BLOCK : I

THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Unit 1:
Growth of International Relations as a Discipline

Unit Structure :

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Objectives
1.3 Meaning of International Relations
1.4 Development of the Study of International Relations
1.4.1 Development till the Second World War
1.4.2 Development after the Second World War
1.5 Nature and Scope of International Relations
1.5.1 Nature of International Relations
1.5.2 Scope of International Relations
1.6 Summing up
1.7 References and Suggested Readings

1.1 Introduction

The scientific and technological advancement and improvements in the means

of communication have brought the countries of the world closer. In modern
times, the world has greatly shrunk as a result of the scientific and technological
development. As a result, events occurred in a particular country influence
the other countries of the world. Besides, the countries are mutually
dependent on each other and no country can remain aloof. Therefore,
International relationship is as much a product of necessity as social existence
itself. The study of International Relations is vital for the understanding of
the interpersonal relations between states. As an academic discipline,
International Relations has emerged after the First World War. With the
changing situations at the international sphere, the nature of International
Relations is changing and its scope is also widening. As a subject of study
it concerns peoples and cultures throughout the world. This unit specifically
deals with the meaning of International Relations and its development as an
academic discipline. Moreover, reading of this unit will also help you to
understand the nature and scope of International Relations.

1.2 Objectives

International Relations comprises the norms, rules, established practices

1 | Page
and institutions governing the relation among sovereign states. By the Space for Learners
end of this unit you will able to
• Discuss the meaning of International Relations
• Examine the various definitions of International Relations
• Describe the developmental stages of International Relations
• Analyze the nature and scope of International Relations

1.3 Meaning of International Relations

International Relations primarily studies interactions/relations among all

the actors of the international community. It is concerned with the
behaviour of international system or the interactions and relations among
nations and other international actors present in the international
environment. International Relations seeks to study mainly the political
dimension of the relations among nations. Jeremy Bentham first used the
term ‘international’ in 1780 when he talked of ‘International
jurisprudence’. According to H. J. Morgenthau, ‘International Relations
includes analysis of political relations and problems of peace among
nations’. Again Burton says that 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.

Hence it can be said that International Relations is a system of interactions

among nations that involve the use of power. However, in the present
time, International Relations also include the study of political, economic
and cultural relations.

Stop To Consider:
International Politics and International Relations:
International Relations is often confused with terms like World
Politics, international affairs, International Politics etc. The term
International Politics has a wider connotations than International
Relations because it embraces all sorts of relations among peoples
and groups in the world society viz, political, social, cultural,
economic, legal, official as well as non-official. Thus, all international
transactions – financial and commercial, international sports, technical
co-operation, cultural visits, business visits, trade and economic
relations, diplomatic relations etc. form part of International Politics.

2 | Page
 On the other hand, ‘International Relations’ reduces the scope of Space for Learners
study and is mainly concerned with the study of power-relations
among nations and the study of other aspects of relations is incidental
to this basic necessity. According to Prof. E. H. Carr, ‘International
Relations includes only those aspects of International Politics in which
some conflict of purpose or interest is involved’. Despite the
differences, many writers do not like to draw a line of demarcation
between International Relations and International Politics. Scholars
like Morgenthau and Kenneth Thompson use the term inter-
changeably and regard International Relations as an inalienable part
of International Politics. The scope and complexity of the interactions
among the countries of the world is changing making the study of
International Relations a challenging subject. Strictly defined, the field
of International Relations concerns the relationships among the
world’s governments. But these relationships cannot be understood
in isolation. They are closely connected with other actors (suchas
international organizations, multinational corporations, and
individuals); with other social structures (including economics, culture
and domestic politics); and with geographical and historical
influences. Though International Relations and International Politics
are used interchangeably, as a field of study, International Relations
have uncertain boundaries.

As a part of political science, International Relations is about International

Politics—the decisions of governments concerning their actions towards
other governments. However, to some extent the field is interdisciplinary,
relating International Politics to economics, history, sociology and other
disciplines. Some universities offer separate degrees or departments for
International Relations. However, in most of the universities, International
Relations fall under Political Science. The focus ison the politics of
economic relationships, or the politics of environmental management.

Politics is the process by which power is acquired, maintained and

increased. Given the meaning to politics, International Politics may be
described as aprocess of adjustment of relationships among nations in
favour of a nation or a group of nations by means of power. Its focus is
on three things: national interest, conflict and power. The first is adjective,
the second is the condition and the third is the means of International
Politics. International Politics, therefore, can be described as a set of
these aspects of relations among independent political communities in

3 | Page
which some element of conflict of interests is present. But at the same Space for Learners
time, interests of some nations may be identical. It is, therefore, a
phenomenon of recurring pattern of conflict and harmony, but cooperation
is only possible only through control of conflict. Conflict at least can be
channelised into a desired direction. Thus, International Politics is the
study of the control of conflict and establishment of co-operation. Political
relations among nations cover a range of activities—diplomacy, war,
trade relations, alliances, cultural exchanges, participation in international
organizations and so forth. Particular activities within one of these spheres
make up distinct issue areas on which scholars and foreign policy makers
focus attention. Example of issue areas include global trade negotiations,
or specific ethnic conflicts such as the India-Pakistan and Arab-Israeli
conflicts. But one kind of politics that can have an international character
is not generally included in the field of International Politics i,e. the internal
politics of foreign countries. It is necessary to understand the nature of
International Politics in order to distinguish between International
Relations and similar expressions like world politics, international affairs
and International Relations. International Relations has been described
as the process of influencing, manipulating or controlling major groups
in the world, so as to safeguard and advance the interests of some against
the opposition of others. This implies that International Relations is also
described by some writers like Herbert Spiro as World Politics. But
world politics is different from International Relations. World politics
would be possible only when we are able to achieve a world state,
which is still a far cry.

Similarly, International Relations should not be confused with

International Affairs, as the latter includes non-political matters also.
Another term often need as a synonym of International Relations is
International Politics. The scope of the two yet not been well settled.
Margenthau and K.W. Thompson, however, maintain that the core of
International Relations is International Relations. The general approach
to the study of International Relations has been in terms of international
institutions, International Relations, power rivalries, international strategy
and enforcement procedures which are studied under International
Relations also. Yet both are not the same. The term international relations
between nations, in fact, describes all aspects of relationships between
nations—politics or non-political, peaceful or warlike, legal or cultural,
economic or geographical, official or non-official. International Relations
as such embrace the totality of the relationships among nations. On the
other hand, the study of International Relations is only a subcategory of

4 | Page
International Relations, although the most important one. For the time Space for Learners
being, however, International Politics should be treated as the or etical
aspects of International Relations.

Check Your Progress

1. Define International Relations?
2. Make a comparative analysis between International Politics and
International Relations.
3. Write true or false
a) Jeremy Bentham first used the term ‘international’.
b) International Politics includes analysis of political relations
and problems.

1.4 Development of the Study of International Relations

The study of International Relations is a relatively recent arrival on the

academic scene. Although the study of International Relations is
considered to be a modern phenomenon, the principles and techniques
of its study, at least in their rudimentary form, can be traced back to the
dawn of history. The ancient civilizations like the Egyptians, Chinese,
Greeks and Indians developed a code of inter-state conduct. However,
the International Relations at that time were designed to serve a very
limited purpose and truly speaking it was not international in character.
The states of that period mostly established relations with the state of
the same region, thereby making it regional relation. With Renaissance
and Reformation, territorial state emerged and with the Peace of
Westphalia in 1648, the tradition of International Relations between
different states set in, which continues to the present time.
As an academic discipline, the study of International Relations gained
recognition in the war (1919-1939) period. The first chair of International
Politics, called the ‘Woodrow Wilson Chair’ was founded in 1919 at
the University College of Wales. Several prominent professors like Alfred
Zimmern, C.K. Webster, Reynolds, E.H. Carr, all well known historians,
were the early occupants of the chair. This event marks the starting point
of the development of International Relations as an Independent
discipline.

In 1919, the School of Foreign Service came into existence in Georgetown

University, which was followed in 1924 by the establishment of the School

5 | Page
of International Studies at the University of Southern California. During Space for Learners
the period between the two world wars as many as eleven institutions
relating to the study of International Relations came into existence.
International Relations as a field of study experienced phenomenal growth
in the post-1945 period. Devastations of the two World Wars, increase in
the number of sovereign nation states, emergence of many supra-national
and non-state actors and the threat of new war have given new dimensions
to the study of International Relations.
Thus, in the twentieth century the study of International Relations has
passed through various stages of development. According to Kenneth
Thomson, it has passed through four main stages of development. Let
us now discuss the stages of development of International Relations.

1.4.1 Development till the Second World War:

As has been mentioned earlier, the interactions among nations can be

traced back to the dawn of history. However the emergence of
International Relations as an academic discipline is a recent phenomenon.
Here we have attempted to study the development of International
Relations in the period till the breakout of Second World War and after.

• The first stage, upto the end of the First World War, was dominated
by the monopoly of diplomatic historians, who generally avoided the
study of current affairs. They adopted a chronological and descriptive
approach and made no attempt to draw some principles from their
study of historical facts. This historical orientation precluded the
development of a theoretical care for the discipline. As such, no theory
of International Relations could develop during the period. Their
attempts brought to light certain interesting and important facts about
past International Relations. This phase is also termed as the
Diplomatic History Phase.

• During the second stage, starting after the end of World War I, the
scholars of International Relations emphasized the study of current
events and concerned themselves with the interpretation of the
immediate significance of current developments and problems. It can
be said that this approach was an attempt to do what had been
ignored by diplomatic historians. But no attempt was made to relate
the past. The review of newspapers, periodicals and journals was
considered to be the right and necessary step for understanding the
day to day relations among the nations. The result was that no well

6 | Page
 conceived theoretical or methodological foundation could emerge by Space for Learners
which the significance of current events could be understood in the
context of the totality of history and the future of international conduct.
This phase is therefore described as the ‘Current events stage’.

• The third period also began after the First World War and continued
to exist throughout the inter-war years and after. Shocked by the
First World War, the prevailing scholarship adopted an essentially
legalistic-moralistic approach and looked upon war as both an
accident and sin, and suggested international institutions to provide
alternative to this ‘ultimate argument of kings’. It stressed the
institutionalization of International Relations through law and
organizations and firmly believed that international problems could
be solved by international institutions. The Fourteen Points listed by
American President, Woodrow Wilson were together regarded as a
charter of reforms for relations among nations. In general, the temper
and scholarship at the early inter-war period was characterized by a
spirit of optimism. Hence, the concern of the scholars led to the
creation of an ideal international society. The Paris Peace Conference
and the subsequent establishment of the League of Nations gave
strength to the optimism that it was possible to make efforts towards
an improvement of International Relations.

It must be remembered here that the main concern during the period
was not to understand the nature of International Relations but to develop
legal institutions and organizational devices. In short, the concentration
of research and academic interests was in the field of international law
and organization. This period had strong faith in the goodness of human
relations. It was believed that all international problems could be solved
by developing a system of international law and by successfully organizing
and working international organizations. This approach, too, was not
sound, as it ignored the hard realities of international life. However, this
era of liberalism and optimism did not last for long. The Third stage of
development of International Relations is also regarded as the ‘Legal-
Institutional Stage’ or the ‘Law and Organization Stage’.

1.4.2 Development after the Second World War:

International Relations assumes very important role in the post World

War II period with the emergence of the new independent nations in
different parts of the world. The Second World War threw a challenge

7 | Page
to the approaches of the inter war period and necessitated a search for Space for Learners
a new approach to the study of International Relations. In this new
environment, the fourth phase of the development of the study of
International Relations started. In this phase, the emphasis has shifted
from International Law and organization to faces and influences which
shape and condition the behaviour of the states. It is no longer restricted
to diplomatic history or the form and structure of international
organization. Instead, our main concern now is fourfold: motivating
factors of the foreign policies everywhere, techniques of the conduct of
foreign policies, mode to the resolution of international conflicts, and
the creation of a new international order based on socio economic justice.
While during the inter-war years the League of Nations had been at the
centre of international studies, now world politics is the setting in which
International Relations are studied. Even the functions and purposes of
the United Nations are now studied in a political rather than in a
constitutional context. The purpose of studying the world issues now is
not to praise or condemn them but to understand them.

An important aspect of the impact of the Second World War was the
realization of the unsoundness of the earlier assumption that there was a
global common interest in peace. Consequently, our attention shifted
from the presumed availability of this common interest to finding what
people and nations really wanted and why there was conflict among
them. This is what marked a new phase in the development of the study
of International Relations.

This phase is essentially concerned with theoretical investigation.

Commendable efforts have, however, been made during the post-1945
period to develop scientific theories of International Relations. It started
with the development of Realist theory in the late 1940s. Although a
general and satisfactory theory of International Relations is yet to be
evolved, these efforts have given rise to various new scientific approaches
to the study of International Relations.

The emergence of Behavioural Revolution in politics has also influenced

the approaches and methods to the study of International Relations in
the post-Second World War period. The scholars of International
Relations used inter-disciplinary approach, which was favoured by the
Behaviouralists. Emphasis was also given to the development of more
and more sophisticated tools and methods in the study of International
Relations. Thus, in the fourth stage of development, International

8 | Page
Relations became a very vast and complex field of study. Space for Learners

However, what is important for our present purpose is the fact that the
study of International Relations has very much changed in its content
and nature after the Second World War. Technological development,
liquidation of colonialism, the rise of new nations, the emergence of new
international values and crystallization of old ones, end of cold war, wave
of globalization, the role of international morality and public opinion,
and above all, the desire for seeking a theoretical order in the knowledge
of international affairs brought changes in the nature of International
Relations. In other words, the nature of International Relations cannot
be studied in absolute isolation from what Joseph Roucek calls the
sociological nature of the twentieth century.

In this connection, two other things must also be borne in mind when we
study the development of International Relations in this twenty first
century. One, that a proper understanding of the present nature of
International Politics is not possible with a clear understanding of its
nature in the pre-1945 period of last century; and two, that the change
in the present nature of International Relations is not the total change in
any contrasting terms. It is true that International Relations of today has
freed itself from some of its old dimensions and has assumed some new
ones. But it is also true that it has retained a few of its old dimensions.

