2.

2 The Scientific Approach

The scientific approach is the new approach to the study of international relations. It is
also called behavioral approach because it places emphasis on understanding and
predicting human behaviour or the actions and inactions of state-actors in the
international system. It emerged in the 50s after the traditional approach failed to predict
and prevent the two world wars in 1914 and 1939 respectively, and as such appeared
inadequate in analyzing, explaining and predicting future interactions among nations of
the world.

The scientific approach uses scientific tools and steps in the analysis of international
relations (Francis Chigbo Enemuo, 1999). It attempts to develop a general theory of
international relations whose premises are founded on logical and mathematical proofs
and which can be empirically verified. Such theory should be able to analyze, predict and
even proffer ways of avoiding international problems like a world war which the
traditional approach could not do. Like approaches in physical science, the behavioral
approach places emphasis on the use of numbers and methodology, facts and what is,
hence it is quantitative, statistical, systematic, empirical and objective. In other words, it
is fact-laden as it systematically gathers and analyses data. It dissects international events
on the altar of hypothesis and scientific experiment. Its exponents include; Karl Deutsch.
Morton Kaplan, James Rosenau, et cetera.

Also, the scientific approach borrows some of its ingredients of data gathering and
analysis from other disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology thus
making the study of international relations to become increasingly interdisciplinary and
comparative. The emergence of computer has also aided the development of this
approach since it is now possible, for example, to simulate interstate war using computer.

Practitioners or students of international relations who deploy the scientific approach in

explaining events in the world system are expected to be factual, objective and empirical
in their data gathering and analysis.
However, one major criticism of the scientific approach is that it is inadequate for the
analysis of some of the events in the international system that are neither measurable nor
amenable to scientific experimentation. Some international issues like foreign policy-
making are better conducted and analyzed using the traditional approach because it
involves a lot of wits, intrigues, compromise and dynamism which cannot practically
scale through the rigours of mathematical procedures which scientific approach
advocates. Critics of the scientific approach have also argued that since human behaviour
is dynamic and sometimes unpredictable, it is practically impossible to develop a
scientific methodology that can precisely analyze and predict it. In other words, because
of the behavioral and changing nature of international relations, it is very difficult to
approximate reality using the tools of physical sciences like biology, physics, etc whose
subject matters are natural and constant and as such could be measured and approximated
into reality.

2.3 Distinction between the Traditional Approach and the Scientific Approach

Both the traditional approach and the scientific approach are two sides of the same coin
because they can be deployed either individually or in combination in the analysis of
international relations. However, the distinction between the two approaches is that the
traditional approach emphasizes the historical and philosophical or ethical underpinnings
in the analysis of the international system, its institutions and its actors, while the
scientific approach emphasizes the analysis and prediction of interstate relations using
scientific procedures such as confirmation or rejection of hypothesis through
experimentation. While the traditional approach is value laden, prescriptive, subjective,
qualitative and normative, the scientific approach is fact-laden, quantitative, statistical,
objective and empirical.
Nevertheless, this distinction is not water-tight or absolute, hence Norman D. Palmer and
Howard C. Perkins (2004) noted that “the two approaches are not necessarily
incompatible, and many scholars have managed to combine them without difficulty and
with fruitful results”.

International Relations as an Art

International Relations first emerged as an art whose major concern was to offer value
judgments and find answers to philosophical, legal and institutional problems that
afflicted the international system. Even today, International Relations is still concerned
with ethical and value questions which may not be best understood and solved using
scientific methodology. Issues such as global inequality and poverty, fair representation
in the United Nations Security Council, just world order, etc, are still ethical questions
and as such within the purview of art. Therefore, International Relations is an art
inasmuch as it studies the behaviour of actors which is unpredictable, and because it
emphasizes ethics, values and ideals rather than what is and reality. In addition, it uses
intuition and subjectivity to arrive at its findings rather than hard evidence and empirical
objectivity.

3.2 International Relations as a Science

To understand how and why International Relations is a science, it is perhaps imperative

to define what science is. In the opinion of P. N. Chikendu (2002) science is a knowledge
or inference arrived at after rigorous empirical procedures which include:

 Observation and collection of data

 Collation and classification of data
 Formulation of hypothesis based on the collected and collated data
 Testing of hypothesis through experiment
 Analysis and interpretation of the results of the experiment in relation to the
hypothesis
  Conclusion leading to the confirmation or modification or rejection of the
hypothesis.

Over the years, International Relations as an academic discipline, has developed to a

stage where it now deploys these scientific processes in the analysis of the world issues.
International relations now employs scientific tools such as sampling, scaling, scoring,
statistics and quantification in explaining and analyzing a given international
phenomenon. Today, some war and peace issues can be best analyzed using scientific
methodology. For example, strategic military concepts such as Balance of Terror,
Nuclear Deterrence and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) as they relate to the
acquisition of nuclear weapons by the world powers, and upon which the current global
peace is built are by-products of scientific analysis. Also, the international election
observers or monitors for instance, can deploy the tools of science to analyze and explain
the conduct of election and election results of a given nation since such issue is amenable
to quantification.

