International Politics (MEANING, NOMENCLATURE, NATURE AND SCOPE) ‘As an academic discipline, Intemational Politics has been gaining immense popularity since the early years of the 20th century. The first chair of International Relations, the Woodrow Wilson Chair, was established in 1919 at the University of Wales. This set the stage for the recognition of Intemational Relations as a valuable and important subject of study. Organised studies of Intemational Relations began as a very popular academic exercise, The two World Wars and the changes that came under their collective impact gave a big momentum to the study of the relations among nations and foreign policies of major powers. The post-war period ‘witnessed an academic revolution in the study of relations among nations. Between 1945-2000, Intemational Poitics/interational Relations got recognition 25 a major field of study. It began developing as an autonomous discipline. It entered the 2st century as a well-recognised, popular and autonomous discipline. In contemporary times, it continues to enjoy the patronage of a very large number of scholars. The need to meet the challenges, issues and problems resulting from the presence of sveral negative and positive forces in the international system has been keeping Intemational Politics as a fast developing discipline. The need to tackle the problems of international terrorism, climate change, violations of human rights and world wide economic recession as well as the necessity for restructing ‘or reforminglchanging WTO, Globalisation, IMF, IBRD (World Bank), the UNO, the Non-proliferation regimes, intemational power structure, international economic system has been keeping the discipline on 2 development path. Let us study the meaning and nature of Intemational Politics. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS : MEANING AND NOMENCLATURE Q. 1. What is International Politics? Is this @ correct name? Should we call it International Relations? : or a4 International Politics Dofine International Politics. How far the name internationat Relations can be more suitable? or Explain the meaning of International Relations and discuss the problem of its nomenclature. Ans. Definition, observes Aristotle, is both the beginning as well as the end of subject. We cannot define a subject without first understanding its true nature ‘and scope, and this study in itself cannot be accomplished without frst defining the ‘subject. Thus, to define a subject, as the first step in its study, is both essential as well as highly problematic. Particularly, the task of defining a developing and highly complex subject ike International Politics, has been doubly difficult. The highly dynamic nature of relations among nations as well as the existence of big and sharp diversities in the ‘views of scholars seeking to analyse these, have together kept the task of defining International Politics difficult. Differences over its scope and even its name have ‘added more difficulties. in fact, no single uniform definition can be offered to anyone who wishes to fully understand the meaning of International Politics. The following definitions clearly reveal the diversity in defining the discipline. International Politics/International Relations : Definitions. 1. “International Politics includes analysis of political relations and problems of peace among nations.” It studies struggle for powor ‘among nations. —H.J. Morgenthau 2. “international Relations involves the study of, ‘the relations among ‘states’. It includes all interstate relations—Political or Non political” —Charles Schleicher 3. “International Politics covers the interactions of state policies within the changing patterns of power relationships.” —Norman Padelford and George Lincoin 4, “International Relations is a subject concerned with the state system.” : —Palmer and Perkins 5. “International Politics means those aspects of interactions and relations of independent political communities in which some element of opposition, resistance or conflict of purpose or interest is always present. —Harold Sprout and Margret Sprout International Relations is afield of study focused upon the processes by which states adjust their national interests to those of other states.” fartman “international Relations include the study of all such events and Circumstances which affect more than one state. It is a system of Peaceful communications whereby states consciously and in their ‘own interest, would like to avoid conflict because the costs of conflicts are too high.” —Burton 8. “International Politics is the study of rivairy among nations and the conditions and institutions which ameliorate or exacerbate these —ThompsonInternational Politios 5 8. “The discipline (International Relations) studios interactions between and among states, and more broadly, the working of the internationat system as a whole.” —Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics Review of these Definitions {nteratinal Politics 's a complex and dynamic system of relations among carer te S0oPe is very vast. Naturally, therefore, there cannot be a univerecli 7areed definition of @ subject ‘whose scope is in constant ux, indeed a field wheee fictuation is one of its principal characteristics" This observation of Stanley Horfman clearly highlights the dificuty in formulating a fully aeceptable dchomes of Intemational Politics. fofiman suggests purely operational definition which can guide our path towards an understanding of the subject. He wriles, “The discipline of Inte mato ray Retations is concerned with the factors and the actives which affect the extern Boucies and power of the basic units (States and international Insitutions the the Tranonant wich the world is divided, and these include @ wide venely of In simple words, we can say that International Politics and Intemational Relations are two almost equally popular names of the sludy of interactions any Talations among nations. Its study includes primarily the interactonsirelatens Polhe Ctembers af the intemational community of nation-states, International Frings Seeks to analyse the behaviour ofthe international system through a stay seieernational confe, cooperation, competion and struggle for pewer amons patos, Several other academic disciplines ike Sociology, Psychology, Econcmice relations among nations. PROBLEM OF NOMENCLATURE [Scholars have been using several diferent names for ideniying the study ot Tyatons among nations. The names Intemational Relations, Internationel Pelives, pion Affairs, International Affairs, World Politcs, Intemational System, Foreign Politics, have been quite popular. Let us discuss the merit of each of these a0 ‘ty to ick up the most appropriate and useful name of our discipline. international Politics or International Relations. These two terms are very often used as synonyms and several scholars do not ike to draw a ine6 International Politics demarcation between these two. Even some top ranking scholars like Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Thompson use these terms inter-changeably and they regard “International Politics as an inalienable part of international Relations.” There are several other scholars like Palmer, Perkins, Burton, Schwarzenberger, Schleicher, Theodore A. Couloumbis and James H. Wolfe, who prefer to use the name International Relations, (a) International Relations. ‘There are a number of reasons which are advocated by all such scholars who prefer to use the name International Relations. it fs regarded as a more comprehensive term which highlights the vast scope and the true nature of relations ‘among nations. It covers all sorts of relations among peoples and groups in the world society. The relations among nations are both political and non-political ‘These include social, economic, cultural, legal, official and non-official relations. All international transactions—financial and commercial, international sports, technical ‘cooperation, cultural visits and ceremonial visits, form partof international relations, “Wars, international conferences, diplomacy, Olympic games, espionage, trade, foreign aid, immigration, tourism, hijacking, worldwide epidemics, violent revolutions, ail these phenomena,” observe Couloumbis and Wolfe, “fall within the expanding ‘scope of the discipline of International Relations.” ‘Since relations among nations, ie., relations involving all human behaviour on ‘one side of the national boundary affecting human behaviour on the other side of the boundary form the core of the study, the term International Relations is ‘considered more appropriate