Stop to Consider
International Relations and International Laws:
International law is understood as law between nations, but also
those relating to international organizations, private companies and
NGOs, private international law, state laws, relations between
domestic politics and international law and other related questions.
International law is diverse. Therefore it is impossible to talk about
the role of International Law in universal and trans-historical terms.
The same is true with International Relations. There are a variety of
International Laws, depending on forms or ‘sources’, the particular
area they are supposed to regulate, the way they are understood
and perceived in different countries and indifferent historical periods
and so on. Some scholars of International Relations, especially
institutionalists and constructivists, have dealt with relevant treaties
and decisions and resolutions of international organizations in such
fields as international trade, global environment, disarmament, human
rights and humanitarian intervention. Thus, the study of International

9 | Page
 Relations after behaviouralism generally showed lack of interest in Space for Learners
the role of international law in the context of International Relations.
However, many scholars believe that International Law is still relevant
and plays an important role in International Politics. The scope of
International Relations is much wider than that of International Law.

SAQ:
Do you think that World War II changed the scenario of International
Politics? Give arguments in favour of your answer. (80 words)
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

1.5 Nature and Scope of International Relations:

In the previous section, we have dealt with the various stages of the
development of International Relations. We have also found that with
the development of the International Relations, subject-matter and the
field of the discipline is also widening. Therefore, it can be said that the
nature as well as the scope of International Relations is changing and
widening with the passage of time. Now in this section we are going to
discuss nature and scope of International Relations.

1.5.1 Nature of International Relations

International Relations, as the name suggests, is concerned with relations

and interactions among nations. While politics is defined as struggle for
power, International Relations has been defined as struggle for power
among nations. According to Morgenthau, ‘International Relations like
all politics is struggle for power. Whatever may be the ultimate aim, its
immediate aim is always power’. While discussing the nature of
International Relations, it is pertinent for you to know the basic elements
of it which are as follows:
• Nations are the primary actors in International Relations as groups
are in politics. However, with the passage of time, several non state
,trans-national and supra-national groups and organizations have also
come to play an important role here.
• Each nation has its own national interest for the fulfillment of which

10 | P a g e
 its policies are formulated. International Relations involves the art of Space for Learners
preserving or securing goals of national interests by using control
over other nations.
• Since every nation has its own national interest, the interests of various
nations may be in conflict with each other at the international level.
This results in disputes among various nations. Therefore, methods
are worked out for accommodation, reconciliation and adjustment
of the conflicts among the nations. Hence, conflict and co-operation,
as well as coercion and persuasion are present in International
Relations.
• In a conflicting situation, every nation wants to secure its own the
goals. For securing these goals nations use power. That is why each
nation is continuously engaged in the process of acquiring, maintaining
and increasing power. Power is defined as the ability to influence,
control and regulate behaviour and actions of other nations for
securing intended results.
• Power is also considered as the means and end of International
Politics. Nations use power for securing the goals and always seek
to increase and maintain power.
• International Relations is also regarded as the process of conflict
resolution among nations. We have already learnt that there are conflicts
of interests among nations at the international level.
However, existence of conflicts compels the nations with similar goals
to cooperate with each other. Thus, International Relations aims at
resolving conflicts among nations.
• International Relations involves continuous interactions among nations.
Because of the existence of conflicts, attempts must be made to adjust
the relations among nations. Therefore, the nations are always are
always engaged in the process of interactions.
• Foreign policy serves as a means for fulfilling national interests.
Therefore, the relations among nations at the international sphere take
the form of interactions among the foreign policies of the nations.

The above mentioned points describe the nature of International Relations.

Now let us discuss the scope of the subject matter of International
Relations. As has been mentioned earlier, the scope of International
Relations has been widening with the passage of time. It encompasses
much more than relations among nation states and international

11 | P a g e
organization and groups. Globalisation, scientific and technological Space for Learners
advancements have brought the nations of the world closer. If we
examine the nature of International Relations today, it is found that it
includes variety of transnational relationships at various levels, above
and below the level of the nation states. Now, International Relations
goes beyond the political relations among nations to include economical,
geographical, historical, legal, sociological, psychological and cultural
relations.

Stop To Consider:
Globalization and International Relations
By globalization we simply mean the process of increasing
interconnectedness between societies such that events in one part of
the world have effects on peoples and societies far away. In other
words we can say that a globalized world is one in which political,
economic, cultural, social events become more and more
interconnected. On the other hand International Relations primarily
studies interactions/relations among all the actors of the international
community. International Relations seeks to study mainly the political
dimension of the relations among nations, but to a limited extent. But
in the contemporary period due to the advancement of science and
technology International Relations gets a more expanded global
character unlike its traditional dimensions. For example, the incident
of 11th September 2001 probably more than any other events,
brought into the mind how just globalized the contemporary world
is. The incident followed by the war in Afghanistan (2001-2002)
and the controversial attack on Iraq in 1919, and subsequent
insurgency and Civil war, are some of the examples of the current
International Relations which is more globalized. Because in the
above mentioned incidents, states involved international coalitions
and transitional violent networks in conflicts that linked events in
different parts of the world.

1.5.2 Scope of International Relations

Already we have learnt the nature of International Relations. Regarding

the scope of International Relations we can say that in the initial stages
International Politics studied only diplomatic history. But soon the study
of International Law was included in its scope. After World War I, with
the establishment of the League of Nation, the study of international

12 | P a g e
institutions was also included in its scope. After World War II, its field
further widened and thus at present, International Relations have become Space for Learners
very extensive. The scope of International Relations includes the following
major areas in the contemporary period:

• Nation-states occupy a primary place in International Relations.

International Relations is all about the relations and interactions among
two or more nations. Therefore, the scope of International Relations
always includes the study of relations among the nations.
• National interests and National powers are two important areas of
International Relations. Each nation’s behaviour is guided by its own
interest at the international sphere. Therefore, in the study of
International Politics, national interest needs to be studied. Moreover,
through the national interests, the nations try to maintain and enhance
the national power. It has been observed by scholars like Morgenthau
that International Relations can be understood only if viewed as
‘interest defined in terms of power’. Hence, it can be said that, power
is the basis of inter-state relations and as such it forms an important
part of the subject matter of International Relations.
• National interest is closely associated with the Foreign policy of the
nations. Foreign policies aim at securing the objectives of the national
interests. In fact, a study of foreign policies of various nations alone
can explain the nature of relations and interactions among the nations.
• International Relations also includes economic instruments and trade
relations among various nations in the Modern period. Today,
economic instruments like foreign aid, loans, global markets etc.
influence the course of International Relations. Political relations are
also guided and shaped by economic relations.
• International Institutions and the regional organizations have come to
occupy very important position in International Relations today.
Besides UNO, several regional organizations like NATO, OAS,
OAU, OPEC, ASEAN, EU, SAARC etc. play very important role
in the International Politics today. Moreover, several trading blocs
like G-8, G-77, G-20,G-24 etc. have also come to play an important
role in International Relations and become a subject-matter of
International Relations today.
Again, several non-state international or supra-national or trans-
national actors, NGOs, Human Rights Organizations, Peace
movements have also come under the scope of International Relations.

13 | P a g e
• Several concepts have controlled the behaviour of the nations in the Space for Learners
international environment. The concepts of Balance of Power,
Regionalism, Disarmament and arms Control, International Law,
World Public Opinion, diplomacy etc. are the important principles,
processes and concepts of International Relations. These have been
continuously influencing the actual operation of the foreign policies
of all the nations and hence have come to assume very important role
in International Politics.
• The scope of International Relations has been widening with the
inclusion of major contemporary issues and problems like international
terrorism, protection of Human Rights, issue of Climate Change,
environmental protection, ethnic conflicts, sustainable development
etc. Thus, it can be said that the core concepts of International
Relations are international organizations, international law, foreign
policy, international conflict, economic relations, military strategy,
international political economy, peace and conflict studies etc. It also
covers state sovereignty, ecological sustainability, nuclear
proliferation, terrorism, human security etc.

Check Your Progress:

1. Describe the scope of International Relations.
2. Analyze the scope of International Relations.
3. Write a note on the changing nature of International Relations.
4. How does globalization affect International Relations? Give a
critical view.

1.6. Summing up

After reading this unit, you are now in a position to discuss the meaning
of International Relations. You have also learnt that International Relations
assumes a very important role in the present time because no state can
remain isolated from the rest of the world. Moreover, technological and
scientific advancements have brought the nations of the world closer
necessitating the study of International Relations. Now you are in a
position to distinguish between International Relations and International
Relations. International Relations has a wider meaning and is concerned
with every form of interaction between and amongst nations. Such
interactions can also occur between corporation and social groups.
Moreover, this unit has also helped you in learning the development of
International Relations as an academic discipline. In the post Second

14 | Page
World War period, International Relations assumes new direction with Space for Learners
the emergence of new nation states. You have also learnt that with the
changing time and scope, the nature of International Relations is also
changing. Now besides the states, several non-state, trans-national and
supra-national groups and organizations are also playing very important
role in the study of International Relations. It serves as a platform for
the interaction of foreign policies of the nations. Moreover, economic
associations and trade relationships have also come to play very
important role in International Relations in modern times. Its changing
scope can also be understood from the inclusion of contemporary issues
and problems like international terrorism, the protection of Human Rights,
the issue of Climate Change, environmental protection, ethnic conflicts,
sustainable development etc. In the next unit of this block we shall deal
with at length the major approaches to the study of International Relations.

1.7. References and Suggested Readings

1. Mahendra Kumar: Theoretical Aspects of International Relations,

Shiva Lal Agarwal & Co
2. Jashua S. Goldstein: International Relations, Fifth Edition, Pearson
Education, 2003
3. C.W. Kegley (Jr), E. R. Wittkopt: World Politics, Trend and
Trnsformation, seventh Edition, 1999
4. Urmila Sharma, S.K. Sharma: International Relations, Theory and
History, 2000

15 | Page
Unit 2
Theories of International Relations

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Objectives
2.3 Realist Theory
2.4 Other theories of International Relations
2.4.1 System Theory
2.4.2 Decision Making Theory
2.4.3 Game Theory
2.4.4 Communication Theory
2.5 Summing up
2.6 References and Suggested Readings

2.1 Introduction

A theory attempts to explain something systematically or a set of guiding

principles to study a phenomenon or some events. Theory gives meaning
and clarity to our knowledge of facts by drawing generalizations and values
to concepts, hypotheses, models and variables in social science research.
In international Relations, theories allow us to understand the world through
different lenses. For studying International Relations systematically, the
scholars have adopted different theories in different periods of time. After
1940s there was a change in the International scenario which forced the
political thinkers to formulate new theories for studying new emerging
situations. This has resulted in the development of several other theories for
studying International Relations. In this unit an attempt has been made to
discuss different approaches to the study of International Relations.

2.2 Objectives:

The scope of International Relations has greatly expanded over the years.
Therefore, the earlier methods used in the study of International Relations
have failed to analyze the new emerging situations. Under such circumstances
new approaches to the study of International Relations have emerged. After
reading this unit you will be able to:
• Discuss the idealist and realist approaches to the study of International
Relations.
• Elaborate modern approaches like system or decision-making

16 | Page
 approaches.
• Examine game theory and communication theory of International Space for Learners
Relations.

2.3. Realist Theory:

Realism in International Relations emerges out of the individual belief that

others are always trying to destroy him and therefore, he must be ready to
destroy others whenever needed in order to protect himself. The basic
assumption underlying the realist theory is the perpetual existence of conflicts
among nations in one form or the other. This approach held the belief that a
contest of power is going on in the world and this can neither be controlled
nor regulated by international law or world government. Political philosophies
of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli provided the ground for the
emergence of realist approach. Advocates of the new, ascendant paradigm
known as realism, as a general philosophy, emerged to frame an intellectual
movement whose message reads like the antithesis of idealism. In the
International Relations, among the principal advocates of realism are E.H.
Carr, George F. Kennan, Hans J. Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr and
Kenneth W. Thompson. Realism regards politics as the struggle for power
and seeks to explain it with the help of such factors as power, security and
national interest. Conflicts of interests among the states are assumed to be
inevitable. According to realism, the main challenge before the state is to
survive in a hostile environment. To this end, no means is more important
than the acquisition of power, and no principle is more important than self-
help. In this conception, state sovereignty gives the heads of state the freedom
and responsibility to do whatever is necessary to advance the state’s interest
and survival.

As it has been mentioned earlier, realism opposes the principles of idealism.

For realism, respect for moral principles is a wasteful and dangerous
interference in the national pursuit of national power. A state’s philosophical
or ethical preferences are neither good nor bad -what matters is whether
they serve its self-interest. Thus, the game of International Politics revolves
around the pursuit of power: acquiring it, increasing it, projecting it and
using it to bend others to one’s will. At the extreme, realism appears to
accept war as normal and rejects morality as it pertains to relations between
individuals. The basic assumptions of Realism are as follows:
• People are by nature narrowly selfish and ethically flawed, and cannot
free themselves from the sinful fact that they are born to watch out for
themselves.

17 | P a g e
• Of all people’s evil ways, none are more prevalent or dangerous than Space for Learners
their instinctive lust for power and their desire to dominate others.
• The possibility of eradicating the instinct for power is a utopian aspiration.
• International Politics is—as Thomas Hobbes puts it a struggle for power,
“a war of all against all”.
• The primary obligation of every state is to promote its national interest,
and to acquire power for this purpose.
• The nature of the international system dictates that states acquire sufficient
military capabilities to deter attack by potential enemies.
• Economics is less relevant to national security than its military might;
economics is important primarily as a means of acquiring national power
and prestige.
• Allies might increase a state’s ability to defend itself, but their loyalty and
reliability should not be assumed.
• States should never entrust the task of self-protection to international
security organizations or international law and should resist efforts to
regulate international conduct.

