Global trends

Chapter one
Understanding International Relations

1
Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States
Nationalism- is the doctrine that asserts the nation as the
basic political unit in organizing society.
Holds that each nation should govern itself, free from
outside interference (self-determination),
The nation is the only rightful source of political power (
popular sovereignty).
It has caused the outbreak of revolutions and wars across
the globe.
A factor for the collapse of age old empires, marker for
new borders.
Is a powerful component for the emergence of new states.
Is used to reshape and reinforce regimes in history.
2
The revolutions that took place in Britain’s North
 CON’T…
 In the revolution of 1789, the old regime was overthrown and with it the entire
social order.
 After nationalist revolution of 1848 across Europe an increasingly prosperous
middle-class demanded inclusion in the political system and their demands
were increasingly expressed through the language of nationalism.
 Yet the conclusion of the WWI in 1918 that self-determination was
acknowledged as a right.
 Nations-Are historical entities that evolve organically out of more similar
ethnic communities and they reveal themselves in myths, legends, and songs.
 Are group of people who have a strong sense of unity and common
consciousness.
 The state-is a polity that is typically established as a centralized organization.
 An organized Political community by one government .
 was combined with a ‘nation’ forming the ‘nation-state’
3
 Understanding International Relations

IR-first used by Jeremy Bentham in 1798

Originally, the study of international relations was seen
largely as a branch of the study of law, philosophy or history.
 It is impossible to isolate our experiences and transactions
from an international dimension.
 So, Studying IR enables students and professionals to better
comprehend the information we receive daily from social
media.
 The first university chair of international relations was
founded at the University of Wales in 1919 after the end of
WWI.
 Today IR is the study of all forms of interactions that exist b/n
4 members of separate entities or nations with in the
 Actors in IR
A. State Actors
IR- traditionally focused on interactions b/n states.

States have their own capitals, armies, foreign ministries,

flags and national anthems, call themselves sovereign, they

act in r/n to other states, declaring war, concluding a peace,
negotiating a treaty, and many other things.
 International politics come to be defined in terms of

interactions b/n states in an international system of states.

