqbLe5Kr7AhXshf0HHeTHA
OQQ6AF6BAgIEAI

2. An introduction to International Relation Theory (2nd edition by Anthony Burke

and Jim George)
3. International Relations (by Stephen McGlinchey
4. https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/71828/1/Unit-2.pdf

Page 30
Page 31