than others. Palmer and Perkins prefer to use the term International Relations instead of Intemational Politics on the ground that politics at international level is a product of relations of different types and it rightly suggests the study of all aspects of human relations at the international level. ‘According to Schwarzenberger, the term ‘International Relations’, is @ broader term than International Politics and it puts a stronger emphasis on the interdependence of entities inside the international society. In his opinion, Intemational Politics precludes aspects of national affairs which lie outside the political sphere. (b) International Potitics. i Many scholars, however, object to the use of the term Intemational Relations and advocate the name Intemational Politics. They hold that the term International Relations is very general, too broad and a loose term which fails to specify the true nature of international interactions among nations. it further tends to suggest an unduly vast scope of the subject, that is, the study of al types of public and private relations among people, groups and in the world society of states. The term International Relations is further regarded as inappropriate because it denotes cooperation and relations as the hallmark of international intercourse which is not in tune with the realities of the International phenomenon or system. In reality we find the arena of international interactions characterised along with cooperation and friendship by conficts, struggle for power, wars and disputes. As such, the use of the term International Relations for designating the study of polities among nations is inappropriate and misleading Legg and Morrison hold International Politics as the correct term for identifying “the process of interactions among nations, causing international conflicts and struggles, and which are resolved at the international level.” Since the core of ourInternational Potties 7 study is the poitical aspect of the overall relations among nations, hence we must stick to the use of the name Intemational Politics. Our main area of concern is constituted by those relations which involve the struggle for power among nations which gives rise to a system of actions and relations among nations, Itis concerned ‘mostly with those inter state relations in which some element of conflict of purpose of interest and exercise of pawer is alvays present. It is this aspect which gives political character to the nature of international relations. To be specific, the use of the term International Politics highlights the decision to study namely those aspects of international relations which involve a conflict of purpose and a struggle for power. (©) International Potitics or International Relations or Both. ‘The above discussion leads us to conclude that the term International Politics, appears to be more specific and appropriate than the term International Relations. Nevertheless, it must be accepted that in actual usage both the terms are almost equally popular. Several scholars prefer to use International Politics for highlighting the distinctive property of relations among nations, whereas others prefer to keep the scope of subject vast by using a comprehensive term like Intemational Relations. Sprout and Sprout suggest, “to distinguish the particularity of one from the other the term International Politics is being increasingly used.” In broader and general sense we can use the term Intemational Relations but to be specific in identifying the core of relations and interactions among nations, ‘we must use the term International Politics. Undoubtedly, politics among nations is @ product of various types of international relations and hence we cannot be absolutely rigid in specifying a single name for the discipline International Poles feubioravet International Relations Nomenclature Relations among Nations Politics among Nations International Relations and Interactions Struggle for Power among Nations ‘System of relations among nations Won ars] [Faron ara International Aas | World Politics International System 2. International Affairs, World Affairs and Foreign Affairs “These terms are decidedly less eppropriate for designating the subject of our study because these are very general and non-specific terms. Particularly, the8 International Poltics terms international affairs, world affairs, and foreign affairs fail to specify the true ‘ature of interactions and relations among nations and other intemational actors These terms are very general expressions covering any and every matter of interest in the world, We must know the world as a community of states We must understand the geographical, social, cultural and economic environment within which the states act and interact. This is essential for understanding and analysing the nature of international politics. But we cannot and we should not make such stuidy a major premise and hence, any of these three terms cannot be accepted 8 a suitable term for identifying a specific subject of study. A knowledge of what js happening in the world—of the affairs of the world, can be useful for understanding the behaviour of nations, but this cannot be taken as the whole scope of international relations, The terms ‘World Affairs’ or ‘international Affairs’ if used can mislead opinion about the exact nature of intemational politics 3. World Politics/International system _Some scholars prefer the term World Politics, They advocate its appropriateness by distinguishing it from Politics. They argue that politics stands for state politics i.e, struggle for power within a state and the term Werld Politics can be used for describing struggle for power or politics among the states, The existence of a large ‘number of international institutions, particularly the United Nations and its agencies, is offered as a proof of the existence of a world society which is fast developing towards @ world state. Hence, they hold that the term World Politics can be legitimately used to describe politics at the international level ‘Some scholars use the concept of system forthe study of international relations and use the name International system. However, several critics are not prepared to use this name because international relations reflects diversities and conflicts and lacks systematisation. The critics, however, reject such a logic. They argue that the use of this term implies, rather presupposes, the existence of a world state. No joubt there are present a large number of international institutions which are quite similar to the institutions which are at work within various states, nevertheless, these institutions ‘cannot be accepted as the institutions of a world stale. These may become s0 in future but at present they lack the power to act and react freely. Troir working ‘stands conditioned by the interests and policies of the states and is r ot guided by the interests of the werld 2s one entity. Hence, we cannot accept the use of the term World Politics for describing polities among nations. The emergence of a world state in future alone can justify the use of this term. At present, we are justified ‘in dropping it in favour of the term International Politics or International Relations, Conelusion. To conclude our discussion, we can say that at present the terms International Politics and International Relations are the two most popular terms ‘being used for describing relations among nations. Out of these two, the term International Politics is used by some scholars because it reflects the distinctive nature of their efforts to analyse the interactions among nations as well as for building a theory of international Poltics. Several other scholars, however, prefer to call their subject International relations as it reflects the comprehensive scope of the discipline. Several modern scholars prefer to effect a compromise between the two terms and use the term International Politics for descnbing the study of the Various factors and concepts and the term international Relations for describing the‘international Poitics e actual course of relations—social, economic, cultural and political, among nations. Inorderto highlight the specific nature of international relations as politcal, strategic relations among nations, we can adopt the term “International Politics” in preference to all other terms. Some contemporary scholars also prefer to use the term International System instead of the term International Poltics or Intemational Relations for they prefer to study the relations among nations as a system of relations or interactions among rations as