5
 Non-State Actors
Are different organizations that are involved in the
international system other than states. Such as;
IGOs
Institutions that are set up by states for the
achievement of certain goals which member states
believe cannot be met by individual efforts. Such as
UN, AU, OPEC, ECOWAS, and SADC.
Transnational Organizations
possess neither sovereignty nor territory.
They are private, but nonetheless are able to affect
the course of international events.
6
 Con‘t…
The most prominent among these actors are: INGOs; MNCs; and
individuals.
 INGO membership consist of private individuals or group from
various countries who share common interests and concerns.
They operate across borders with primary aim of advancing their
particular interest.
They include religious organizations and social welfare or
humanitarian organizations.
Although they are non-political, their activities have on
occasions affected the political behavior of states and other
actors in the system.
e.g. the activities of Amnesty International and other human
rights bodies in exposing abuse of human rights by governments
7 in many countries.
 CON’T…
 MNCs are also another form of transnational units who have
had and continue to have a significant impact on the
international system.
 These are organizations that operate internationally, but
whose memberships unlike IGOs are private.
 They are firms with foreign subsidiaries, which extend the
production and marketing of their products beyond the
boundaries of one single country.
 Individuals -A third type of transnational actor is
individuals. In discussing this category of actors, mentioning
the statesmen (President, Prime Minister or foreign
Minister), rebel and terrorist leaders, international
businessmen and religious heads is imperative State men.
8
Levels of Analysis in International Relations
The individual level
 Behaviors, motivations, beliefs and orientation of the
individual in affecting a particular international
phenomenon.
 This can be seen in the psychology and emotions behind
people’s actions and decisions, their fears and their
visions as well as their access to information and
capacity to make a difference.
 They are also an important factor in the analysis of
foreign policy, whenever particular mindsets and
perceptions of political leaders and key actors might
influence their decisions and behavior.
9 E.g. a P M, encountering the leader of another state to
 The group level
 Break the analysis down into certain kinds of groups
 Focusing on foreign policy would look, for example,
 The role of lobbying groups and the way they
influence national decision-making on an issue.
 More interested in the actions of groups of
individuals, such as
 voters of a country and the way they express their
views in the general election,
 political parties picking up on the issue in their
campaigns or social movements forming to counter
the effects of the crisis on society.
 could be interested in activist/pressure groups.
1
The state level
Is referred to as the relative ‘state-centrism’ of the
discipline.
The state acts as the arena in which state
officials, politicians and decision-makers operate.
The state is seen as the framework that
encapsulates society and as the main point of
reference for the individual.
Made about the state also being the main location
of power within the international sphere.
The state is where power is primarily
concentrated and located has to be seen against
1 the historical context within which some of the
 CONT’
A state level analysis might be interested to look
at:
 It can consider states as actors in their own right as
if they were clearly defined entities that have certain
preferences.
It may look at how states interact with each other to
deal with the crisis, their foreign policy.
Also require careful consideration of what kinds of
states we are looking at.
It would likely also look at the foreign policy of
states, meaning their approach to and practice of
interacting with other states.
12
The system level
would like to conceive the global system as the structure
Context within which states cooperate, compete and
confront each other over issues of national interest.
Particularly important in that context is the distribution of
power amongst states.
 whether there is unipolarity, bipolarity or multi polarity.
 global circumstances are seen to condition the ability to
pursue their interests in cooperative or competitive ways.
 consider global linkages that go beyond single
interactions b/n states.
 look at the balance of power b/n states and how that
determines what happens in global politics.
1
 The Structure of International System
International Relations scholars maintain that political power
is usually distributed into three main types of systems
 Uni-polar international system- there is one state with the
greatest political, economic, cultural and military power
and hence the ability to totally control other states.
 Bi polar system-there is the power shared b/n two big
entities.
 The problem with bipolar system is that it is vulnerable
for zero-sum game politics because when one superpower
gains the other would inevitably lose.
 E.g. The cold war period
 Multi–polar-power shared b/n more than two entities
 is the most common throughout history
14
 CON’T…
 These three different systems reflect the number of
powerful states competing for power and their
hierarchical relationship.
 In both bipolar and multipolar systems there is no one
single state with a preponderant power and hence
ability to control other states.
 As a result, the states in such systems are forced to
balance each other’s power.
 In the case of the bipolar system, for instance, there
are two dominant states (super powers) and the less
powerful states join either sides through alliance and
15
counter alliance formations.
Power
Can be defined in terms of both relations and material
aspects.
Dahl’s definition understands power as ‘A’s ability to
get ‘B’ to do something it would not otherwise do.
Power is the currency of international politics.
As money is for economics, power is for international
relations.
In the international system, power determines the
relative influence of actors and it shapes the structure of
the international system.
IR is essentially about actors’ power relations in the
supra-national domain.
16
International politics, like all other politics, is a struggle
Anarchy
Is a situation where there is absence of authority
(government) be it in national or
international/global level systems.
Within a country ‘anarchy’ refers to a
breakdown of law and order.
But in relations between states it refers to a
system where power is decentralized and there
are no shared institutions with the right to
enforce common rules.
 An anarchical world is a world where everyone

17
looks after themselves and no one looks after the
 Sovereignty
It can be defined as an expression of:
A state’s ultimate authority within its
territorial entity (internal sovereignty).
The state’s involvement in the international
community (external sovereignty).
In short, it denotes double claim of states from
the international system, i.e., autonomy in
foreign policy and independence/freedom in its
domestic affairs.