Morgenthau is the most popular of all the realist thinkers. He has offered a
realistic theory of International Relations. According to him, ‘International
Politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever, the ultimate aims
of International Politics, power is always the immediate aim.’ Morgenthau
in his realist theory laid down six principles which are as follows:

a) Politics is governed by objective laws which are based on human

nature and psychology. We can understand the political phenomena
by developing a political theory based on human psychology and
reason.
b) Morgenthau lays great emphasis on the concept of national interest
which he defines in terms of power. He states that politics cannot be
understood in moral and religious terms but only on rational basis.
c) According to him, interest is not fixed and is moulded by the
environments.
d) He believes that the universal moral principles cannot be applied to
state’s actions and these must be modified according to the
circumstances of time and place.
e) Morgenthau does not find any identity between moral aspirations of
a nation and the moral law which governs the universe and asserts
that all political actors pursue their national interests.

18 | P a g e
 f) He is of the view that political sphere is as autonomous as the spheres Space for Learners
of economist, or the lawyer or the moralist. The Realist approach is
also subjected to criticism because of the boldness with which its
proponents stated assumptions about political behaviour. Moreover,
the concept of ‘national interest’ has been the object of considerable
criticism as there is no operational meaning to the concept. Thus this
approach suffers from ambiguity.

The Realist thinkers are also criticized for their efforts to draw from the
past a series of political concepts for the analysis of the contemporary
international system. Pursuit of limited national objectives, the separation
of foreign policy from domestic politics, the conduct of secret diplomacy,
the use of balance of power as a technique for the management of power,
and the pleas for nations to place reduced emphasis on ideology as a
conditioner of international conduct, have little relevance to the
international system today. By urging that nations return to the practices
of an earlier period, some realist writers over estimate the extent to
which such change in the present international system is possible.

In emphasizing power as the principal motivation for political behaviour, the

Realists have made themselves the objects of criticism. According to the
critics, no universally acceptable definition of power has been offered by
the Realists. Prominent realist thinker, Morgenthau considers power as a
psychological relationship. But psychological relationships themselves are
very vague. In addition, the Realists have been criticized for allegedly having
placed too much emphasis on power, to the relative exclusion of other
important variables. Despite the shortcomings of realist approach, it is still
relevant in analyzing international problems, especially in times of global
tension. This happened, for example, in the early 1980s when the cold war
competition between the United States and Soviet Union entered an
embittered new phase and their arms race accelerated.

2.4 Other theories of International Relations

Traditional theories to the study of International Relations have failed to a

large extent to analyze international situations because of their inherent
drawbacks. As a result, modern approaches to the study of International
Relations have come up. In this section, let us discuss some of the modern
approaches to the study of International Politics.

2.4.1 System Theory:

This approach emerged in the field of International Relations in the twentieth

19 | P a g e
century. It can be regarded as a result of Behavioural Revolution in social Space for Learners
sciences. There has been no unanimity among the scholars regarding the
meaning of a system. This approach seeks to analyze International Relations
as a system of interactions which are interdependent and interrelated. It
studies International Relations as a system of behaviour of international
actions. It should be remembered here that a system is probably the most
widely used term in political science and International Relations today.
System describes
(a) a theoretical framework for the coding of data about political
phenomena;
(b) an integrated set of relationship based on a hypothetical set of
political variables, e.g., an international system involving world
government;
(c) a set of relationships among political variables in an international
system, and
(d) any set of variables in interaction.

International Relations involve describable regularities in the interactions

among nations and as such it can be explained and analyzed as international
system. Morton Kaplan views international system as ‘an analytical entity
for explaining the behaviour of international actors and the regulative,
integrative and disintegrative consequences of their policies’. System analysis
describes a variety of techniques, such as cost-effectiveness studies, that
are designed to allow rational choices in decisions regarding the allocation
of resources. But in the literature of political science, ‘System analysis’ has
often been used interchangeably with ‘System theory’ in so far as it is
employed to describe conceptual frameworks and methodologies for
understanding the operation of political systems. It aids in determining a
political system’s capacity for maintaining its equilibrium in the face of stress
and for adapting to changes that are forced internally and externally.

Again, a system may be loosely or tightly organized. It may be stable or

unstable. Smaller systems (or subsystems) may exist within larger systems.
Every system, in some sense, involves communications which do not permit
the flow of information leading to a self adjusting process. Every system has
inputs and outputs; the output of one system may become the input of another
with which it is coupled. When systems are coupled in two directions, we
speak of the occurrence of “feedback”. Some inputs may affect the state of
the system and create disturbances in its equilibrium, after-which the system
returns to its former normal state. Other inputs may have such an impact as
to transform the characteristic behaviour of the system; instead of returning

20 | P a g e
to its former state of equilibrium, it might achieve equilibrium at a different Space for Learners
level and under different characteristic operating conditions.

The system theory was first expounded by Mc Clelland in 1955. The system
theory in International Relations has been elaborately discussed by Morton
A. Kaplan, Stanely Holfmann, Kenneth Bulding and Harold Guetzkow. Of
all writers who discussed the system theory in International Relations in
detail, Morton A. Kaplan has made the greatest effort to specify rules and
patterns of interaction within his model of the international system.

Kaplan has constructed six models of hypothetical international systems

which provide a theoretical framework within which hypotheses can be
generated and fasted. Within each model he has developed five sets of
variables: the essential rules, the transformation rules, the actor
classificatory variables, the capability variables and the information
variables. The so-called“ essential” rules are essential because they
describe the behaviour necessary to maintain the equilibrium in the
system. The actor classificatory variables set forth the structural
characteristics of the actors. Capability variables indicate armament
levels, technologies and other elements of power available to actors.
Information variables refer to the levels of communication within the
system.

Kaplan maintains that there is some coherence, regularity and order in

International Politics. According to him, International Politics implies two
things: international system and nation-state system. Nation States are the
main actors in International Politics but their rule changes with the change of
international system. Kaplan identified six models of international system in
his analysis of International Politics.

The first model of Kaplan is the balance of power system which roughly
corresponds to that which was prevalent in the western world in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The operation of balance of power
system has six important rules which may be enumerated as follows:
(1) Each State can increase its power without war,
(2) The primary obligation of each national actor must be to itself by
protecting its interests even at the risk of war,
(3) One actor should not eliminate an important national actor,
(4) The national actor should oppose any coalition acquiring a
preponderant position,

21 | P a g e
 (5) The national actor should prevent others from subscribing to supra- Space for Learners
national principle, and
(6) Defeated actor should be permitted reentry into the system.

The balance of power system worked well as an absolute system for two
(18th and 19th) centuries in Europe and appeared as a rule of universal
applicability. But since the beginning of the twentieth century these rules are
not operating well.

The second model is described by Kaplan as a bipolar system. He believes

that the breaking of balance of power system may result in the bipolar
system—the ‘loose bipolar system’ and the ‘tight bipolar system’. In the
loose bipolar system each block has a leading actor. What followed just
after the Second World War was the loose bipolar system. In this system
both supra national actors as well as national actors participate. The loose
bipolar system is characterized by two major block actors (North Atlantic
Treaty Organization and Warsaw Treaty Organization), non-aligned actors
(India, Egypt etc.) and universal actor (United Nations). However, this system
has a considerable degree of inherent instability. The third model as has
been identified by Kaplan is tight bi-polar. The loose bi-polar system may
be transformed into a ‘tight bi-polar system’. In this model, non-aligned
states or non-members of either block would either disappear or shall have
little importance. Even the universal actor shall not be in a position to mediate
between the two block actors and may possibly cease to exist. However,
the tight bipolar system has failed to materialize.

According to Kaplan the fourth model is Universal system. It would be

possible when the United Nations becomes sufficiently strong to check war
and when the block system ceases to exist. It would be like a world federation
with governmental powers, yet leaving sufficient authority to the nation states.
The fifth model of Kaplan is called ‘hierarchical international system’. It
may come into existence when a universal actor absorbs the whole world
and only one nation is left as the universal actor with unchallenged authority.
In this unipolar system, national actors will be just territorial/administrative
subdivisions of the international system rather than independent political units.
This system can be both directive and non-directive. It will be directive if it
is formed as a result of world conquest by a national actor. But it would be
non-directive if power is distributed among nations according to the hierarchy
under the overall domination of a single national actor. The sixth model
projected by Kaplan is the ‘unit-veto system’. The essence of this system is
that all states will be equally able to destroy each other. This system is

22 | P a g e
possible in a condition in which all actors come to possess weapons of such Space for Learners
a nature that any actor is able to destroy another actor, even though at the
risk of his own destruction.

Thus, the sixth models of international systems proposed by Morton Kaplan

have only limited merit. The balance of power system is impracticable in
contemporary times. Kaplan was wrong in predicting that the balance of
power system leads first to loose Bi-polar system and then to a tight Bipolar
system. The course of evolution of International Relations in the post-World
War II reflected that the opposite was true. He also overlooks the fact that
the concept of national interest has already undergone a transformation so
as to be compatible with the universal interest. Again, the fourth hypothetical
models of Kaplan also appear to be totally impracticable. It is really doubtful
that the existing international organization, the United Nations, to become a
really powerful and effective universal actor. Likewise, unit veto system is
also far from practicable.

His models ignore the role of the economic, technological, personal, geopolitical
and political factors of international organizations. Therefore, it can be said
that the system theory is only a theoretical tool which has many operational
difficulties. Again, being behaviourally oriented, it is value- neutral. Another
major shortcoming with system analysis is its attempt to reduce things to
quantitative variables. But human material is complex and the behaviour of
statesmen is difficult to predict. Moreover, system theory ignores the
psychological and social forces affecting the operations of a system.

Stop to Consider
Genesis of System Approach
Genesis of system approach can be found in natural resources. This
idea is developed from biology and then adopted by the social
scientists. The German Biologist Ludwig Van Bertalanfly was the
first to state the formulations of the general systems theory way back
in 1930s. He defined system as a set of ‘elements studying in
interaction’. The post-Second World War era period witnessed, in
the USA particularly, a fundamental shift in the writings of numerous
American scholars when they began to borrow a lot from other social
and natural sciences so as to give new empirical orientation to political
studies which helped ultimately to examine numerous concepts, out
in the process enriched their findings.

23 | P a g e
2.4.2 Decision-Making Theory: Space for Learners

Decision-making approach is a very popular approach in International

Politics. Decision-making is simply the act of choosing among available
alternatives, about which a certain amount of uncertainty exists. It furnishes
a comprehensive and useful checklist of the factors which one ought to take
into account in any attempt to analyze policy making, either as a process in
a specific case. Its central focus is upon something much smaller than the
whole political system.

The intellectual origins of the decision making theory go back to the eighteenth
century. In 1738 Daniel Bernouli produced formulations of the decision-
making theory. Anthony Downs in 1957 produced formulations of
governmental decision-making in terms of economic theories also contributed
to the growth of the decision- making theory. In the late 1950s and early
1960s several writers like William Riker, James Robinson and Herbert Simon
brought about an enrichment of the decision making approach to the study
of political science. Thinkers like Richard C. Synder, H.W. Bruck and Borton
Sapin have made significant contributions towards the growth of this approach
in the later period.

Decision making is a process or a sequence of activities involving stages of

problem recognition, search for information, and definition of alternatives.
The object of the decision making theory is to devise a conceptual framework
that can help us in the reconstruction of the situation as defined by the decision
makers. The setting consists of internal and external parts. The internal settings
include domestic politics, public opinion, personalities and organizations.
The external setting implies all the relevant factors in the total situation of the
international system existing at a particular time e.g. the factors beyond the
territorial boundaries of the state, the decision of other states and the nature
of their society. There is difference of opinion among the theorists of this
approach and different lines are followed by them. The first line places
emphasis on environmental factors which mean how the environments
influence the decision making. The environment has two aspects—one which
the decision makers can see and the other which is beyond their perception
and estimation. This aspect was emphasized by Herold Sprout and Margaret
Sprout. The second includes the personality factor. The study of the
personality of the decision makers can be helpful in explaining things at least
so long as the same decision makers continue to control the foreign policy.
This factor was emphasized by Alexander George and Juliettee George.
Third line of approach is related to a study of those actors who actually

24 | P a g e
participate in the formulation of foreign policy. There are at least five elements Space for Learners
which influence the foreign policy making: the public opinion, interests groups,
and the media of mass-communication, and specific agents in the executive
branch and specific committees of a legislature. According to Synder, there
are two fundamental purposes of decision making approach. They are :
• To help identify and isolate the ‘crucial structures’ in the political
realm where action is initiated and carried out and where decisions
must be made
• To help analyze systematically the decision-making behaviour ‘which
leads to action and which sustains action’. While discussing the
decision-making approach, Synder has also pointed out certain
variables of decision-making approach. They are:
a) Decision Actors: This approach focuses enquiry on a class of actors
called decision-makers, who make the decisions and are actually
responsible for them.
b) Decision-makers as actors in a situation: The behaviour of the
decision maker has to be studied in terms of action analysis and
they should be treated as actors in a situation.
c) The setting: It is important to take into account the environment or the
situation in which they formulated and implemented the decisions.
d) Decision situation: It should also be taken in to account as to whether
the situation was certain, risky, stressful, crucial, hostile, threatening,
short of time, controllable or uncontrollable.
e) Decision Process: Snyder’s model gives key importance to the
study of decision-making process. Decision making theory in
International Politics should be taken as the interaction of foreign
policies and that for the understanding of the interaction the only
useful approach can be to study it in the context of foreign policy
decisions. But the theory suffers from several short comings. In
the first place it is too empirical. It completely ignores the norms
values or high principles which exercise profound influence on
International Politics. Moreover, the theory offers a ‘state-centric’
model of International Politics. It merely tries to prove that the
decision makers tend to fit incoming information into their existing
theories and images. Furthermore, the theory mainly focuses on
the motives and actions of the decision makers and completely
ignores the role of other factors which influence the pattern of
International Politics. Finally, it ignores the objective nature of

25 | P a g e
 international developments. It does not supply any criteria either Space for Learners
to explain the patterns of power politics or to prescribe the rulers
of international behaviour. The decision-making framework is
intended to show how and why a nation acts in the International
Politics. However, a general study of the International Relations
cannot be fruitfully made with the exclusive help of the decision
making theory even though it is very useful as a tool in the foreign
policy analysis.