well as the activities of non-state actors in the international environment. Ill, NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS Q. Discuss the Nature of international Politics as a system of relations among nations. or “Nations as actors, national interest as the objective, conflict as the condition and power as a means as well as an end together sum up the nature of politics among nations.” Elucidate. Ans. Relations and interactions among nations as well as the actions and activities of all international actors constitute the scope of International Politics. It ‘seeks to study the process of struggle for power among nations or of international conflict resolution and interactions. For ths, it has to identify the objectives that ‘motivate the nations to act and react and to analyse the nature of the struggle that nations make for securing their objectives. The study of this process demands @ clear understanding of the nature of International Politics and a determination of the distinctions and relations that characterise Politics and International Politics. In fact, rue nature of International Poilics can be analysed only by understanding the nature of Politics and the difference between politics within a nation and polities ‘among nations. Nature of Politics. Politics has been defined by David Easton as the authoritative allocation of values, where ‘values’ stand for desired conditions or commodities and where ‘authoritative’ denotes some form of legitimate use of force for securing implementation of the ‘values’. People have several needs and desires which they try to secure in seciely. They naturally form groups for this purpose. When each group seeks to secure the interest ofits members, there develops a condition of Conflict among various groups. For favourably resolving the conflict, each group tries to secure power because itis through the use of power that it can secure the interests ofits members. In the process there develops a struggle for power in each society nthis struggle each group tries to secure the desired and favourable values by getting the right o make and implement authoritative values for the entire society Politics is the term which is used to desoribe this struggle for power in a society Politics is a group phenomenon—the process through which the people, organised in groups, seek to resolve confi of interests, It is born out of conflict, for people have a need to discover means of adjusting or managing a wide diversity of individual values and interests and thereby, to produce a tolerable harmony in society We can say, pollcs flows from the diverse interests and values of people and their subsequent actions in pursuit of those interests and values. It involves claims made by groups upon other groups. Each political actor seeks the tet a Syfo International Potties enactment of public policy that is favourable fo its own interests or values and binding on ail others. On the basis of the above discussion it can be observed that - ~ (1) Politics is a process of group interactions, Groups are its main actors. (2) Confict of values and interests, and disagreements among the groups of people is the root from which poiitics stems, Politics is bo out of conflict Confict is the condition or the source of politics. The natural diversity of interests among men leads to the emergence of conflct in every society which in turn leads to poitics, (3) People are motivated to resolve the conflict because they attempt to satisfy their interests and secure their values. They tty to reach a tolerable harmony in the society. Interests and values together constitute the objectives of politics, (4) For resolving the: conflict, groups try to secure power, as power is the means for securing their objectives. Power is the ability to influence or control or regulate the behaviour of others for securing the desired goals or objectives. In conditions of confict, each group tries to attempt to influence or regulate the behaviour of other groups. For this, each group tries to secure power and thereby gets engaged in a struggle for power Hence, power is the currency of poitics. (6) In politics, power is both the means and an end because the groups not only want power for the present satisfaction of interests and values, but also for the future use. They try to secure a reserve of power for future This compels them to seek power as an end. (6) Since conflict is a continuous phenomenon, the attempt to resolve its also 4 continuous. Use of power for resolving conflict is natural and continuous, Hence, politics is a natural and continuous process. { (7) Since politics stems from inevitable conflict arising from the natural diversity of values and interests among individuals and their groups, we can describe 1 it-as the struggle for power in society through which conflict is sought to be resolved. The essence of politcal struggle is power. It is because of this fact that some persons even go to the extent of defining politics 2s the process of acquiring, maintaining and increasing power. Nature of International Politics : Variables The nature of Intemational Poitics is similar to Politics. Morgenthau holds | “International Politics like all other polis, is struggle for power. Whatever maybe the ultimate aim, its immediate aim is always power.” Like Polltics, Intemational Pitics is struggle for power among nations and it has seven main variables ()) Nations are the Primary Actors. Nations are in International Politics what ‘groups are in Politics. Politics is a process of interactions among groups. Likewise, International Poitcs is primariy a process of interactions among nations. Nations are the primary actors in international relations. However, along with the nation- states which are the key actors, sub-national, trans-national, supra-national groups IGOs, INGOs, IGOs, MNCs, TNCs, regional organisations, trading blocs and groups also play an important role. The primacy, however, stil belongs to sovereign Nation-states because these stil controlal the instruments of coercion and viole’ in International Relations. > Ssother nations. International Politics basically involves the sh nation to preserve and secure the goals of its national interest by exercising some control ‘over other nations. tt is the process by which each nation tries to safeguard and ‘secure its national interests. National Interest is the objective of international relations. (ii) Conffice is the condition of International Politics. The national interests of various nations are neither fully compatible nor fully incompatible, The incompatibility of national interests of various nations is a source of conflict at the intemational level which finds concrete manifestations in the form of disputes. However, possibilty of making the interests compatible through accommodation and reconciliation leads to some cooperation among nations. As such both conflict ‘and cooperation, coercion and persuasion are always present in international Telations.‘Itis, therefore, pertinent to tap these seemingly dichotomous factors of intemational political behaviour for comprehending and analysing intemational reality” (v) Power is the Means. In conditions of conflict, each nation attempts to secure the goals of its national interest. The means for securing these goals is power. Thatis why each nation Is continuously engaged in the process of acquiring, fnaintaining and increasing power. The power that backs a nation’s attempt to secure its national interest is called National Power. It can be defined as the ablity to influence, control and regulate behaviour and actions of other nations for securing intended effectsiresults. (W) Power is both a means and an end in International Politics. In International Politics, power is a means as well as an end. Nations always use power for securing the goals oftheir national interests. Atthe same time they regard power as a vital part of their national interest. Each nation is, therefore, always at work for maintaining and increasing its national power. (v) International Polities is also a process of Conflict Resolution among Nations. International Politics, ike all politics, is struggle for power. Nations are its primary actors. National interest is the objective, which motivates the nations to act and react with each other and to establish international relations. Confit is the condition of International Politics. Itis the most important element of international Politics because in the absence of confit, national interest and power will have litle function to perform. Conflict is the very basis of International