Although International Relations is not a pure science like Biology or Physics, it is a

behavioral or social science which employs the tools of exact science to study human
behaviour or actions and other social phenomena at interstate and global levels.

3.3 International Relations is both an Art and a Science

Art is not a substitute for science and vice-versa. Artistic approach and scientific
procedure in international relations are not mutually exclusive. While some international
phenomena are better understood and explained through the prism of art, others are better
analyzed using scientific methods. However, there are some global issues that have dual
nature and as a result, are better analyzed by combining both normative technique (art)
and empirical method (science). Similarly, Jeffry A. Frieden and David A. Lake (2005)
observed that “theory [which science attempts to develop] is not a substitute for policy
expertise, problem solving abilities, or political experience, nor does it trump political
struggle…It would be a foolish policy maker who relied only on the scientific approach
for guidance, but well-specified theories and tests of international relations are an
essential part of a sound policy-making process”.

Since international relations deals with quality and quantity, ideal and reality, subjectivity
and objectivity as they relate to events in the international systems, it is both an art and a
science.

The Meaning of Theory

Theory is a set of ideas that is rational and verifiable which can be deployed to explain a
given situation or course of action. It is a general principle that has universal applicability
which explains and/or predicts the practice and outcome of a particular activity or
phenomenon.

International Relations has some theories with which it analyzes and predicts events in
the international system and these include: power theory, balance-of-power theory,
systems theory, game theory and integration theory.

4.2 Power Theory

Power theory is central to the understanding and the practice of International Relations.
The reason is because power is regarded as both a means and an end in international
politics hence interactions among nations are defined by power. One of the major
protagonists of power theory, Hans Morgenthau (1948), defined power as “man’s control
over the minds and actions of others”. Similarly, Joseph Frankel (1973) defined power as
“the ability to get one’s wishes carried out despite opposition, and the ability to influence
the actions of others in accordance with one’s own ends”.

The central theme of power theory is that the ultimate aim of international relations is the
struggle for power between nation-states. In other words, nations of the world engage in
global politics in order to either increase their power consolidate their power, or to
demonstrate their power. Such struggle for power by different nations often appears in
the form of divergent national interests whose realization is sometimes mutually
exclusive.
Power theory argues that nation-states engage in international relations not to do good to
one another, but for the purpose of power acquisition and consolidation which often finds
expression in the pursuit of selfish national interests. To achieve this, every means is
employed including sheer force as well as material and human resources. Although
power could be used to attain sublime objectives such as peace, economic development
and democracy, it is often used in the international system by the strong states to
intimidate, coerce and wage wars against the weaker states. Suffice it to note that a mere
possession of power by an actor in the world system can influence the actions, roles and
policies of other actors, however power, is more effective when it is exercised. The
sources of national power include:

 Military capability (the size and strength of the army, the air-force and the navy as
well as nuclear weapons and other sophisticated arsenal of war)
 Geographical location (Access to sea and air space rather than landlocked)
 Material resources (such as crude oil, gold, diamond, food crops, manufactured
goods such as cars, airplanes, etc)
 Technological development (Advancement in science and its application in the
production of goods and services)
 Strong economy (low unemployment and poverty rate, strong national currency
like the US dollar, etc)

If you want to apply power theory in the analysis of international relations you will have
to look at the military strength of the nation-states and whether they are strategically
located and technologically advanced and possess the necessary material and human
resources to influence, shape and alter the actions of other actors.

However, the major criticism of power theory is that it over-emphasizes the use of force
and the pursuit of power as the single driver of relations among nations while neglecting
other important factors such as international cooperation and global peace which in the
views of the idealists, are the major purpose of interstate interactions.
The Evolution of the Modern State System

The origin of the modern state system could be traced to the Peace Treaty of Westphalia
in 1648. Before and during the 17th century, the world was characterized by the formation
and the rise and fall of many city-states, monarchies, dynasties and empires as a result of
unending conflicts and wars. Europe for example, was ravaged and fragmented by war
for thirty years. But in 1648, the representatives of the territories of sovereigns and lords
gathered in Westphalia and signed a peace treaty that officially ended the war and equally
led to the dissolution of city-state system and the reign of the authority of the Holy
Roman Empire hence the emergence of nation-states with defined territory, population,
government and sovereignty. Unlike before the treaty, each nation-state has sovereign
authority that is not subject to the control of any external power like the emperor. This
concept of nation-state later spread across the world and became a universal principle and
symbol of political independence and sovereignty as well as the basis of global relations.
Since then, citizens of each nation-state owe allegiance to their national government and
not to any external feudal lords or emperor. From then, the nation-states emerged the
major actors in the international system.