SAQ:
To what extent the variables put forwarded by Synder affect the decision
making process? Discuss. (80 words)
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

2.4.3 Game Theory

Game theory is a specialized form of decision-making theory and a

controversial one. This theory attempts at applying different models of game
to International Politics. When we deal with international strategic situations,
game theory helps us to clarify our thought about available choices, suggests
novel possibilities which might not otherwise have occurred to us, and induces
us to penetrate to a deeper, more generalized level of comprehension at
which more powerful analytic methodologies might usefully be brought into
play. The theory of game has been developed mainly by the mathematicians
and the economists. Martin Shubnik, Oscar Morgenstern and Karl Deutsch
were among the first two, who recognized the importance of game theory.
It is a method of analysis and also of reflecting the best course of action.
This theory attempts to give a decision regarding what action is rational in a
particular situation. Game theory is based upon an abstract form of reason
in garising from a combination of mathematics and logic. Nearly all game
theorists would agree that the theory with which they deal is addressed to
what is “rationally correct” behaviour in conflicting situations in which the
participants are trying to “win”, rather than to the way individuals actually
do behave in conflicting situations. Each game is characterized by the
following elements:

26 | P a g e
Conflict: In the game of International Relations, nations are in conflict with Space for Learners
each other. Each one tries to defeat the other. In other words, International
Politics is a game between opponents.
• Rules of the Game: The opponents in International Relations observe
certain rules or norms which condition their behaviours like in every game.
• Rational behaviour: The players are guided by rational behaviour and
each tries to choose the best course of action that can bring him maximum
gains.
• Strategy: The concept of strategy is a core concept of game theory. A
strategy means a skillful plan or the previously decided set of moves to
be taken when the anticipated moves of the opponents require them.
The model which the theory employs is that of a game of strategy and
not a game of chance. Game theory envisages several types of games.
The basic game is known as the ‘two person-zero sum’ game. In this
game, there are only two players. The struggle is decisive, the victory
destroys the loser. Another type of game is called the ‘constant-sum
game’. The game in which both the players try to acquire equal benefit is
known as the ‘non-zero sum game’. In this game there is both conflict
and co-operation between the players. It is a game in which neither side
loses and both may win. The game theory is particularly applicable to
the study of those social phenomena in which the actors are struggling
hard for their own advantage but do not have any real control over the
factors which are crucial in deciding the outcome of the game. The range
of such phenomena is extremely wide and covers all the economic,
political, military and social aspects. The game theory has been applied
to all these aspects, in varying degrees.

Game theory is a model of rational behaviour. If used as a descriptive

model it can provide a standard by which policy actions can be judged
as rational or irrational. But it fails to tell us why states as actors
sometimes behave irrationally. It assumes that participants have similar
objectives, norms and leadership characteristics, a situation that
obviously can never be obtained in reality. Further, it assumes that decision
makers are perfectly rational and a moral in their decisions and have
perfect information or intelligence available to them. But conscious
rational decisions appear to be an exception rather than a role.

The real weakness of the game theory is that it can be applied with
some success to cases of ‘two-person zero sum’ games. But in
International Politics, there are few such situations. Most often there

27 | P a g e
are mixed games in International Politics. Some have questioned the Space for Learners
validity of the game theory in its zero-sum form. The main objection is
that the game theory in this form has contributed very little to problems
like limited war, deterrence, surprise attacks, atomic blackmail, and
massive retaliation. International Politics does not relate only to war.
The concept of zero-sum game is loosing its importance since the
conflicting parties no more want war. The balance of nuclear power and
devastating nature of wars have placed a premium on negotiations rather
than confrontation. Hence, to avoid the pit-falls of zero-sum game, some
other game theories such as ‘chicken game’ and the game of
“philosopher’s dilemma” are developed. But they too have their own
limitations.

Stop To Consider
Other Modern Approaches to International Politics:
The scientific or modern approaches to International Politics attach
more importance to the methods and techniques. The advocates of
this approach try to build up theory of International Relations on the
basis of logical, mathematical and empirical grounds.
Equilibrium approach is an approach which according to Quincy
Wright, is a relationship among the forces operating upon or within
an entity or group of entities so that the whole manifests in some
degree of stability. George Liska and Morton Kaplan are the main
exponents of the equilibrium approach. Equilibrium is of two types:
static and dynamic. In static equilibrium a self maintaining system of
automatic compensatory reaction occurs after disturbances, restoring
the original conditions. This type of equilibrium is found in
constitutional cases as well as in general cases. Since all elements
are interdependent and inter-related, a process of action and reaction
ultimately leads to dynamic equilibrium. A country with relatively
equal distribution of power provides the example of constitutional
or institutional order or equilibrium. It is a theoretical norm and an
actual tendency towards equilibrium. According to George Liska,
multiple equilibrium involves political, economic, military, socio
cultural aspects of a society. It is a desirable step towards stability.
Morton Kaplan states that equilibrium approach can define balance
of power system in the true sense of the term. According to George
Catlin , equilibrium is not a process but an actual condition.
Equilibrium assumes that International Relations tend towards stability
and equilibrium. However, one of the defects of this approach lies in

28 | P a g e
 the fact that since the variables of International Politics are not Space for Learners
measurable in exact proportion, the possibility of empirical verification
is very limited. Besides, Karl Deutsch developed Quantitative theory
and developed certain measurable indices of community development.
Behavioural approach tries to analyze International Relations as a
strife between various national characters.

SAQ
In your opinion which kind of game is more applicable in contemporary
world politics? (60 words)
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

2.4.4 Communication Theory

The communication theory, relatively the latest in the study of International

Politics, is related to cybernetics—the science of control and
communication system. If politics is a system, the control of the system
depends on communications and the ability of the state is related to its
ability to deal with the information. The communication system is of great
importance in understanding a political system because no operation of
political system can communicate with each other. Communication links
together the parts of the system and also the present with the past and
the future, so that demands are followed by politics. Communication
has been used both in narrow and broad sense. In the narrow sense it
includes the procedures by which one mind may affect another. In the
wider sense it involves not only oral speech but all human behaviour. In
a still wider sense it is used with reference to the ways in which the
political environment excites signals in the central nervous system
together with the ways in which the human beings operate upon the
physical environments.

It may be observed that the term ‘political communication’ as an approach

to the analytical study of International Relations is different from the term
communication used in relation to the media of dissemination of information.
As students of International Relations we are not concerned with the channel
of communication like press, radio, though they may form a part of the
study of political communication. On the other hand we are concerned with

29 | P a g e
the study of communication approach in relation to the study of international Space for Learners
political system.

Political communication envisages certain concepts pertaining to operating

structures viz, flow, processes and outcomes. As regards to operating
structure every system has ‘reception system’ dealing with the intake of
information. It also covers other functions like scanning operation, selection
of information and data processing. The intake, along with the relevant past
experiences, is used by the decision making part. The ‘flows and processes’
deal with the channels and other terms like loads and loan capacity. Load
relates to the overall intake of information of any given time. Load capacity
is related to factors like responsiveness (taking account of and handling
incoming information), fidelity (accuracy with which information is transmitted
in the various processes), voice and distortions (the distortions that tend to
affect the accuracy of information transmitted). The outcome manifested in
the form of decisions is the result of inputs.

For a proper understanding of the operation of communication we must

understand other terms like feedback, lag, gain and lead. Feedback refers
to the message about the actions which are returned to the system and
enable the decision makers to access their success or failure. Leg is a measure
of delay in reporting and acting on information about the consequences of
the decisions and actions. Gain represents the extensiveness of a system’s
response to the information. Lead refers to the capacity to respond to the
forecasts of future consequences. The element which leads to the integration
in the system is the communication process. Lasswell formulated it as “who
says what in what channel, to whom with what affect.” In other words when
we make use of psychological methods to influence others, we essentially
engage in an exercise in ‘communication’.

According to Karl Deutsch, there are three processes of cybernetics which

can be applied to politics. First, the use of models in social sciences that
help man to understand complex processes. Second, as the existing models
are incapable of effectively representing the crucial relationship in social
sciences, the cybernetic model should be developed so that these crucial
relationships can be isolated, identified and measured. Third, cybernetics
model can be offered to politics in general as well as International Politics.
In the international sphere Deutsch is concerned with security politics in the
context of peace and war. Referring to Security Community, a group which
has developed the institutions and processes to assure peaceful changes, he
says, it is the result of integration process which includes psychological role-

30 | P a g e
taking and process leading to mutual interdependence and mutual Space for Learners
responsiveness.

The communication theory is of great importance in so far as it tries to

explain the International Relations in terms of a single objective, viz.,
national interest. It asserts that International Politics is no more important
and the state is fast losing its status as a monolithic sovereign body. The
theory doesnot look at power as the key factor in the political phenomena
and emphasizes the dependable condition of human efforts and
expectations for the attainment of the good of the society. Moreover,
this theory makes use of quantitative data which could be used as
complementary tool to check, and confirm the judgement of the political
analysis. Thus it provides a deeper and a systematic understanding of
the various events. But probably the most important contribution of the
communication theory is that it has greatly widened the concept of political
process by including the role of the individual and the groups within the
political framework of the state. At the international level, it has
emphasized that the consideration like boundaries of state, political and
military security (which were the dominant objectives and motivations
of state) have lost their importance in the present context because of the
concept of single system of interdependent world.

Check Your Progress:

1. Discuss Realist theory of International Relations
2. What is system theory? Analyze its main models.
3. Analyze the three types of game forwarded by the game theory.
4. Critically examine the communication theory in the study of
International Relations.

2.5 Summing up

After going through this unit now you are in a position to illustrate different
theories to the study of International Relations. In this context it is
pertinent to mention here that an approach is similar to a theory. It includes
generalization, explanation and prediction of international scenario just
like a theory. Here you have also learnt that the difference between a
theory and an approach lies in the fact that a theory tries to give a
complete picture of International Relations, whereas approaches are
partial and through them International Relations can be studied in parts
or compartments. Nevertheless, there are various approaches to study

31 | P a g e
International Relations systematically. All you know that in International Space for Learners
Relations the sovereign nation state is the actual or real participant. And
the approaches to the study of International Relations analyze the
structure and the mechanism of these nation state systems. However no
approach is free from criticism. After reading this unit, it can be said
that, the theories of International Relations have become increasingly
inter-disciplinary, behavioural, comparative and scientific. Considering
the changing scenario of International Politics different approaches have
emerged to analyze international system from various contemporary
perspective, for example social constructivism theory, feminism theory,
environmental approaches etc. In this changing scenario International
Relations has transformed from state centric study to the study of global
strategic phenomenon.

2.6 References and Suggested Readings

1. Kumar Mahendra: Theoretical Aspects of International Politics, Shiva

Lal Agarwal & Co.2000
2. Goldstein, Jashua S.: International Relations, Fifth Edition, Pearson
Education, 2003
3. Kegley C.W. (Jr), E. R. Wittkopt: World Politics, Trend and
Transformation, Seventh Edition, 1999
4. Chandra Prakash: Theories of International Relations, Third Edition,
2005.
5. Sharma Urmila, S.K. Sharma: International Relations, Theory and
History, 2000

32 | P a g e
Unit 3 :
Levels of Analysis

Unit Structure :

3.1 Introduction
3.2 objectives
3.3 Levels of Analysis
3.4 The Three Level of analysis
3.4.1 International or Systemic Level
3.4.2 State Level
3.4.3 Individual Level
3.5 Structures, institutions, and levels of analysis
3.6 Summing Up
3.7 Reference and suggested Readings

3.1 Introduction

As we have already learnt that, the study of international relations takes

a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the
discipline itself; others have been imported, in whole or in part, from
disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific
theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations.
Many theories of international relations are internally and externally
contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of
this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable,
differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize. We shall start
with the origins of the theoretical study of international relations, the
traditional scientific and post behavioral schools in international relations
and then move on to the various theories, for example systems theory,
functional theory, decision making theory, simulation and games theory.
Finally we shall get down to the application and utility of these theories.

3.2 Objectives

The major objective of this unit is to interpret and describe international

relations, to study a variety of explanations for various events and non-
events, and to consider various prescriptions or solutions to different

33 | P a g e
kinds of problems. At a more prosaic level, it is hoped that you will Space for Learners
become a more intelligent consumer of news about international issues.
As you become familiar with the various approaches to the study of IR,
and with their particular strengths and weaknesses, you will be able
more readily to identify the options available to international actors and
the constraints within which they operate.

3.3 Levels of Analysis

As we know that, International relations, or the relationships and

interactions between different nations and ethnicities, is inherently
complex, both in practice and as an academic discipline. Since the
publication of Kenneth Waltz's Man, the State, and War in 1959, scholars
and diplomats have found it useful to think about the numerous factors
that shape international relations by breaking them into different levels
of analysis -- individual, state and international. These different levels of
analysis illuminate different reasons for why countries go to war, sign
treaties or pursue alliances -- is it due to the personalities of individual
leaders, the values of particular nations as a whole or the characteristics
of the international system as a whole?

Thinking of different levels of analysis in International Relation means

that the observer and analyst may choose to focus on the international
system as a whole, parts of the system in interaction with each other, or
some of its parts in particular. What forms the parts or components of
this system is again a matter of perspective. The international system
can be conceived of as made up of states, groups of states, organisations,
societies or individuals within and across those societies. International
Relation generally distinguishes between three levels of analysis: the
system, the state, and the individual – but the group level is also important
to consider as a fourth. To be able to use the level of analysis as an
analytical device, we need to be clear about what we are most interested
in. We have to clarify for ourselves what it is exactly that we want to
look at when discussing a particular theme or issue concerning the
‘international’ sphere.

If we were to study and understand the 2008 global financial crisis and
its consequences, for example, there would be various ways of
approaching, discussing and presenting the issue. To determine the level
of analysis we would need to determine what those levels are and ask
ourselves some questions, which we can explore below.

34 | P a g e
Background Space for Learners

The level of analysis debate in IR began in the late 1950s when Kenneth
Waltz(1959) published his classic text, Man, the state, and war. In it, he
posits three ‘images’ as independent variables to explain state behaviour
as the dependent variable—in his case, the decision of a state to go to
war. The first image is the individual, in which properties of humans are
examined in terms of their causal impacts on whether a state goes to
war. The main property considered is the material condition of human
nature, but this image is also consistent with ideational properties such
as social identities. The actual term ‘levels of analysis’ was coined by
Singer in his 1960 review of Waltz (1959). In it, he argues that all three
levels are needed, but that ‘the key variable is not the system itself, but
the way in which that system is perceived, evaluated, and responded to
by the decision makers in the several and separate states’ (Singer 1960,
461). In other words, Singer initially suggested the individual level to be
the most important. However, by the following year, when he published
his famous article on the topic, Singer had substantially rethought his
positions.