Poltics. Its at the back of both the disputes and cooperation among nations. It is the condition of conflict of interests that leads to the emergence of disputes emong nations. Gut at the same time, # cannot be denied that itis because of the existence of conflict that nations with similar objectives of national interests agree to cooperate with each other. For example, the existence of conflct keeps alive the fear of a possible Third World War. At the same time it also gives impetus to the nations to cooperate for taking effective steps for preventing a future war. Itinvolves attempts at contict- resolution at the international level. The study of Intemational Politics, therefore, necessitates the study of both conflict and cooperation, the process by which @ ration tries to achieve its goals and to have an advantageous position with respect to other nations in a condition of continuous confit. In this way. we can describe International Politics also as a process of conflict-resolution at the international level12 International Politics SSovorcgn Nations o Nation States atonal Interest Contes Cher Ase: ; [Riimary Actors] [jective] ‘Condition ] Nature of International Politics (Contnaous relations| Interactions (Uil) International Politics as a system of continuous interactions among Nations. Since the national interests of various nations are bound to be in conflict with one another, confict cannot be completely eliminated from international society. This necessitates continuous attempts on the part of nations to adjust their felations with one another: Nations try to achieve this by means of power and hence ___ are continuously engaged in the process of interactions. This makes International Poltics by nature a continuing phenomenon, andit has to be continuously analysed for understanding the behaviour of nations at the international level Conclusion. On the basis of the above discussion we can conclude that 4 1. International Politics, like all politics is struggle for power. It is a system i of relationsiinteractions among nations. 2, International Politics. has four main elements: (a) Netions are the primary actors of intemational relations. However. ; Now-a-days several international and regional actors as well as many non-state actors have also been playing a role in international relations. (6) National interest is the objective. Each nation always tries to secure the {goals of its national interests through its participation in international relations. | (6) Confictis the condition in which netions act and react with one another itis @ continuous phenomenon. The rational interests of various nations i are different and also incompatible and hence conflict continues to be " 2 perpetual condition, This conflict is the source of both disputes and cooperation among nations. (d) National power is the means that nations use for securing their respective interests in conditions of conflict. 3. Since each nation is motivated by the desire to secure its interests in relation with other nations, it aways adopts a set of principles and a plan of action—the Foreign Policy, for securing these interests. It has been this thinking that has led ‘some scholars to describe International Politics as interactions among the foreignEE International Poltios 13 policies of nations. However, this should not be taken to mean that Intemational Politics is only the study of foreign policies and their interactions. This forms only Cone part of the process. As a whole, we can say that Intemational Politics includes the study ofall relations and interactions which form part ofthe behaviour of nations at the intemational level. Hence, it can be observed that Intemational Politics is a process of relations ‘and interactions among nations. The basis of these interactions is the attempts made by the nations to safeguard’ and secure their interests by means of power ‘Since the interests of a nation are invariably not quite compatible with those of others, the interactions at international level always, take place in a condition of confit. IV. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND POLITICS/DOMESTIC POLITICS RELATIONSHIP AND DIFFERENCE Q, Analyse the difference between international Politics and Politics. Ans. Linkage between Politics and International Politics. Poitics and International Politics are related and are yet autonomous processes. The linkage between the two stands widely recognised. Basically the two have a similar nature, Struggle for power characterises both. Both have similar variables. Nations as international actors are similar to groups.as political actors in Politics. Conflict among nations is the condition of Intemational Politics and conflct of interests is 2 condition of Politics. Power characterises both Politics and International Politics. In both. itis ‘@ means as well as an end. Both use the instrument of coercion for accomplishing their declared preferences. This results in the loss of both men and materials. Just as groups try to secure their respective interests in politics, similarly nations try to secure their national interests in international relations. Discussing the linkages and similares between Politics and Intemational Politics, James N. Rosenau observes, “itis assumed that what nations do externally 's, in fact, a part of the manifestation of what they transpire internally and that the ‘extensive interdependence of international Politics has important repercussions on national events and trends. All these points ilustrate the similarities in the nature of Politics and Intemational Poltics. Thus, International Politics, like domestic polis is also characterised by a perpetual struggle for power or “Who (Nation) gets, what, When, and how." DISSIMILARITIES BETWEEN POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL POLITICS However, there also exist certain major points of difference between the two. The main dissimilarities between Politics and Intemational Politics call be discussed as under: (1) Difference in Respect of Actors. In the sphere of politics, groups are the ‘actors, Groups act and react within the environment conditioned by the authoritative Values made and implemented by the State. These are non-sovereign actors. In International Politics, sovereign nation-states are the main actors, Since the actors are sovereign, no law or rule, except the one which is by consent accepted and followed by them, applies to their behaviour. Intemational Law is there but itis 3 week law and something mid-way between law and morality.14 International Politics ‘Struggle for Power Struggle for Power among ‘mong Nations” teups win a State Sovereign Naor Stes & pio Actors Non Savers ‘Actors Grows Means, Power, ntuonce National Power, Force & War i and Aubry International \ , Domestic Politics \\ Politics International i [Basis Constitutional Law ta ofthe State sence of an Presence ote Intemational Navona Government covert Two reléted and intoractve phonomana ‘with strong and inseparable inkages @) Difference in Respect of the Role of Force. The role of force in intemational relations is direct, more frequent and more intense, Nations do not hesitate to impose their interests and decisions upon others by means of power, particularly by miltary power, dictatorial interventions and wars. Disputes and disagreements are much mere widespread in International Politics than in Politics. Civil Wars and terrorism do not really fal within the sphere of Politics but wars, interventions, interferences, reprisals and coercive actions form part of international intercourse. in fact, the means which nations can use for exercising power over ther nations are more forceful than the one available to groups in politics (8) Difference in Legal Basis. The basis of Politics is the Municipal Law of the state whereas the legal basis of International Politics is International Law (4) Difference in Respect of Definiteness. Since Municipal Law is definite ‘and authoritative, political relations and interactions in the sphere of Politics are quite set, organised and ordered. The reverse is true of international Polis. Nations do not hesitate to twist and use International Law for satisfying their respective interests and goals, (6) Presence of Government vs Absence of Government. Political interactions are always conditioned by the policies and power of a duly constituted and legitimate government. Existence of illegitimate dictatorships and personal rules by despots are exceptions. The sphere of International Relations lacks the presence of @ government. The United Nations is there but its role in respect