18
 Theories of International Relations
 Idealism/Liberalism
Immanuel Kant developed the idea in the late eighteenth
century
Liberalism in IR was referred to as a ‘utopian’ theory
View human beings as innately good
Believe peace and harmony b/n nations is not only
achievable, but desirable.
Shared liberal values should have no reason for going to war
against one another
For Kant, more liberal states there were in the world, the
more peaceful it would become, b/c liberal states are ruled by
their citizens and citizens are rarely disposed to desire war.
liberals have faith in the idea that the permanently stopping of
19 war is an attainable goal.
CONT
Liberals also argue that international law offers
a mechanism by which cooperation among states
is made possible.
Concern on that conditions which had led to the
outbreak of the WWI should not be allowed to
occur in the future.
The academic study of international relations had
the potential to contribute to the prevention of
war and the establishment of peace.
Elimination of war lay with a preference for

20
democracy over aristocracy, free trade over
 Realism
View that the international system is anarchic
The international system of states lacks inter-
national law non-binding and ultimately
ineffectual in the regulation of relations between
states.
Conflict is hence an inevitable and continual
feature of inter-national relations.
There are objective laws which have universal
applicability, international politics, like all
politics, is a struggle for power.
21
CONT’
The basic difference between liberals theories are optimistic view of IR,
believing that world order can be improved, with peace and progress
gradually replacing war. They may not agree on the details, but this
optimistic view generally unites them.
Conversely, realists tend to dismiss optimism as a form of misplaced
idealism and instead they arrive at a more pessimistic view.
Realists viwed IR as a system where war and conflict is common and
periods of peace are merely times when states are preparing for future
conflict.
Both liberalism and realism consider the state to be the dominant actor
in IR, although liberalism does add a role for non-state actors.
Liberals argue that organizations are valuable in assisting states in
formulating decisions and helping to formalize cooperation that leads to
peaceful outcomes.
Realists on the other hand believe states take part in international
22 organizations only when it is in their self-interest to do so.
Structuralism/Marxism
Argues that a capitalist society is divided into two
contradictory classes
 The business class (the bourgeoisie) and
 The working class (the proletariat).

 The proletariats are at the mercy of the bourgeoisie who

control their wages and therefore their standard of living.
 Emerged as a critique of both realism and pluralism
concentrated on the inequalities that exist within the
international system, inequalities of wealth between the rich
‘North’ or the ‘First World’ and the poor ‘South’ or the
‘Third World’
 Focused on dependency, exploitation and the international
division of labor which relegated the vast majority of the
23 global population to the extremes of poverty, often with the
 Constructivism
 Viewed as a middle ground b/n mainstream theories and the critical theories
 Highlight the importance of values and shared interests b/n individuals who
interact on the global stage.
 Alexander Wendt, a prominent constructivist, described the relationship
between agents (individuals) and structures (such as the state) as one in which
structures not only constrain agents but also construct their identities and
interests.
 Anarchy is what states make of it.
 The essence of IR exists in the interactions between people. After all, states do
not interact; it is agents of those states, such as politicians and diplomats, who
interact.
 As those interacting on the world stage have accepted international anarchy as
the defining principle, it has become part of our reality.
 To understand constructivism is to understand that ideas, or ‘norms’ as they are
often called, have power.
 IR is, then, a never-ending journey of change chronicling the accumulation of

24 the accepted norms of the past and the emerging norms of the future.
 Critical Theories
Refer to a wide spectrum of theories that have been established in
response to mainstream approaches in the field, mainly liberalism
and realism.
Are valuable because they identify positions that have typically been
ignored or overlooked within IR.
They also provide a voice to individuals who have frequently been
marginalized, particularly women and those from the Global South
Critical theorists who take a Marxist angle often argue that the
internationalization of the state as the standard operating principle of
international relations has led ordinary people around the globe
becoming divided and alienated, instead of recognizing what they all
have in common as a global proletariat.
This approach acknowledges that politics is not limited to one area or
region and that it is vital to include the voices of individuals from
other parts of the world.
25
 Thank you!!
26