Self Asking Questions

Make an attempt to trace the origin of the concept of Level of Analysis
(50 words)
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

By level of analysis, we mean the recognition of the existence of different

levels of analyzing foreign policy. Generally there exist five levels of
analysis in foreign policy. Each of these can provide an insight into the
foreign policy action of a given state. It also presents a case study
approach to the examination of the state‘s foreign policy action. The
levels of analysis are as follows:

a) Individual:

If we take the individual for example and focus our attention on the
activities or statements or writings of the foreign minister of a state, we
can conduct a study into the foreign policy of such a state. We can, for
example, using this level of analysis, collect all the speeches and writings

35 | P a g e
of Henry Kissinger while in office as American Secretary of State, and Space for Learners
on the basis of this, make some analysis of United States foreign policy
at that particular period. However, even though this approach will
provide useful insights into the foreign policy of the United States for
example, it has its limitations in the sense that we would be ignoring
other levels of analysis which may also provide useful input into foreign
policy study.

b) Legislature:

At this level, we can study the debate and contributions of the legislature
as regards foreign policy. In the United States, Russia and Nigeria, for
instance, both arms of the legislature have committees on foreign
relations. The activities of such committees could be thoroughly examined
and studied. The attitudinal posture and deliberations of these committees
on the country‘s foreign relations matters a lot. In conducting such a
study, one is focusing attention on a broader spectrum (legislature) than
the individual.

c) Bureaucracy:

In looking at this level of foreign policy analysis, one is considering the

activities of the various branches of bureaucracy vis-à-vis foreign
relations. The process of decision-making which rests in the hands of
the bureaucrats quite often reflects all shades of opinion held by them.
Problems encountered in reaching foreign policy decisions are also
considered in this respect.

d) National:

Here, we are moving towards the completeness of the process of foreign

policy analysis of a state. This level includes interest groups and it gives
a broader picture of the foreign policy. Articulate groups in the state
express their views on what should constitute the foreign policy.
Government can ill-afford to ignore the opinions while formulating the
state‘s foreign policy.

e) International:

In the study of foreign policy, the external‘ environment has some bearing
in shaping the foreign policy of a state. Here, we study various external
stimuli in the process of the foreign policy. Assuming that there is war
between Pakistan and Bangladesh, the external stimuli will be the stimuli
generated by a third party like India. When a state reacts to external

36 | P a g e
stimuli, the reaction would enhance the study of the foreign policy of the Space for Learners
state.

Stop to consider :
Marxism and Levels of Analysis
Most theories of international relations fall into one of the three levels
of analysis. Marxism, however, does not rely simply on individual,
state or international levels, but sees class as the category that
underlies all political relations. Decisions are made by power brokers
who are members of the ruling, or elite class. The wealthy, capital-
holding class exerts power over the working class, and will continue
to do so until the working class gains control over the means of
production. On an international level, imperialism is also explained
by class relations. In the late 19th and 20th centuries, capitalist
nations needed raw materials as well as outlets for their factory-
made products. These factors led to the imperialist foreign policies
of most of Western Europe, something that Marxists argue has
continued to shape international relations today through the
international financial oligarchy of multinational banks and
corporations. In the Marxist view, it is class relations that motivate
and underlie decisions at the individual, state and international levels.

3.4 The Three Level of analysis

The fact that levels of analysis have been used in so many different ways
indicates a demand for language that will give expression to these various
related concepts. To grant us sufficient leverage, a definition of the term
should be able to clearly specify how levels of analysis, micro- and macro-
structure and agent and structure fit together. It should be consistent with
how the concept has been used historically since its inception, but it should
also enable scholars with different ontological and epistemological
commitments to converse about the nouns which constitute IR, even if
their views about the ontological status of these nouns differ.
IR generally distinguishes between three levels of analysis: the system,
the state, and the individual – but the group level is also important to
consider as a fourth. To be able to use the level of analysis as an analytical
device, we need to be clear about what we are most interested in.

3.4.1 International or Systemic Level

The international or systemic level of analysis argues that all foreign policy

37 | P a g e
can be understood without even looking at the internal characteristics of Space for Learners
nations or individuals. Rather, characteristics of the international system
lead nations to behave in particular ways based upon how much power
they hold. The most easily understood example of international level
analysis is the Cold War, when there was a bipolar system where two
nations -- the United States and the USSR -- both held substantial power.
When two nations hold the majority of international power, there will
inevitability be tensions between the two nations, and all their decisions
will be based on maintaining their power among nations and preventing
the other nation from gaining more power. As China gained power in the
1970s, a tripolar system emerged, and no one wanted to be the "odd
man" out, with the other two nations allied against the third. The Unites
States used this to its advantage by reopening relations with China and
thus forcing the USSR's hand in diplomatic relations. A more modern
example would be U.S. intervention in Iraq; supporters of international
level analysis argue that the United States is the only power -- the
superpower -- in a unipolar system, necessitating its military action to
demonstrate and maintain its power.

Self Asking Questions

Which level of analysis is more appropriate according to you in the
context of International relation. (50 words)
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

3.4.2 State Level

Supporters of state level analysis argue that the international system level
tells only part of the story of international relations, but looking at the
backgrounds of states -- type of government, economic performance,
geography, history and cultural values -- can offer a more complete
explanation. In this view, it is important to note that the Cold War was
not just a conflict between two superpowers but that one of the two
powers was a democracy. Similarly, the economic systems of the two
powers -- capitalist and communist -- are also significant. A state-level
analyst could point to the collapse of the USSR's economy in the 1980s
as one of the factors leading to the end of the Cold War. The U.S.
intervention in Iraq could be explained by the U.S. cultural belief that its

38 | P a g e
political and economic systems are "good" while other systems are "bad." Space for Learners

3.4.3 Individual Level

Finally, the individual level emphasizes the "great man in history" concept.
In this view, the very personalities of leaders shape foreign policy.
Leaders are not simply mechanically responding to international or state
systems, but taking an active role in determine international relations.
Perhaps the most obvious example of a individual level analysis is
explaining World War II through Adolf Hitler's leadership; another would
be when scholars attribute the end of the Cold War to the relationship
between President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev. Once again
using the Iraq War example, an individual level analysis would examine
the character and ideology of George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick
Cheney and other key players in influencing the U.S. military action.

Stop to Consider :
Marxism and Levels of Analysis
Most theories of international relations fall into one of the three levels
of analysis. Marxism, however, does not rely simply on individual,
state or international levels, but sees class as the category that
underlies all political relations. Decisions are made by power brokers
who are members of the ruling, or elite class. The wealthy, capital-
holding class exerts power over the working class, and will continue
to do so until the working class gains control over the means of
production. On an international level, imperialism is also explained
by class relations. In the late 19th and 20th centuries, capitalist
nations needed raw materials as well as outlets for their factory-
made products. These factors led to the imperialist foreign policies
of most of Western Europe, something that Marxists argue has
continued to shape international relations today through the
international financial oligarchy of multinational banks and
corporations. In the Marxist view, it is class relations that motivate
and underlie decisions at the individual, state and international levels.
(source: https://classroom.synonym.com/describe-realism-liberalism-
beliefs-20338.html)

3.5 Structures, institutions, and levels of analysis

Since the 1970s the study of international relations has been marked by
a renewed debate about the relationship between structures and

39 | P a g e
institutions in international systems. On one side of the controversy was Space for Learners
a revival of the school of realism, known as neorealism, which emerged
with the publication of Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics
in 1979. Neorealism represented an effort to inject greater precision, or
conceptual rigour, into realist theory. While retaining power as a central
explanatory notion, Waltz’s neorealism also incorporated the idea of
structure as it is reflected in alliances and other cooperative arrangements
among states of varying sizes, strengths, and capabilities. A bipolar
system, for example, is a structure in which two states are dominant and
the remaining states are allied with one or the other dominant state.
According to Waltz and other neorealists, the structure of the international
system limits the foreign-policy options available to states and influences
international institutions in important ways. The United Nations (UN),
for example, mirrors the structure of the existing international system
insofar as it is dominated by leading powers such as the permanent
members of the Security Council. Changes in international structure,
including the rise of new powers, eventually lead to changes within
international institutions. Thus, some neorealists have suggested that the
Security Council’s permanent membership will eventually be expanded
to include countries such as Germany, India, Japan, and others.

On the other side of the structures-institutions debate have been the

neoliberal institutionalists, who contend that institutions matter beyond
simply reflecting or codifying the power structure of the international
system. Although neoliberal institutionalists accept the realist conception
of states as the principal actors in a fundamentally anarchic environment,
they argue that state behaviour can be modified by interaction with
international institutions such as the European Union (EU), NATO, the
World Trade Organization (WTO), and the UN. Such interaction, they
contend, reduces the long-term potential for international conflict.

Although neorealist structuralists and neoliberal institutionalists generally

agree that international cooperation is possible, neorealists are much
more skeptical of its chances for long-term success. According to
neorealist logic, NATO should have dissolved in the 1990s after the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the bipolar structure that had led to its
formation. Instead, NATO was transformed in the decade following the
end of the Cold War, taking on new tasks and responsibilities. This
contradiction may be apparent, however, only because such adaptation
can be viewed as reinforcing the neorealist thesis that institutions reflect
the existing international structure: when that structure changes, they must

40 | P a g e
change accordingly if they are to survive. Thus, NATO was able to survive Space for Learners
because it underwent a transformation. At the same time, NATO’s
adaptation reflects the neoliberal-institutionalist contention that
international organizations can modify national interests through the
process of cooperation. Thus, NATO countries have altered their policies
to take account of the needs of other members, and potential members
have undergone rigorous internal reform in order to qualify for
membership. Consequently, each theory appears to offer useful insights,
and both together can form the basis of a unified approach to the
relationship between structures and institutions.

Stop to Consider
Constructivism
In the late 20th century the study of international relations was
increasingly influenced by constructivism. According to this approach,
the behaviour of humans is determined by their identity, which itself
is shaped by society’s values, history, practices, and institutions.
Constructivists hold that all institutions, including the state, are socially
constructed, in the sense that they reflect an “intersubjective
consensus” of shared beliefs about political practice, acceptable social
behaviour, and values. In much the same way, the individual members
of the state or other unit continuously construct the reality about
which policy decisions, including decisions about war and peace
and conflict and cooperation, are made.

Central to neorealist structural theory is the levels-of-analysis question—

i.e., the question of whether international inquiry should be focused at
the individual, state, international-system, or other level. Introduced in
the 1950s as part of an attempt to make research in international relations
more scientific, the levels-of-analysis question provided a conceptual
basis for addressing issues such as the effect of structure (bipolar or
multipolar) on the behaviour of states or other units. At the same time, it
offered a means of distinguishing between different sources of explanation
and different objects of analysis. Thus, assuming that the international
system shapes the options available to states as actors, it is plausible to
suggest that the way in which decision makers respond to such options
depends on how they perceive them and on the related opportunities
and constraints created by domestic-level forces. In the 1980s this
perspective was reflected in the burgeoning literature on “democratic
peace theory,” an approach that President Wilson undoubtedly had in

41 | P a g e
mind when he called on Congress to support an effort “to make the Space for Learners
world safe for democracy.” Democratic peace theorists appealed to the
internal characteristics of democratic states in order to explain why
democracies tend not to fight each other. According to them, the peaceful
norms that democratic states have developed for resolving differences
with each other are an outgrowth of their domestic traditions of law and
order, compromise, due process, protection of individual rights—
including property rights and the right to freedom of speech—and an
independent judiciary. In The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An
Introduction to the Study of International Relations (1939), E.H. Carr
contended that individuals’ interest in the creation of a peaceful world
could determine the foreign policies of democracies. A world constituted
entirely of democracies, according to this view, would be peaceful.

By the late 1990s neorealist structuralist theory had been supplemented,

in what was termed neoclassical realist theory, by explorations of the
implications of structure, not just at the international-system level but
also at the state level and within the state at the individual and group
levels. Realist theory continued to be marked by major disagreements,
however, a situation that supporters claimed was a reflection of rich
intellectual resources and that detractors cited as an indication of
fractured conceptual foundations. In any event, the contemporary effort
to update, refine, and broaden realist theory, as well as the ongoing
debate between neorealism and neoliberalism, may represent a trend
toward a synthesis of the various realist schools of thought.

Although the study of international relations must account for the unique,
new, and non-recurring phenomenon, it is also concerned with recurring
processes and patterns of behaviour. These patterns occur with much
regularity and often transcend specific historical episodes. They provide
opportunities for scholars to draw generalisations and conceptualisations
that cut across historical events. The generalisations provide a platform
for the formulation of explanatory paradigms on such issues as the causes
of war, imperialism, escalation, crises, alliance, deterrence, etc. without
having to describe specific historical wars, alliances, crisis and other
issues. It is the possibility of drawing such generalisations and concepts,
building explanatory models and paradigms, which underlines the
importance of the theoretical study of international relations.

Since World War II, international relations scholarship has moved from
more description of events, the analysis of international treaties with a

42 | P a g e
legalistic and moral tone, to the development of explanatory theories and Space for Learners
paradigms on international phenomena. The process evolved towards the
development of a “predictive science’ of international relations. The logic
of international relations as a predictive science is based on the claim that
when enough basic propositions about the behaviour of policy makers,
states, and international systems have been tested and verified through
rigorous research methods, predictive statements, i.e., theories, can be
advanced with sufficient clarity.

Check your Progress

1. What do you mean by level of analysis in International Relation?
2. Discuss the Three Level of analysis in International Relation.
3. Examine the role of institutions in the study of level of analysis in
International Relation.