of regulating the relations among nations is quite limited. It cannot be described as a world government. It is only an international organisation. (6) Boundaries of the Two. Politics is always limited to the environment of the state, as such, it can be described as politics within a state. As against this,International Pottios 5 International Politics is politics among nations and the nature of international environment is indefinite and highly dynamic. ‘Analysing the relation between Polttics and international Poitios, HJ. Morgenthaes has very rightly observed “Domestic and International Politics are but two different ‘manifestation of the same phenomenon, the struggle for power. Its manifestations differ in two diferent spheres because different moral, political and social conditions prevail in each." Similarly, Coloumbis and Wolfe have remarked, “International Politics and domestic politics are not necessarily separate entities, but inter-related levels of political activity, each of which affects the other. In a world of increasing interdependency and interpenetration, domestic and international variables fuse so closely that the political analyst separates them only on his or her peri.” Perestroika and Glasnost in the erstwhile Soviet Union produced big changes in Europe and in the international relations. The election of their President is @ sovereign prerogative of the people of the United States. Yet the personality of the US President always affects the nature and course of international relations. Likewise, changes in international relations, like the end of Cold War, liquidation of the socialist bloc, emergence of international terrorism are always sources of big changes in the political systems of the states. \V. SCOPE/SUBJECT-MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS/RELATIONS @. Discuss briefly the Scope of International Politics/Relations and describe its Subject-Matter. Ans. As a suibject of study, international Poitcs is relatively @ new subject and, as such, its scope is not yet well settled and delimited. It has been a continuously ‘expanding scope. Scholars have adopted different approaches for defining its scope, ‘Morgenthau holds that the struggle for power among nations forms the scope of International Politics and it can be analysed in terms of national interest defined in terms of power. Feliks Gross and Russell H. Fifield advocate that in reality tis a study of Foreign Policies. Fred A. Sondermann rejects this view and holds that the study of Foreign Policy is just one part of International Politics. He defines it as “the study of the process in which a nation tries to have an advantageous position in conflict with other nations or groups of nations.” Sprout and Sprout define the scope of Intemational Politics as ‘the study of inter-state relations and interactions that emerge in the process of strugale for resolving the conflict among nations.” Burion holds that besides other things, the study of International Relations includes all conditions and factors which influence the behaviour of more than one state. These views highlight the diversity that prevaiis among scholars regarding the scope of international Politics. In 1947, Grayson Kirk observed that the study of International Politics has five ingredients ‘ (a) the nature and operation of the state system; (b) factors which affect the power of the state; (c) the international position and foreign policies of great powers ; (d) the history of recent international relations; and (@) the building of a more stable world order. f By 1954, International Politics had become a very popular subject and was being adopted by various universities as an independent subject of study. In 1954, UNESCO published a booklet edited by CA. W. Manning, in which this fact was accepted. 216 International Poities Vincent Baker, in his report published in 1954, included the following ingredients within the scope of International Poliies : () The nature and principal foroes of Intemational Poltics, (i) The political, social and economie organisation of intemational life, (i) Elements of national power, (iv) instruments used for the promotion of national power, (v) Limitations on and control of national power, (vd Foreign Policies of major powers, and (vi) History of international relations. Baker further added that the attemptat theory-building and increased emphasis con the policy-making were becoming popular with the scholars. In an article published in World Politics, Prof. Frederick S. Dunn observed that the field of international relations contains an essential core of five subjects {@) Intemational Politics, (6) Intemational Economics, (c) International Law and Organisation, (d) Diplomatic History, and (e) Political Geography. In addition, it calls for some knowledge of the socio-economic-psychological subjects — sociology, anthropology, psychology, social psychology, and ethics. Such a view definitely suggests a very vast scope of International Politics. In fact, Intemational Politics has been a developing subject and as such its scope has been continuously developing. The study of all international relations ‘among nations, particularly, their impact on international power struggle has been becoming popular in the recent years. Low Politics (poltical interactions based on ‘economic relations) is presently, becoming an increasingly popular and important area of study. Subject-Matter. The subject-matter of International Politics includes the following : 41. Nation-state System or Nation-states as Actors. International Politics studies relations and interactions between two or more states. Each state is conditioned by its geography, resources, population, level of industrial and technological development, ideology, diplomacy, national interests, etc. Hence, the study of inter-state relations necessitates a study of the actors and these factors In the words of Paimier and Perkins, “AS its basis is the state or rather the state system, itis here that the study of world community and of international relations must begin.” 2. National Interest. Since national interest is the objective that each nation tries to secure during the course of relations with other nations, it becomes imperative for International Politics to study national interests of various nations. ‘The nature of relations among nations is directly determined by the degree of ‘compatibility or incompatibility thet characterises the national interests of nations involved in international intercourse. This makes national interest an important ‘subject of study in International Politics. 3. National Power. The concept of national power is most crucial to the understanding of Intemational Politics. Nations are the actors but they always act on the basis of their national powers. Realistically speaking, relations among nations are of the nature of struggle for power. Morgenthau hokds that International Politics can be understood only if viewed as “Interest defined in terms of power.” National power determines the role and ability of a nation to carry out its foreign policy cbjectives. It is customary to characterise nations as superpowers, major powers, big powers, small powers, weak powers and this amply reflects the importance of national power in International Politics. Power is at the basis of allaad International Polos 7 inter-state relations and as such forms an important part of the subject-matter of International Politics. 4. Foreign Policy. The behaviour of the state at interrational level is always directed and controlled by its foreign policy. Foreign policy is a thoughtout course ‘of action for securing the objectives of the national interest of @ nation. The basis of foreign policy is the national power of the nation. Through its foreign policy, a nation exercises its national powers for securing the goals of its national interest. {A study of foreign policies of various states alone can explain ine nature of relations among nations. No one can hope to understand the nature of present day intemational relations without a study of the foreign policies of major powers. Many scholars even go to the extent of describing International Politics as a process of interactions among the foreign policies. This view of international Poitics is not wholly correct, nevertheless itrightly stresses the importance of the study of foreign policies in Intemational Politics, 5. Economic Instruments of International Relations. The increased importance of the role of economic and trade relations in International Poltcs can be hardly overestimated. Economic relations among nations form a very important part of intemational relations. Today, economic instruments—Foreign Aid, Loan, Trade, etc., are the most important means of influencing the course of relations. Hence, the study of economic instruments forms an integral part of the study of International Politics. 