5.2 The Nature of the International System

Just as the state system, the emergence of the international system could also be traced to
the Westphalia Peace Treaty of 1648. The international system is the community of
nation-states. It also includes the structure of relationship that exists at the international
level such as the interactions and the roles of state and non-state actors like national
governments, International Inter-governmental Organizations (IGOs), Transnational
Corporations (TNCs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
Chances of both conflicts and cooperation do arise in the relations among nations of the
world. The international system is aimed at ensuring not only global peace and
development, but also preventing inter-state conflicts through its institutions such as the
United Nations and international legal regimes like the Geneva Convention, and so on.
The international system is dynamic. It is made up of powerful and weak, rich and poor,
aggressive and peace-loving actors. It is characterized by cooperation between actors, but
sometimes with conflicts and wars. More often than not, it is the strong and rich nation-
states that determine and influence decisions in the international system. The weak and
poor nations usually have their say but not always their way.

5.3 State Actors and Non-State Actors in the international system

The actors in the international system are those global players who make international
decisions, policies and laws. They also include those national and regional players whose
actions and/or inactions determine or influence global politics. The international system
is made up of both state and non-state actors. The state actors include; sovereign nation-
states; heads of governments and states and other representatives of nation-states like
diplomats. The non-state actors include; inter-governmental organizations (the United
Nations, the Commonwealth of Nations, ECOWAS, etc); religious organizations (like
the World Council of Churches, the Vatican Catholic Church, the Organization of the
Islamic Conference); refugees and stateless persons; non-governmental organizations
(such as the Red Cross, Transparency International, Oxfam, etc); terrorist organizations
(like Al Qaeda) and Transnational Corporations (such as Shell, Chevron).

While some of the state and non-state actors deploy diplomacy and dialogue to influence
or alter decisions in the international system to their favour, others employ violence or
both diplomacy and violence to achieve their respective objectives (John Spanier, 1981).
The influence of each actor in the global system is largely dependent on its power which
includes any of the following: military capability, economic development, huge
population or membership, etc.

5.4 Types of International System

There are different types of international system, but here we shall group them into three,
namely;

 Unipolar system
 Bipolar system
 Multipolar system

5.4.1 Unipolar System

In a unipolar international system, there is only one super power. In other words, there is
one strongest nation-state which uses its power to influence decisions at the global level
and also to alter other nation-states political and socio-economic policies. Since the super
power can use its unmatched military and economic prowess to intimidate or force any
other nation into submission and to achieve its national interests, other nations often fear
and respect the super power. Under a unipolar system, the super power can take unilateral
actions in issues with global implications even when other state-actors oppose such
actions. Example of a unipolar system was the post-cold war era in which the United
States emerged the super power after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The advocates of unipolar system and unilateral world believe that the post-cold war
world is unpredictable and dangerous and as such requires a strong state like the US to
pursue assertive and pragmatic foreign policy that can maintain global peace, and to act
fast in resolving global problems. In this regard, Charles Kruathammer argued that the
essence of American unilateral philosophy is to pursue the fundamental security interest
of the United States, maintain global peace and free world.

5.4.2 Bipolar System

In a bipolar international system, there are two super powers. The super powers oppose
each other and each acts as a check on the excesses of the other in global affairs. This
creates a balance of power situation. Example of a bipolar system was the cold war era in
which there were two super powers; the United States and USSR or Russia.

5.4.3 Multipolar System

In a multipolar system, there are multiple or at least more than two super powers.
Multilateralism is the operating principle in a multipolar international system. Global
issues are discussed by the stronger actors and decisions are collectively taken. The
proponents of multipolarism argue that some issues like terrorism, HIV/AIDS, Ebola,
climate change, etc, are transnational with international consequences and as such require
multilateral solutions and response. Examples of multipolar system were the great
powers that emerged after the World Wars I and II. Even the current UN Security
Council could be regarded as a form of multipolar system because each of the five
permanent members (USA, Russia, Britain, France and China) has veto power and a
decision must be taken collectively otherwise it could be vetoed.

5.5 The 21st Century International System

The 21st century international system is very complex because sometimes it appears to be
unipolar, at other times, it looks bipolar or even multipolar. Despite these complexities,
the United States of America appears to be the most powerful state in this century. It is on
record that at the beginning of the century, the United States of America enjoyed an
historically unprecedented accumulation of national power. The America’s economy is
the largest in the world though China is trying to catch up. The prowess of America’s
Armed Forces has been demonstrated over and over again, from Iraq to Afghanistan after
the September 11 (9/11), 2001 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade
Centre and Pentagon.
The US strong military capability provides it with a quantum advantage that no other
nation is likely to surpass in the nearest future (Robert McNamara, 1990). It provides the
US with an unquantifiable political and economic influence throughout the world such
that there are few or no issues of global importance and dimensions that can be addressed
or resolved without the attention and support of the United States.

Although in recent times, the United States of America appears to be deploying

multilateralism in handling some of the global issues, for example, the military coalition
(involving the US, France, Britain, etc) against terrorist organizations like the Islamic
State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria, one fact that cannot be disputed is that the US is still the
only dominant super power in this 21st century hence the current international system is
more or less a unipolar world.