3.6 Summing Up

From the study we have a clear picture that theories are methods of
organizing information in order to lead to understanding of observed
phenomenon. The international studies literature often refers to the “level
of analysis problem.” From this unit the points out that what has often
passed for a single problem actually consists of at least three separate
issues: the use of aggregate data to make ecological inferences in statistical
analyses; the definition of primitive units in international relations theory;
and the identification of the effects of systems on their individual
constituent units. The paper goes on to show that some of the problems
that have been discussed under the “level of analysis” rubric can be
better understood if each of these different issues is considered
separately. Levels of Analysis is related to the explaining of causes of
phenomenon (Buzan, 1995). The coming to the fore of levels of analysis
in international relations was the result of the behavioral movement during
the 1950s that was attempting to apply methodology of natural sciences
in social sciences. Before that, traditional approaches were dominant,
and they were more oriented towards history and law. The works of
Kenneth N. Waltz, Morton A. Kaplan, and J. David Singer have had
major roles in bringing levels of analysis into international relations
(Buzan, 1995). Since then, the works of Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver
have added the level of regional analysis to International Relations studies.
This article reviews the three main levels of analysis and also explains
the regional level of analysis in international relations.

43 | P a g e
3.7 Reference and suggested Readings Space for Learners

1. Bacharach, M. (2006). Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and

Frames inGame Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2. Baird, D., Gertner, R., & Picker, R. (1994). Game Theory and the
Law.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Bertalanffy, L.V. & Laszlo, E. (1972). The Relevance of
GeneralSystems Theory. Paper presented to Ludwig von Bertalanffy
on his seventieth birthday. The International Library of
SystemsTheory and Philosophy. New York.
4. Binmore, K. (1987). Modeling Rational Players I. Economics
andPhilosophy, 3: 179–214.
5. Binmore, K. (1994). Game Theory and the Social Contract (vol.
1):Playing Fair. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Binmore, K. (1998). Game Theory and the Social Contract (vol.
2): JustPlaying. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Binmo re, K. (20 07). Do es Game T heo r y Wo rk? The
BargainingChallenge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Binmo re, K. (20 09). Rat io nal Decisio ns. Princet o n:
PrincetonUniversity Press.
9. David, Mitrany (1933). The Progress of International Government.
10. David ,Mitrany (1950). “Functional Federalism” Common Cause.
11. David, Mitrany (1966). A Working Peace System.
12. David, Mitrany (1984). “The Prospect of Integration: Federal
orFunctional.” In lnis Claude, Swords into Plowshares pp. 378-
406.
13. Director, S.W. & Rohrer, R.A. (1971). Introduction to Systems
Theory.New York: McGraw-Hill.
14. Ernst, B. Haas (1964). Beyond the Nation-State

44 | P a g e
Unit 4 :
Non-western International Relation theory

Unit Structure :

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Objectives
4.3 Non-Western International Relation (IR) Theory
4.4 Explanations for the dominance of the West
4.5 Non-Western IR Theory
4.5.1 Criticisms
4.6 Evolution: “Global IR”
4.7 Summing Up
4.8 References and Suggested Readings

4.1 Introduction

As we have learnt International Relation to denote the academic discipline

of International Relations and ‘international relations’ to refer to its substantive
domain of study (i.e. the practice of global politics). More specifically, in
this first short article, I examine whether the reasons given for the need to
theories a “non-Western” International Relation are well grounded and how
we could further galvanise the project. In the second (follow-up) article, I
will attempt to show why the ongoing enterprises must refocus their attention,
broadening the range of their own questions and undertakings. Here we call
our attention to reflexive solidarity. The discussion in the two articles is by
no means exhaustive in scope. Nor do we imply that the discussion represents
the total view of the non-Western International Relation communities.
Nonetheless, I hope that, despite its necessary brevity, my engagement will
be useful for understanding and advancing our debate on non-Western
International Relation theorisation and theoretical diversity in the field.
Discussion of the Western centrism of international relations theory is not a
recent trend for International Relation scholars. Since the 1960s and the
1970s, especially with the decolonization period, Western-centric
International Relation has been criticized by the Dependency School and
World System theorists.

However, efforts aiming to generate a non-Western International Relation

45 | P a g e
Theory within peripheral states is a phenomenon of recent years. Even Space for Learners
though the majority of such studies are located in Asian countries, the
Turkish academy is not an exception, regarding the debate on the possibility
of an Anatolian school of International Relation his review critically
examines one of such efforts by another Turkish scholar, Seyfi Say, who
in his book bn Haldun’un Düünce Sistemive Uluslararaslikiler Kuram
(Ibn Khaldun’s System of Thought and International Relations Theory)
aims to go beyond the Western centrism of International Relation by
employing the ideas of Ibn Khaldun.

4.2 Objectives

After going through this unit we will be able to

• Discuss Non-Western International Relation (IR) Theory
• Explain the reasons for the dominance of the West

In these contexts, whether there are any substantial merits to developing a

‘non-Western’ International Relation theory and what such a theory would
(or should) look like are topics of heated debate in contemporary
International Relation. This interest in the theorisation of ‘non-Western’
International Relation results largely from discontent with the epistemic value
of mainstream theories, namely realism, liberalism, and constructivism, all of
which have ‘Western’– or, more specifically, ‘Eurocentric’ (Patomaki, 2007)
– analytical or normative underpinnings (Acharya and Buzan, 2017; Johnston,
2012). Western/Eurocentric theories, the criticism goes, misrepresent and
therefore misunderstand much of ‘the rest of the world’ (Acharya, 2014:
647). In addition, advocates of ‘non-Western’ IR theory building often point
out that Asia has cultures, institutions, norms, and world views that are
inherently different from those derived from or advanced in Europe.

4.3 Non-Western International Relation (IR) Theory

In this light, the main challenge that the IR discipline has to address is the
legacy of ‘Western cultural imperialism’, in an idealist fashion, rather than
the specific social and geo-economic structure that both enabled and shaped
the form in which ‘Western IR’ has been materialised since 1919. As a
result of this idealist critique, it is widely recognised that ‘cultural
representation’ (Acharya, 2014) is indeed the deep structural problem of
the IR discipline rather than the material historical pillars and infrastructure
that enabled its emergence. The logical consequence of this has been the
mainstream approach that understands ‘non-Western IR thought’ as the

46 | P a g e
theory produced in non-western societies, which are in opposition to the Space for Learners
conventional geography of an eternal ‘West’. Hence the apparent
importance of Confucianism, Hinduism or political Islam as ‘non-Western’
ontological sources in the new theoretical formulations.

The activation of such cultural imaginaries as ontological foundations

from ‘non-Western’ societies in the context of the production of ‘non-
Western IR theory’ is conceived as the logical step towards a more
pluralistic and ‘cultural’ egalitarian discipline. It is worth clarifying that
we are not arguing against cultural diversity. Cultural diversity is
the very foundation of humanity. On the contrary, I argue that it is
important to critically engage with the very enterprise of ‘non-Western
IR theory’ in its current disciplinary form. Despite the respectable efforts
to turn the IR discipline into a more pluralistic field, critical scholars
have taken for granted the essentialist notion of ‘non-Western IR theory’,
uncritically assuming that such theory is only produced in non-Western
societies in a binary contrast to that of conventional IR. This not only
reifies ‘the West’ as an eternal and fixed entity but also orientalises the
‘non-West’. For this reason, this article seeks to answer the following
question: what constitutes ‘non-Western IR theory’? To properly analyse
the production of ‘non-Western IR theory’, we first need to sketch out
what we mean by ‘the West’ and its relationship with the emergence of
the IR discipline. In the next section, following the work of Kees van
der Pijl, I will define the ‘West’ as what he describes as the ‘Lockean
Heartland’.

4.4 Explanations for the dominance of the West

It is not contested that Western IR was the first in the field as a self-
conscious academic discipline attempting to understand and theorize
about the dynamics of world politics. Nor is there much doubt that the
main ideas in this discipline are deeply rooted in the particularities and
peculiarities of European history, the rise of the West to world power,
and the imposition of its own political structure onto the rest of the world.
Taken together, these two facts mean that non-Western attempts to
develop thinking about IR, like late industrializers, necessarily have to
make their way in an environment already heavily conditioned by earlier
developments. It is therefore not surprising that nobody disputes that,
although academic IR is now a global activity (albeitvery unevenly
distributed, even within the West), it remains massively dominated by
Western thinking. While this situation is not intrinsically puzzling, it is

47 | P a g e
helpful to look in more detail at the reasons. Some explanations leave Space for Learners
little or no room or reason for remedial action. Others suggest that the
condition of Western dominance is likely to be temporary. Western IR
Theories have discovered the right path to understanding IR. If true, this
explanation would put IR Theories on a par with physics, chemistry,
and mathematics whose theories can reasonably claim universal standing
regardless of cultural context. This special issue would then have no
point other than to exhort non-Westerners to engage themselves more
in the established theoretical debates. One would not expect the laws of
physics, or IR, to vary just because they were being discussed by Asians
rather than Westerners, but one might well expect a larger body of
participants to improve the quality of criticism, insight, and application.
We think that this claim cannot be defended in any absolute sense, not
least because so much of Western IR theory is drawn from modern
Western history. One consequence of this ‘Westphalian straightjacket’
is an over-emphasis on anarchy and an under-emphasis on the many
possibilities for how international systems and societies could (and have)
been constructed. In pursuit of ‘scientific’ status, mainstream Western
IRT has also been excessively concerned with rather narrow, rational
choice, views of motive in power politics, strategy, and economics. It is
only beginning to come to terms with the wider range of possibilities
such as identity, honor, tradition, etc. There can be no doubt that Western
IR Theories have generated significant insights and deserves to be taken
seriously by all who are interested in the subject. However, equally there
can be no doubt that it is rooted in a very specific history, and that a
more world historical perspective should open up additional perspectives.

4.5 Non-Western IR Theory

Many critical IR scholars have called for “broadening” the theoretical horizon
of IR beyond “the current West-centrism” (Buzan 2016: 155). One of the
early responses to this call was to draw renewed attention to non-Western
societies’ histories, cultures, and philosophies and incorporate them in the
theorisation of international relations; in this context, whether there are any
substantial merits to developing a non-Western IR theory and what such a
theory would (or should) look like have now become topics of heated
debate. Of course, as will be discussed in detail in the following section,
contemporary events such as the rise of China have contributed to the
development of non-Western (or indigenous) theories and concepts (Qin,
2011, 2016a; Yan, 2011; Zhang, 2012; Zhao, 2009). Advocates of Chinese
IR and (by extension) non-Western IR theory building often point out that

48 | P a g e
Asia has histories, cultures, norms, and world views that are inherently Space for Learners
different from those derived from or advanced in Europe.

This idea has also resonance with discontent with the epistemic value of
mainstream IR theories, namely realism, liberalism, and constructivism, all
of which have Western—or, more specifically, “Eurocentric” (Patomäki,
2007)—analytical or normative underpinnings (Acharya and Buzan, 2017;
Johnston, 2012). Western theories, the criticism goes, misrepresent and
therefore misunderstand much of “the rest of the world” (Acharya, 2014:
647). For example, in his well-known piece, “Gettings Asia Wrong,” David
Kang (2003: 57–58) notes that “most international relations theories derived
from the European experience of the past four centuries … do a poor job
as they are applied to Asia.” Indeed, critiques of this kind have long served
as a starting premise in theoretical studies on the international politics of
Asia. Almost two decades ago, Peter Katzenstein (1997: 1) wrote as follows:
“Theories based on Western, and especially West European, experience
have been of little use in making sense of Asian regionalism.” Similarly, Jeffrey
Herbst (2000: 23) commented that “international relations theory, derived
from an extended series of case studies of Europe, has become notorious
for falling short of accounting for the richness and particularity of Asia’s
regional politics.”

It is in this respect that Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan have put together
a special issue and a follow-up edited volume (Acharya and Buzan, 2007;
2010), asking “Why is there no non-Western international theory?” despite
the fact that “the sources of international relations theory conspicuously fail
to correspond to the global distribution of its subjects” (Acharya and Buzan,
2010: 1-2). With the help of a group of scholars examining the status of IR
theory or theoretical studies in various countries and sub-regions in Asia,
Acharya and Buzan’s contributions show the reasons for the marginalisation
of non-Western voices and histories in the global debates on IR theory and
what needs to be done to mitigate the issue. Since Acharya and Buzan’s
seminal forum was published, there has been a great deal of studies by non-
Western IR communities that aim to develop new theories and concepts
from their own perspectives.

Here, China’s rise has added momentum to attempts to build new or

indigenous theories—especially within the Chinese IR community. Yaqing
Qin at the China Foreign Affairs University states that Chinese IR theory “is
likely and inevitably to emerge along with the great economic and social
transformation that China has been experiencing” (Qin, 2007: 313). The

49 | P a g e
scholarly practices of building an IR theory “with Chinese characteristics” Space for Learners
are a case in point. Although consensus on what “Chinese characteristics”
actually are has yet to be determined, many Chinese (and non-Chinese)
scholars hold that the establishment of a Chinese IR theory or a “Chinese
School” of IR is desirable or “natural” (Kristensen and Nielsen, 2013: 19;
Qin, 2016b); in this light, Confucianism, Marxism, “Tianxia” (all-under-
heaven), and the Chinese tributary system are all cited as theoretical resources
for Chinese IR (see, e.g. Kang, 2010; Qin, 2016a; Xinning, 2001; Wan,
2012; Wang, 2011; Xuetong, 2011; Zhang, 2012; Zhao, 2009).

Although there have been multiple voices and different narratives about
“Chinese IR,” let us look at three established Chinese scholars and their
approaches to IR theory as representative of indigenous Chinese thinking
on international relations: Qin Yaqing’s relational theory, Yan Xuetong’s moral
realism, and Zhao Tingyang’s Tianxiatheory.