6. International Institutions and Regional Organisations. An outstanding feature of the present period has been the rapid growth of international institutions as the institutionalised means for the conduct of relations among nations. Some of these are truly internationaV/universal in nature like the United Nations, while others are by definition regionat organisations like NATO, SFATO, OAS, OAU, OPEC, ASEAN, ECO, EU, SAARC, IOR-ARC, etc. These international and regional organisations are Supranational actors participating jin international relations, ‘These exercise considerable influence over the course of relations among nations and hence these stand included in the subject-matter of International Politi. 7. Non-state Actors. Rise of several non-state international or supra-national or trans-national actors in contemporary inter-relations has necessitated the inclusion of the study of the role of these actors in interational system. 8. Regulators of International Relations. There have been in operation several concepts which have guided and are still guiding and controlling the behaviour of nations. The concepts of Balance of Power, Regionalism, Disarmament land Arms Control, Collective Security, International Law, World Public Opinion, Diplomacy, etc., are the important principles and concepts of intemational relations ‘These influence the actual implementation of the foreign policies of nations. A student of International Politics has to study such regulators and principles. 9. Key Subjects of Study. Presentiy, the Scope of Intemational Politics includes the study of all the factors and forces which direct, shape and condition the behaviour of nations at international level. In comparison with the pre-1945 situation, today, we find the scope of Intemational politics very vast and stil fast expanding. At present, the study of International Politics includes a study of the behaviour of nations and all the factors and forces which shape and condition their behaviours. The key topics are: National Power, National Interest, Ideology, Foreign18 International Politics Policy, Diplomacy, Disarmament, Problems of international peace and security Regionalism and Regional Organisations, MNCs TNCs Economic Instruments of Policy, Nationalism, Intemationalism, Major international Movernents and Trends, Intemational Institutions, World Public Opinion, World Government, Balance of Power, Collective Security, Imperialism, Neo-colonialism, New Imperialism, War & Peace, Conflct-Resolution and International power structure. ‘Anam Jaitly has systematically compared the traditional and contemporary views of the scope of international Politics to demonstrate that, in contemporary times, the scope of International Politics has expanded to a very large extent. (A) Traditional view of the Scope of International Politics 1, Intenational Politics 2. International Organisations 3. International Law 4. Diplomatic and Miltary History 5. Geo-poltics (8) Contemporary view of the Scope of International Politics 1. International Politics 2. Foreign Policies 3. International Law 4, Intemational Organisation 5. Military State-craft 6. Diplomatic Theory and Practice 7. Geopolitics 8. Political Sociology of International Relations 9. Political Economy of International Relations 10, Psychology of Intemational Relations | 11. Ethies and Education 42. Intemational Administration 13, Science, Technology, Nuclear Diplomacy 44, Trans-nationalism 45. Functionelism 46. Human Rights 17. Environmental Protection 48. Sustainable Development 19, World Order 20, MNCs, TNCs, IGOs, INGOs and NGOs 21. Problems of Peace & Security 22. Peace Research 23. Globalisation 24, Alternative Futurisation (Furturology) 25. Ethnic Conflict and Violence 26. International Terrorism 27. Climate Change 28. Issue of Reforms in International Institutions International Politics is a developing subject. has to keep pace with the highly dynamic and developing nature of relations among nations. Hence, its scope is ‘bound to be ever-expanding in content. VI. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AS A SCIENCE Q. How far is International Politics a Science? ‘Ans. Like every social discipine, International Politics has to face the question Is ta Science or an Art? The answer to this question has been a matter of debate. Whereas many scholars are not prepared to acceptit as a science, there are many others who strongly advocate the case for International Politics being a science. ‘Some prefer to take @ midway and state that itis on the way to become a science, Many others callita loose science. Quincy Wright holds that International Relations is a field extraordinary diffu for science to enter. Kenneth Thompson,International Poltics 18 Stanley Hoffmann are also not prepared to acept it as a science. On the other hand, Organski, Northrop and many others regard it as a science. Organski has ‘observed : ‘There are unquestionable ways in which a scientific approach to Intemational Relations has proved and will continue to prove highly useful” Thus, there exists a good deal of controversy over the question whether International Politics is a science or not. For cetting the issue we must examine these opposed views and settle the controversy by deciding as to what Is 2 science and what is an art. (A) International Politics is not a Science, it is an Art. ‘An art consists in the skiflul application of means for achieving certain ends In the words of Quincy Wright, “Art implies the skiful and systematic adaptation of means for the attainment of some ends." This skill can be innate or acquired bya long practice. Those scholars who regard Inte: national Politics as an art hold that it fundamentally consists in the art of influencing nations for securing the desired objectives of national interest. The art of negotiation and diplomacy forms the core of Intemational Relations, It involves the art of winning friends through a judicious use of available resources. It is, therefore, an art of conducting relations ‘among nations. ‘Such a view is further supported by many scholars on the ground that International Politics does not qualify to be a sclence. They hold that science stands {or exact knowledge of a given field on the basis of which predictions can be made ‘They regard exaciness and predictabilty as the two essentials of science. Since these two qualities are nowhere to be seen in International Politics, It cannot be acospted as a science. The theories and concepts of International Politics lack universal acceptance and applicability. There exist big diversities regarding its ‘methods, approaches and conclusions. Prediction-making is aimost impossible. All these features lead to the conclusion that International Politics is not @ science. (8) International Politics is @ Science. ‘The supporters of the view that Intemational Politics is a science hold that science stands for systematic research and not for exactness and predictabilty It is a knowledge based on objective and systematic analysis of observed and collected facts. On the basis of systematic research, a scientist proceeds to ‘generalise his findings, Such generalisations in turn lead to scientific theory- building, Science, as such, stands for scientific method of research. As Stuart Chance has observed, “Science goes with method and not with subject-matter” Karl Pearson has also remarked, “The unity of alf sciences consists alone in its ‘method, not in its materia.” Thus any discipline that involves scientific research, i, systematic study qualifies to be admitted as a science. Scientific research is characterised by systematic observation, classification and interpretation of data. Itinvolves a high degree of formality, rigorousness, verifiability and general valiity of results The study of International Relations admits the application of the scientific method. In fact, more and more politcal scientists have been now using it for their studies and researches into the complex matrix of Intemational Relations, No doubt, experimentation cannot be made in the study of International Relations, yet through objective observation of the facts of relations among nations, International Politics can be scientifically analysed and generalised. It is on this basis that the20 International Pottios case of Intemational Politics being a science can be accepted. Through systematic research, scientific theorising can be made in International Politics. Scientific theory-building is the objective of contemporary studies of International Relations. Conclusion. Thus, Intemational Politics is a science because it admits and involves scientific research. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that itis not and ittcan never be as exact a science as the natural sciences are. Its indeed a social science. Being a developing subject, there exist a large number of controversies and big diversities regarding its meaning, nature and scope. Itis stil in its youth ‘and, as such, many prefer to describe it as a subject on the way to become science At the same time, it has certain qualities of being an art as well. Ithias a purpose to serve the need for peace, security, all round human welfare and sustainable development. o00International Politics : History of Development and Autonomy ‘An understanding of the nature of International Politics demands a brief review of the history of its development as an academic discipline, particularly in the 20th century. HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS ; STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT . Explain briefly the history of evolution of International Po! .demic discipline. or Discuss briefly the major landmarks in the development of the study of International Politics. Ans. As an academic discipline, the study of International Politics gained recognition and popularity only n the inter-war period. It was in 1919 that the first ‘Chair of International Relations, called the Woodrow Wilson Chair, was founded at the University of Wales and two eminent historians Alfred Zimmerhn and C.K, Webster got the honour of being its frst two occupants. This event marked 2 starting point in the development of international Relations as a subject of study. In 1919 itself, the Schoo! of Foreign Service came into existence in Georgetown University, which in 1924 was followed by the establishment of the School of International Studies in the University of Southern California. Between 1919-39 as many as eleven institutions came into existence and each of which was devoted to the study of international relations, However, a phenomenal growth in its popularity got underway only in the post- 1945 period, The two World Wars of unprecedented catastrophic magnitude, a considerably lage number of more limited conflicts, a rapid increase in the number of sovereign nation-states, @ growing interdependence among nations, emergence cof a number of supra-national and non-state actors, and the continuing threat of a final and ultimate holocaust, have been the dominant factors of the period. These at22 International Poitics factors have forced men to attempt a clearer view and understanding of the ‘compiex field of intemational relations. To theorise the behaviour of states at the international level with a view to strengthen the chances of peace against war, stability against anarchy and order against chaos, has been the major concerns of the humankind, ‘THE FOUR STAGES OF EVOLUTION Since the emergence of the new consciousness among the scholars to theorise Intemational Politics, the study of Intemational Relations has passed through ‘several stages of development. Kenneth W. Thompson, has systematically analysed the development of Intemational Relations and has discussed its ‘evolution in four stages : (1) The Diplomatic History Stage (2) The Current Events Stage (3) The Law and Organisation Stage, and (4) The Contemporary Stage 41. The First Stage: The Diplomatic History Stage ‘The first stage in the evolution of the subject stretched upto the end of the First World War. It was dominated by the historians. “Before World War |,” writes Schleicher, “there was almost no organised study of International Relations either in American universities end colleges or elsewhere, although Paul S. Reinsch was pioneering in the field when, in 1900, he lectured on, World Politics at the University Cf Wisconsin." In the few courses that existed there, intial efforts were litle more than unsystematic and often superficial attempts to discuss a wide variety of current problems which differed greatly in the level of their importance ‘The impact of World War | and its aftermath on the study and teaching of the ‘subject was tremendous. The importance and necessity of the study of relations among nations was realised end this influenced the decision to provide an order to the attempt by establishing departments and chairs in various universities, To begin with, the study was dominated by diplomatic. historians and the attention was focused on the study of history of diplomatic relations among nations ‘The scholars concentrated on the study of the past history of political and diplomatic relations among nations. They adopted a chronological and descriptive approach and made no attempt to draw universal principles from their study of historical facts Diplomatic historians enjoyed the monopoly, and the relations and interactions ‘among nations were presented as historical descriptions without reference to how various events and situations fitted into the general pattern of international behaviour. They also ignored the necessity of relating the present with the past. Their attempts brought to light certain interesting and important facts about the past international relations but at the same time these failed to provide any meaningful help to the study of relations among nations during the inter-war years. This partial ‘and one-sided approach did not render any material help towards the formulation of principles or theories of international relations, The descriptive and chronological studies conducted by the diplomatic historians did not satisfy either the need for the study of the relations of their time or the demands of the future development of the subject. Except for highlighting certain facts, this stage falled to render any significant help to the understanding and theorising of international relations.international Poitios : History of Development and Autonomy Evolution of international Politics as an Academic Discipline ry Lack of Organised Studios, <———J ‘Sclentii Thoory-Bulding <__}——+ Bohaviouralm Period upto 1914 First World War 1914-19) Creation of the Woodrow ison Chale andthe oo ‘establishment of several ther inetutions for he study of Inter Felations. Inter-War Period (1919-39) ‘Second World War 1939-45 Postar [Period (1945-2000) |——+ Realism Functional | __ Neo-Restism +——+ _oiplomatic History Stage |___, current Events Stage More and More Organised Study ¢_—}————+ Now intllootual Order Contempsrary Stage Future Word Order} > Scientiie Theory Bulaing El International Potties as an Autonomous Discipline Faplaly developing Scope and Wethoselogy ee et28 International Potties 2, The Second Stage: The Current Events Stage The experiences of war-time relations gave a new tum to the study of International Relations, The creation of the Woodrow Wilson Chair of International Relations at the University of Wales opened a new era in the study of the subject. ‘The study of current events and problems came to be regarded as the central theme of intemational relations. The review of newspapers, periodicals and journals was considered to be the right and necessary step for understanding the day to day relations among nations. The scholars emphasised the need for the interpretation of current developments and problems at international level. An attempt was made to overcome the shortcomings of the first stage and replace the historical bias by attempts to concentrate upon the present. However, in itself, this second stage was almost as much incomplete, partial and inadequate as was the first stage. The first stage had been concerned with the study of past without relating itto the present. Similarly the current events stage was concerned with the present without attempting to trace the historical roots of the problem and events in the past. This stage also lacked an integral view of international relations in as much as it concentrated only on the study of present without any significant reference to the past. Like the Diplomatic History stage, it also failed to attempt a study of the future of intemational relations. The unrelated approach adopted at this stage, consequently felled to provide much help towards the development of an understanding and theorising of relations among nations. The failure to establish links with the past and the inabiity to assess the future possibilities made this stage a short lived stage. 3. The Third Stage: The Legal Institutional Stage The third stage, which developed simultaneously with the second stage. constituted an attempt to reform the nature and content of Intemational relations in future through the development of international law and institutions. Shocked by the sufferings inflicted by the First World War, the scholars adopted an idealistic outlook which focused attention upon the task of reforming intemational relations by institutionatising these through the development of international institutions like the League of Nations and by codifying the rules of International Law—the body ‘of rules governing the relations among nations. The Fourteen Points listed by President Wilson of the United States were together regarded as a Charter of Reforms for relations among nations. The Paris Peace Conference and the subsequent establishment of the League of Nations gave strength to the optimism that it was possible and desirable to make efforts towards the improvement of international relations. For this purpose, the Legatinstitutionalists proposed three alternative approaches: (1) Creation of supra-national institutions for reptacing the competitive and war prone system of territorial states, (2) Securing @ legal control of war by creating new intemational norms (International Law) for deterring the initiation of war and should it occur, minimising its destructiveness. (3) By eliminating weapons through global disarmament and arms control, peace should be strengthened.International Polties : History of Development and Autonomy 2 ‘The study of International Relations at this third stage was influenced by the faith in goodness of human relations and consequently it sought to study and improve international law and institutions. War was looked upon as both a sin and an accident which was to be eliminated through insiitutionalisation of relations. It was believed that all international problems could be solved by developing a system of international law and by successfully working the international organisations The scholars at this stage were infused with 2 spirit of emotional and visionary reformism under the influence of which they sought to reform the future of international relations. The establishment of an ideal international society free from war came to be adopted as the ideal ‘The approach at this stage was again partial and incomplete. It concentrated upon future without realising the importance of the past and present It made no attempt to base the study of international relations upon an understanding of the past history and the current problems which faced the nations during the inter-war years. Itignored the hard realities of international relations and instead adopted an idealistic approach which was soon found to be superficial and inadequate. The outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 proved the visionary and unhelpful nature of the third stage. No doubt this approach rightly stressed the need for ‘strengthening peace at international level, yet the solution that it ofered was almost Utopian. The scholars were putting the cart before the horse by attempting to develop egal institutions and organisations without first trying to understand the true nature of intemational relations. Moryenthau has rightly remarked that, “Between the two World Wars, the ‘scholars were concerned not with the understanding of the true nature of intemational relations but with the development of legal institutions and organisational devices which would supersede the type of international relations then existing.” Since the focus at this stage was narrow, the law and organisational approach failed to provide a durable basis to the highly dynamic international relations. The rise of dictatorships, aggressive nationalism and certain other factors, like the economic depression of the 1930s, made the matters worst for bath the League of Nations and international Law. The outbreak of the Second World War gave the final death blow to this stage and it vitually ended the era of idealism in International Politics. 4, The Fourth Stage: The Contemporary Stage Between 1919-1939, the study of Intemational Relations passed through three main stages—the Diplomatic History, the Current Events and Law and Organisation cor the Political Reformism stages. All these three approaches were inadequate and partial. The first was past oriented, the second was obsessed with current problems ‘and the third concentrated on idealistic reformism. None of these could provide a meaningful direction to the study of International Relations. (A) The Impact of Two World Wars and the Need for Theory-building. ‘The fourth stage in the study emerged after the end of the Second World War. The deterioration in international situation which resulted into the outbreak of the ‘Second World War in 1938 amply proved the shortcomings of the approaches of inter-war period. The need for new approaches capable of examining and explaining relations among nations was felt in a big Way. The deep changes produced by the Second World War and its impact upen the power structure at26 International Pottics international level further made the task of developing new approaches to the study of International Relations a really challenging task. A number of scholars came forward to meet the challenge and in the process there was initiated the fourth stage of the study of International Politics, which continues to constitute the present stage of the study of International Relations (8) A New Emphasis upon Study of all Factors and Forces and not only Institutions. In the fourth stage of development, the emphasis was shifted from law and organisations to the study of all factors and forces which condition and shape the behaviour of nations in the international environment. Itwas realised that there existed regular pattems in international behaviour which were far away from idealism. The role of power found acceptance as an incontrovertible fact of international relations. This realisation led to the emergence of political realism which advocated the study of Intemational Poltics as a struggle for power among nations. The emphasis came to be upon the study of the determinants and working of foreign policies. Further, the process of conflict-resolution at intemational level ‘was accepted by many scholars as the field of research. The understanding of international relations through a realistic and objective study came to be accepted ‘as the purpose of study. Itwas accepted that the aim was not to praise or condemn but to understand the nature of international issues. in place of the: Institutional Approach, the Entity-Oriented View carne to be accepted. This view stressed the ‘study of unity of international relations. Study of international environment and the ‘ature of interactions among the nations came to be a popular direction in the study of the subject. The main emphasis was sought to be placed upon the development of scientific theories of intemational relations. (©) The Major Concerns of International Politics. During the past five decades considerable progress has been secured in the direction of developing a theory of International Politics. Many useful theories and approaches have come to be developed. The beginning was made in the late forties by the development of a Realist Model of International Politics particularly as formulated by Hans Morgenthau. Morgenthau’s Realist Model advocated the study of International Politics as struggle for power ‘among nations. if advocated National Power, National Interest and Foreign Policy fs the fundamental units of study. The main concern came to be the study of : (@ the motivating factors of foreign policies everywhere, {i techniques of conduct of foreign policies, and (ii) mode of resolution of international conficts, ‘The study of international institutions now came to be conducted nat from the legal and moral perspective but from the political perspective. For example the United Nations was viewed as a “poitical organisation designed not as a substitute of power politics but as an appropriate mechanism within which the direct national rivalries are compromised through normal processes.” In an age which had witnessed two World Wars within a short duration and which was witnessing the superpower rivalry and Cold War in international relations, it was natural for the Realists to define International Politics as struggle for power in which each nation tried to secure the goals of its national interest by the use of power. Intemational Politics was viewed 2s power politics.