Qin Yaqing’s relational theory begins with his belief that existing mainstream
IR theories fall short of answering how the world works. He holds that
these theories, founded on the European Enlightenment’s belief in reason
and ontological individualism, privilege individual actors’ rationality over social
and processual relationality. By contrast, indigenous Chinese traditions,
including Confucianism, foreground social contexts and relations, and the
relationality that emerges from them. Qin (2016: 36) writes: it is “relationality”
that determines human actors’ existence and meaning; we can exist only as
“actors-in-relations.” From this perspective, interactions between and among
states are defined by various types of relationships: equality, hierarchy, and
relationships that fall between the two. Thus, the analysis of international
relations “should start from a study of relations rather than taking nation-
states as independent entities.… It is the social relationships that define
what is rational and appropriate” (Qin 2016: 38). Also, Qin argues that
relational theory is an evolutionary theory whose epistemology is based on
the traditional Chinese understanding of dialectics, namely Zhongyong. Unlike
the Hegelian understanding of dialectics, based on thesis, antithesis, synthesis,
the two ends in Zhongyong dialectics are non-conflictual: they interact not
as thesis and antithesis, but as co-theses, giving rise to a complimentary and
co-evolutionary process (Qin 2018: 153-174).

Like Qin’s work, Yan Xuetong’s work on moral realism also draws on
Chinese traditional thought and history, specifically those of pre-Qin dynasty
thinkers and rulers. Although Yan is cautious about the possibility of
establishing a distinctive “Chinese School” of IR, he believes that Chinese

50 | P a g e
scholars should have “an interest in rediscovering traditional Chinese IR Space for Learners
concepts” and enrich IR theories “with traditional Chinese thought” (Yan
2011: 255-259). The central questions posed by Yan’s moral realism are
why only some rising states can achieve their goals and why a hegemon
cannot remain a hegemon forever. A related and more contemporary question
is how and why China can narrow its power gap with the US. To answer
these questions, he focuses on the history of the hegemony-aspiring state of
Qi and the strategies taken by its prime minister, Xunzi. He then draws out
key elements of moral realism, such as Wang Dao (“kingly way”). This
traditional Chinese notion stresses the moral values of righteousness and
benevolence over the legalistic Western values of equality and democracy.
Yan’s moral realism calls for a policy of leading by example that claims to
avoid the “double standards” it finds in Western practices of world politics.
It also suggests what sort of Chinese foreign policy would be conducive to
forming an alternative international order and ensuring China’s global
leadership. While conceding that Chinese traditional values do not
necessarily compete with Western liberal norms, such as justice and equality,
Yan emphasises that they “can by all means transcend the hegemonic values
of the United States” (Yan 2013:17).

Zhao Tingyang is probably the best-known scholar who has applied the
Chinese concept of Tianxia to the study of international relations. In Chinese
history and philosophy, Tianxia literally means “the earth or all lands under
the sky” (Zhao 2005). The historical backdrop of Zhao’s work is the events
of the displacement of the Shang dynasty by the Zhou dynasty and the
resulting challenge facing Zhou nationals. As a small tribe, the Zhou had to
be able to control a large number of more powerful tribes, including the
collapsed Shang. In coping with this challenge, the Zhou devised the system
of Tianxia so as to maintain their legitimacy and manage the stability of the
newly established political order. The Tianxia system aspires to “‘harmony’
through a universal agreement in the ‘hearts’ of all people” (Zhao 2005: 21-
34). From the analysis of these historical experiences, Zhao develops the
notions of world sovereignty and world order based on the Tianxia system.
The highest unit of international relations is, he argues, the “world” and not
the state; as such, the challenge of statecraft is world-building, not nation-
building (Zhao 2005, 2009). He rejects the Westphalian nation-state model
and criticises it for causing international conflicts and failed states. Relatedly,
Zhao associates Tianxia with fairness and impartiality to all: Tianxia “envisions
a world system characterized by harmony and cooperation without
hegemony” (Zhao 2005: 35-43). He argues that Tianxia offers a “far better
model of a future world order that takes into account the interests of the
entire world,” whatever its constituent elements (Zhao 2018: 123).

51 | P a g e
4.5.1 Criticisms Space for Learners

As is clear from the above, there has been a great deal of interest in non-
Western IR theorisation; this trend includes a strong and increasing
commitment to the development of indigenous IR theories among Chinese
IR scholars. At the same time, however, a number of empirical,
epistemological, and normative criticisms have been raised against attempts
to develop a Chinese IR theory and (by extension) non-Western IR.

Empirically, the international relations of the Asian region are not fundamentally
different from those of Europe, in the sense that anarchy, survival, and the
balance of power have been the key operating principles of state-to-state
interactions since the pre-modern period. For example, based on a detailed
archive analysis of China’s foreign relations under the Song and Ming
dynasties, Yuan-kang Wang concludes that in the “anarchical” international
environment at that time “Confucian culture did not constrain … [Chinese]
leaders” decisions to use force; in making such decisions, leaders have been
mainly motivated by their assessment of the balance of power between
China and its adversary” (Wang, 2011: 181). This finding leads Wang to
defend the theoretical utility of structural realism based on the Westphalian
system.

Epistemologically, too, critics point out that it is “unscientific” to emphasise

and/or incorporate a particular culture or the worldview of a particular nation
or region into IR theory, for a legitimately “scientific” theory should seek
“universality, generality” (Choi, 2008; Xinning, 2001). Mainstream (positivist)
IR theorists and methodologists argue that IR studies ought to seek
observable general patterns of states” external behaviour, develop empirically
verifiable “covering law” explanations, and test their hypotheses through
cross-case comparisons. For example, Gary King, Robert Keohane, and
Sidney Verba make it clear that generality is the single most important
measure of progress in IR, stressing that “the question is less whether … a
theory is false or not … than how much of the world the theory can help us
explain” (King et al., 1994: 101, emphasis in original). From this perspective,
any attempt to develop an indigenous IR theory, be it non-Western or
Western, is suspect because it delimits the general applicability of theory. In
the case of a Chinese IR theory, criticism of this kind can increasingly be
found in studies by younger Chinese IR scholars. According to Xinning
Song (2001: 68), Chinese scholars, especially younger ones who have
studied in the West, think that it is “unscientific or unnecessary to emphasize
the so-called Chinese characteristics.” A similar criticism can be found among
Korean IR scholars in regard to attempts to build a “Korean-style” IR theory

52 | P a g e
(Cho, 2015). Critics of the “Korean School” of IR frequently ask how can Space for Learners
we make a distinctively Korean IR theory while trying to be as generalisable
as possible? Any theory or theorisation based on Korea’s unique historical
experiences, the criticism goes, “must be tested under the principle of
generality” (Choi 2008: 215).

Normative criticisms of attempts to build a non-Western IR theory

highlight the relationship between power and knowledge. Critics point
out that although theory-building enterprises in the non-West contexts
commonly begin by problematising Western-dominated IR, the ongoing
scholarly practices and discourses associated with non-Western IR can
also entail (or reproduce) the same hierarchic and exclusionary structure
of knowledge production, which can fall prey to particular national or
regional interests. For example, in his discussion of Chinese visions of
world order, William Callahan doubts the applicability of Tianxia. He
claims that what the notion of Tianxia does is “blur” the conceptual and
practical “boundaries between empire and globalism, nationalism, and
cosmopolitanism”. Rather than help us move towards a “post-
hegemonic” world, Tianxia serves to be a philosophical foundation upon
which “China’s hierarchical governance is updated for the twenty-first
century” (Callahan, 2008: 749). Echoing this view, Ching-Chang Chen
(2011: 16) notes that although it is our “responsibility” to make IR more
pluralistic and democratic, “most intellectual endeavors to construct non-
Western IR theory in Asia run the risk of inviting nativism.” Relatedly,
Andrew Hurrell (2016: 149–150) has added that although developing
culturally specific ways of understanding the world “undoubtedly
encourages greater pluralism,” attempts to do so can also lead to a
national and regional “inwardness” that works to reproduce the very
“ethnocentricities” that are being challenged.

4.6 Evolution: “Global IR”

These concerns, particularly that about the potential nativist undercurrent of

the non-Western IR theory-building enterprise, are indeed shared by many
non-Western IR scholars (see, e.g., Behera 2010; Chen 2012; Kosuke
2015; Shahi and Ascione 2016); for this reason, they often use the term
“post-Western” IR, as opposed to “non-Western” IR. But their priority—
as is the case in non-Western IR theorisation—is to address “the current
West-centrism of IR” (Buzan, 2016: 156); to this end, they, too, draw attention
to their cultural or philosophical traditions. Of course, this interest in traditions
is intended not to establish a national or indigenous “school” of IR, but to
embrace a wider range of histories, knowledge claims, and philosophies.

53 | P a g e
Going a step further, more recent studies, in the name of “Global IR” Space for Learners
have begun to pay greater attention to how to overcome the West/non-
West (self-other) binary when it comes to opening up the present
parochial landscape of IR. Global IR sets out to safeguard against a tug
of war between Western and non-Western IR and subsumption of one
of them in favour of the other. Being wary of both problems, namely the
current West-centrism in IR and the potential danger of nativism of non-
Western IR theorisation, Global IR attempts to render international
relations studies more inclusive and pluralistic in terms of theory and
knowledge claims. The idea of Global IR was first introduced by Amitav
Acharya. In his presidential address at the annual convention of the
International Studies Association in 2014, Acharya explained what Global
IR is or should be. His background assumption is this: IR does “not
reflect the voices, experiences … and contributions of the vast majority
of the societies and states in the world” (Acharya 2014: 647). Yet,
instead of arguing for a counter (i.e. ‘anti-Western’) approach, he
presented the possibility of a global discipline that transcends the divide
between “the West and the Rest.” In his views, IR should be a “truly
inclusive” discipline that recognises its multiple and diverse foundations
and histories. In this light, Global IR disagrees with the view that existing
IR theories and methodologies need to be discarded and displaced.
This is neither possible nor desirable. Instead, Global IR argues that
these theories and methodologies need to be challenged and broadened
with insights from the ideas and practices of non-Western societies.
Acharya and Barry Buzan have recently noted as follows: “our key
concern about any national school is whether it can “deprovincialize”—
i.e. travel beyond the national or regional context from which it is derived
in the first place…” (Acharya and Buzan 2017: 361). In short, what
Global IR seeks is not to discard or disavow mainstream theories and
concepts sourced from the West, but to render our discipline more
inclusive and broader, so that it reflects voices and experiences outside
the West more fully.

Epistemologically, Global IR is grounded in “pluralistic universalism” and

“theoretical pluralism” (Acharya 2016: 4-5)—which reject any form of
monistic universalism that puts forth a singular idea of truth or modernity.
Instead, it calls upon scholars to respect the geo-epistemic diversity of
truth claims and the empiric-historical existence of multiple modernities.
It is thus interested in developing alternative but equally valid theories of
knowledge through bringing in indigenous ideas and experiences of
societies and cultures other than those of the West; but, more importantly,

54 | P a g e
Global IR reminds us that scholarly enterprises of this kind should not Space for Learners
lead to a nativist or self-centred binary thinking. As such, one of the key
issues central interest to Global IR is to build bridges among divergent
intellectual concerns and claims across the West/non-West divide.
“Encouraging debate and dialogue across perspectives … is a core
purpose of the Global IR project,” Acharya writes, because a
conversation “among the like minded”—for example, among those
interested in non-Western IR theory building—not only “carries a greater
risk of the fragmentation of the discipline,” but also fails to achieve mutual
learning and a “truly” global and inclusive field (Acharya 2016: 14;
Acharya and Buzan 2017: 362). In this respect, there has recently been
the emerging literature on “dialogue” beyond the West/non-West
distinction in the Global IR debate (see, e.g., Hutchings, 2011; Bilgin
2016; Eun 2018).

4.7 Summing Up :

After reading this unit you have got clear idea about various non-Western
theories of International Relations. Many scholars of international relations
have called for broadening the theoretical horizon of IR beyond the
current West centrism. The currents of debate over “broadening” the
theoretical or discursive horizons of IR beyond the Western disciplinary
dominance have evolved over the past decade or so, embracing a wide
range of epistemic concerns; their contributions to grappling with the
problem of the Western-dominated IR are dense. However, despite such
a meaningful effort, be it “non-Western IR,” “post-Western IR,” or
“Global IR,” and its recent contributions, several critical questions and
issues still remain unclear or under-explored. In the next article, I will
discuss what is missing in the debate and how we could further galvanise
the project of the “broadening” of IR.

4.8 References and Suggested Readings

1. Acharya A (2014) Global International Relations (IR) and regional

worlds: A new agenda for international studies. International Studies
Quarterly 58(4): 647–659.
2. Acharya A (2016) Advancing Global IR: Challenges, contentions, and
contributions. International Studies Review 18(1): 4–15.
3. Acharya A (2017) Theorising the international relations of Asia:
Necessity or indulgence? Some reflections. The Pacific Review 30(6):

55 | P a g e
 816–828. Space for Learners
4. Acharya A and Buzan B (2007) Why is there no non-western
international relations theory? An Introduction. International Relations
of Asia Pacific 7(3): 285–286.
5. Acharya A and Buzan B (2017) Why is there no non-western
international relations theory? Ten years on. International Relations of
the Asia-Pacific 17(3): 341–370.
6. Acharya A and Buzan B (eds) (2010) Non-Western International
Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia. London: Routledge.
7. Behera NC (2010) Re-imagining IR in India. In: Acharya A and Buzan
B (eds) Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on
and Beyond Asia. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 92–116.
8. Bilgin P (2016) “Contrapuntal reading” as a method, an ethos, and a
metaphor for Global IR. InternationalStudies Review 18(1): 134–146.
9. Buzan B (2016) Could IR be different? International Studies Review
18(1): 155–157.
10. Callahan W (2001) China and the globalisation of IR theory: Discussion
of “building international relations theory with Chinese characteristics”.
Journal of Contemporary China 10(2): 75–88.
11. Callahan W (2008) Chinese visions of world order: Post-hegemonic
or a new hegemony. International Studies Review 10(4): 749–761.
12. Chen C-C (2011) The absence of non-western IR theory in Asia
reconsidered. International Relations of theAsia-Pacific 11(1): 1–23.

56 | P a g e
Unit 5 :
International Relations: Gap between theory and practice

Unit Structure :

5.1 Introduction
5.2 Objectives
5.3 Theorising International Relation
5.4 Theory and International Relations
5.5 Gap between theory and practice
5.6 Summing Up
5.7 References and Suggested Readings

5.1 Introduction

The discipline of International Relations (IR) is the academic study of the

origins and consequences (both empirical and normative) of a world divided
among states. So defined, IR is a very broad discipline. It includes a variety
of sub-fields such as diplomatic statecraft and foreign policy analysis,
comparative politics, historical sociology, international political economy,
international history, strategic studies and military affairs, ethics, and
international political theory. In addition to its wide scope, the study of
international relations is shaped by the interplay between continuity and change
in its subject-matter. Accordingly, the contents of this unit reflect both the
scope of the discipline as well as dramatic developments in world politics
that have taken place since the end of the cold war.

5.2 Objectives

After going through this unit you will be able to

• Theorize international relation
• Understand the gap between theory and practice

5.3 Theorize International Relation

The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical

approaches. Some emerged from within the discipline itself; others have
been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or
sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to

57 | P a g e
the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations Space for Learners
are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one
or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are
discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasise. We
shall start with the origins of the theoretical study of international relations,
the traditional scientific and post behavioral schools in international relations
and then move on to the various theories, for example systems theory,
functional theory, decision making theory, simulation and games theory. Finally
we shall get down to the application and utility of these theories.

The word ‘theory’ is used in a bewildering variety of ways in the study of

international relations. It is applied to propositions and arguments at varying
levels of abstraction, and debates over its most appropriate meaning have
proceeded apace with little consensus achieved. If there is no agreement on
how best to understand this term, let alone how best to engage in developing
and criticising the existing stock of international relations theory, there is
much greater consensus over the ways in which the term is used. Three in
particular stand out. First, for most scholars a theory is simply an explanation
of an event or pattern of behaviour in the ‘real’ world. This is otherwise
known as empirical theory. A theory explains such patterns by elaborating
on why they take place. In one in famous expression, a theory explains laws
of behaviour. According to this conception, theories are useful instruments.
If we know why and how events relate to each other, we may then be able
to intervene and perhaps change reality to suit our purposes. This conception
of empirical theory rests on two important assumptions. First, there is a
categorical distinction between theory and practice. The world consists of
an apparently random collection of facts that need to be described and
studied to discern how they are related.

Second, it is common to come across the phrase normative theory. Unlike

empirical theory, normative theory is concerned to elaborate the ethical
standards used to judge international conduct. Today, there exists a large
body of normative theory concerned with the use of force (just war
theory) and distributive justice in international relations. When is it right or
appropriate to use military force? Is the present distribution of global wealth
and income fair? These are the kinds of questions that normative theory
seeks to answer.

Stop to Consider
Defining Theory
By one definition, theories are collections or sets of laws pertaining to a

58 | P a g e
 particular behavior or phenomenon. In addition to income, for example, Space for Learners
associations may be established between voters' education, their religion,
and their parents' political commitment, on the one hand, and the way
they vote, on the other hand. If the probabilistic laws thus established
are taken together, higher correlations are achieved between voters'
characteristics (the independent variables) and choice of party (the
dependent variable). Theories are, then, more complex than laws, but
only quantitatively so. Between laws and theories no difference of kind
appears.

5.4 Theory and International Relations

Theory, in general, has had various meanings in the social sciences and,
particularly in international relations. Some of the definitions that the term
has elicited include the following.
a. Deductive systems in which propositions are set forth, which
purportedly contain internal logical consistency.
b. A taxonomy, classificatory scheme, or conceptual framework which
provides for the orderly arrangement and examination of data.
c. A series of propositions about political behaviour inductively derived
either from empirical studies or the comparative examination of case
materials from the past.
d. The development of a series of statements about rational behaviour
based upon a dominant motive such as power. Such a theory provides
a description of the political behaviour of rational actors.
e. A set of norms or values indicating how political actors ought to
behave.
f. A set of proposals of action for the statesman.
A renowned scholar of international relations, Quincy Wright has defined a
general theory of international relations as a comprehensive, coherent, and
self-correcting body of knowledge contributing to the understanding, the
prediction, and the control of relations among states and of conditions of
the world. In his elaboration of this definition, Wright argues that the theory
must necessarily cover all aspects of the field. It should, according to him,
be expressed in generalized propositions in a very clear and accurate manner;
and as few as possible. This, in essence, means that the theory should be
parsimonious, and not as diffuse and complicated as to be confusing. Other
ideal requirements that a general theory of international relations should fulfill

59 | P a g e
include the following. Space for Learners
a. Every part of the theory should, as a matter of necessity, be logically
consistent with every other part;
b. The theory should be formulated in a style that is conducive to continual
improvement and updating;
c. Instead of being purely speculative, its theses should be capable of
consistent verification on the basis of available evidence;
d. It should contribute to an objective understanding of international
reality, rather than one distorted by national perspective;
e. It should enable us to predict at least some things; and, lastly,
f. It should also help us to arrive at value judgments.

As Wright concedes, there is no doubt that it would be extremely difficult

and perhaps impossible to achieve a perfect theory that could fulfil all the
ideal requirements enumerated above.

Stop to Consider
Division of theory
As we know that IR theories study and analyse the international Relations
from a theoretical perspectives. The IR theories can be divided into:-
positive/rationalist theories and post- positivist/reflectivity theories.

Origin and Importance of the Theoretical Study of International

Relations

Although the study of international relations must account for the unique,
new, and non-recurring phenomenon, it is also concerned with recurring
processes and patterns of behaviour. These patterns occur with much
regularity and often transcend specific historical episodes. They provide
opportunities for scholars to draw generalisations and conceptualisations
that cut across historical events. The generalizations provide a platform for
the formulation of explanatory paradigms on such issues as the causes of
war, imperialism, escalation, crises, alliance, deterrence, etc. without having
to describe specific historical wars, alliances, crisis and other issues. It is
the possibility of drawing such generalisations and concepts, building
explanatory models and paradigms, which underlines the importance of the
theoretical study of international relations.

Since World War II, international relations scholarship has moved from

60 | P a g e
mere description of events, the analysis of international treaties with a legalistic Space for Learners
and moral tone, to the development of explanatory theories and paradigms
on international phenomena. The process evolved towards the development
of a “predictive science’ of international relations. The logic of international
relations as a predictive science is based on the claim that when enough
basic propositions about the behaviour of policy makers, states, and
international systems have been tested and verified through rigorous research
methods, predictive statements, i.e., theories, can be advanced with sufficient
clarity.

Check your Progress

1. What do you mean by theory?
2. Discuss the origin of theoretical study in international relations.
3. Explain the role of theory in International relation.

5.5 Gap between theory and practice

Theory and practice are linked by empirical propositions that summarise

the degree to which certain facts are connected to other facts. Only when
we have a large body of such propositions can we engage in the hard work
of attempting to explain them. Second, theories are never true or false in
any absolute sense. Whilst theories must always be tested against the
evidence, they can only be replaced by better theories that are either more
coherent or more comprehensive in the scope of their explanatory power
than their rivals.

Steve Klabnik believes there is always a tension between theory and practice.
These two separate realms are connected through a process of abstraction
and application. To explain this process by way of theory, theory
deterritorializes practice, and practice reterritorializes theory: A theory, which
is becoming practice; and a practice, which is becoming theory.

To explain, theory is abstracted practice, and practice is applied theory.

The only way you can get these two camps to talk to each other is to figure
out what the theory says that provides value to those who practice.
Thus from the above we can summarise the difference between theory and
practice are:

• It is all too easy to explain the concepts of thirst, pain and sorrow in
theory, but the person realizes the difference only when he undergoes

61 | P a g e
 these experiences in real life. Space for Learners
• In theory, many assumptions are made to explain the phenomenon
and concepts, whereas in real life, there are no assumptions and
conditions are always unique.
• The dichotomy of theory and practice will remain as these two form
the backbone of all learning procedures.

John Mariotti, president and CEO of The Enterprise Group, stated in his
blog that in theory, there is very little difference between theory and practice;
in practice there’s a hell of a lot of difference. Such it is in life and in business
and in politics. Theory teaches us how things should work in a perfect world.

Experience teaches us how theory might or might not work in an

imperfect world. More importantly, experience prepares us to seek other
inputs and different kinds of solutions when the imperfections of the real
world bite us. Only in the school of hard knocks does real world
experience instill about how to deal with the difference between theory
and practice. When experience is theoretical and not practical, mistakes
are unavoidable and on-the-job fixes are all that is left.

To maximize one’s understanding of theory and practice, there should

be a balance between concepts. Nonprofit professionals are encouraged
to read and understand theory to the greatest degree possible and seek
to apply these theories in practice. We also need to realize there is no
better education than on the job training.

It should be noted that the sheer variety of empirical theory in the study of
international relations is very wide indeed. It is common to distinguish between
middle-range theory and grand theory. For example, there is a big difference
between a theory that tries to explain single events like the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait in August 1990, a theory that tries to account for the variation of
patterns of war and peace among the great powers over the last 200 years,
and a theory that attempts to explain why war itself takes place.

Broad range of theoretical perspectives in IR is the result of a process – one

increasingly hard to keep up with – of the adaptation of insights from related
and neighbouring (social) science. It is in fact a key characteristic of IR, in
common with all social science disciplines, that it cannot be neatly separated
from disciplines such as sociology or political philosophy and theory, nor
even from economics, political geography, psychology or law. Drawing on

62 | P a g e
the categories and concepts found in these neighbouring disciplines can often Space for Learners
help IR achieve additional insights. This is particularly true when we consider
that international relations are becoming increasingly globalized. The object
of study no longer fits neatly within the boundaries of a discipline historically
devoted to the study of interstate relations. It is only against this background
that we can understand why the corpus of contemporary IR theory has
branched off into a multiplicity of approaches, such as the huge range of
critical, constructivist and postmodern theories that have proliferated since
the 1990s. This has dismantled the boundaries between formerly separate
academic disciplines and brought to the fore the “social” character of
international relations; consequently, IR scholars now need to engage in
genuine social theorizing rather than maintaining an exclusive domain of IR
theories devoted to the study of interstate relations (see, for example, Albert
and Buzan 2013).

Because it is a social science, there is always a close interplay between

theory building in International Relations and the discipline’s historical and
sociopolitical context . Progress in IR theory is closely linked with events in
the “real world” of international politics, such as the development of the
bipolar system following the Second World War, the decolonization of large
parts of Africa and Asia in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Vietnam War
and the global economic crisis triggered by the “oil price shocks” of the
1970s, the rise of emerging powers since the 2000s and what we generally
perceive as the “processes of globalization”. Global political upheavals such
as the end of the East–West conflict, the shift in the role of sovereign nation
states associated with globalization, and the increasing impact of transnational
non-state actors rooted in economy and society have exercised and continue
to exercise an enduring influence on a whole generation of theory-oriented
scholars, doing much to shape their theoretical ideas about international
relations. The theory of IR finds itself confronted with new challenges in the
light of phenomena such as “failing” or “failed states” and the resulting security
and developmental tasks involved in international “state-building”, the
emergence of new, globally organized forces of violence resulting from the
erosion of the state monopoly of power and, not least, the increasing global
economic and political importance of China and other rising powers (such
as India, Brazil or Turkey) and of entire world regions (above all Asia) – all
of which are highly significant in their effects on the structure of the international
system and in their practical political implications. Another demonstration of
the link between IR theory and the real world is the increasing number of
studies that review and reappraise past theoretical work in light of the global
and European crises and the political processes of the “Arab Spring”. While

63 | P a g e
initially the end of the East–West conflict was generally interpreted – with Space for Learners
theoretical back-up – as an opportunity to advance world peace (the key
terms here being “new world order”, “peace dividend”, “nuclear
disarmament”, etc.), events such as “9/11”, the fight against international
terrorism, along with new international problems such as securing energy
supplies, international climate protection and, not least, turbulence in the
international financial and capital markets, have refocused theoretical attention
on the ambivalent, transitional and conflictual nature of international politics
and global order.

Stop To Consider
Three dimensions of theory: ontology, epistemology and
normativity
It is important to highlight three key dimensions of theories. First, a
theory makes statements about the observer’s perspective on the
object of investigation. This is the ontological dimension of IR theory
(“theory of being”). The ontology underpinning a theory, its conception
of “the way the world is” or “what the world is made of”, refers to
the substantive ideas or Manuela Spindler and Siegfried Schieder
world-view – understood as a system of assumptions and beliefs –
that a theory engenders about its object, in this case, international
relations. The question here is “What is ?” or “What is the nature of
the subject matter?” In this sense, a theory of international relations
formulates general assumptions about international relations, that is,
the actors’ sphere of action, the type or “quality” of the key actors,
their goals and preferences, as well as the driving forces of
international politics and its fundamental problems and developmental
prospects.

5.6 Summing Up

From this unit you have learnt theoretical study of international relations.
You have also learnt that there exists gap between theory and practice.
We ought to be able to understand our society and world politics better
by exploring the ways in which ideologies shape and structure the ways
in which people live and act. In many respects, then, IR theory reflects
these ways of living and acting too. Thus, we can think of IR theory as
itself an ideological reflection of the world around us. R. B. J. Walker
(1993, 6) has made the contentious suggestion that ‘theories of
international relations are more interesting as aspects of contemporary

64 | P a g e
world politics that need to be explained than as explanations of world Space for Learners
politics.’ You might not want to go that far, but there is no doubt that
there is nothing politically or ideologically neutral about IR theory – and
locating IR theories in their historical and intellectual context exposes
this irreversibly.

Self Asking Questions

What do you understand by gap between theory and practice. (100
words)
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

5.7 References and Suggested Readings

1. A I Johnston Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in

Chinese History (Princeton University Press Princeton 1995).
2. A Moravcsik, Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of
International Politics‘ (1997) 513–53.
3. A Wendt, Constructing International Politics‘ (1995) 20(1) International
Security 71–81.
4. B Koremenos (ed), The Rational Design of International Institutions‘
(2001) 55 IntlOrg 761–1103.
5. BA Ackerly M Stern and J True (eds), Feminist Methodologies for
International Relations (CUP Cambridge 2006).
6. D A Baldwin (ed) Neorealism and Neoliberalism, The Contemporary
Debate (Columbia University Press New York 1993).
7. David A. Baldwin, Power Analysis and World Politics: New trends
versus Old Tendencies, World Politics, vol. 31, no. 2, (January 1979)

65 | P a g e