study international relation

study international relation

The Dynamics of International Relations: A Comprehensive Study

1. Introduction to International Relations

Claiming the specificity of a realist approach, it is often argued that states are like individuals in the basic nature of their framework. They each want to survive and think they can do so only at the expense of others. Even though realism has undergone some reworking inside academia – the level of nationalism and the nature of the international security dilemma have been recast in less hard-edged ways – the core of the paradigm has not been displaced as much as many have thought. As this book explains, it is the realist basis. Of course, as we shall see, there are many actions of states and other international actors which are non-realist in their objectives, forms, and consequences. But skirting this hard-core of states’ international interaction, and especially seeking to use a richer explanation on the basis of a label or a substitute for biological individuals, weakens any realistic label. And weakens the ability of IR to provide a firm foundation and guidance for the intense and crucial focuses of the foreign policymaker.

The logic of international relations From a purely logical standpoint, the realist logic of international relations is not as complicated as it seems. It is straightforward, though brutal: Might makes right. Other differences between states are less important than differences in strength, wealth, and capability. Social, ideological, and other aspects of states’ conduct in international relations vary, but their variation is always limited by the limits of the distribution of state power and prospects for gaining power. It has been that way in the past, and it has tended to stay that way. The only possible way for such firmly based logic to change has to come through the effects of war or other forms of extreme violence. From a realist perspective, states’ aspirations for security and power are logical in much the same way that individuals logically aspire to wealth, safety, and power.

2. Key Theories and Concepts in International Relations

Referring to it, scholars characterize international relations as a tragic realm of unsentimental conflict. Their traditional concerns include trade-intercourse, military power, domestic society, and cultural identity. To them, the rivalries – inevitable between states – continue to contribute to the sourness and hostility in human affairs. These realists also recognize the collective state interests – the main determinants of state policies – and the preferred kinds of state conduct. The self-help concept of indicates the necessity and urgency of maintaining strong military and economic structures in an anarchic world. According to Carr, political realism can evaluate the warrants for peaceful changes. As such, the objective of statecraft is to create as an effective force as possible, and the ability of the lesser states to accommodate might, the capacity of the superpower not to get too much carried away, and the readiness of everyone to adjust to the ever-changing distribution of power.

Realists believed that IR is an anarchic system. In short, the world appears to them to be a dangerous place full of uncertainties. There is no overarching principle, superpower, or enforcement mechanism that can guarantee the security of the weaker states. This dog-eat-dog, jungle-like universe compels the states to fight and to prepare to fight all the time. The clash of conflicting interests, the confusion of the poor and weak, the jealousy of the rich and the powerful – all such elements provide the raison d’être of wars.

3. Major Actors in the International System

Although the advocacy of expanding the concept of actor is an understandable reaction against the state-centrism of much of international relations, the effort to juxtapose and equalize all the recognized kinds of international actors tends to leave both types in the conceptual limbo of mere activity or channels without goals or resource utilization. Few observers argue that such diverse actors as states, international organizations, markets, ethnic minorities, public opinion, and nuclear weapons may be reduced to just “states” or “sovereign territorial entities.” Of course, different kinds of entities should be studied and compared. Increased inclusiveness gradually makes the concept of actor cum agent so broad as to declare “it is the function of an international political system to influence the behavior of the actors that comprise it, and it is itself influenced by such behavior.” Such is not a definition. Governance thus emerges as a process of political and social interaction, of contest and collective decision, cooperative policy making, and implementation within a proper geography that determines the political and social arrangements for each territorial level of organization of government and non-governmental organizations.

The contemporary search for the international system has turned up a considerable variety and complexity of actors. In every era, scholars begin with a limited number of categories and then tend to add new ones or to subdivide the old ones. One group is the community of states, which are not mere interchangeable roles but specific entities with relatively unchanging individual and collective interests. A second group is entities below the state level, such as those that, at least in some Western political languages, are commonly referred to as “governments in exile.” The point is not that they may have a right to govern their proper territories, as local or national governments do, but that they are institutions representing a distinct territorial community of people who are or consider themselves to be nationals of a particular state. A third group of international actors is made up of international organizations, which are specifically established to deal with problems that are transnational and often require implementation strength over and above that which individual states can provide. Even a widely varying group of entities can serve the interest of analysis or practice, provided that one is clear and careful in distinguishing and comparing them.

4. Key Issues and Challenges in Contemporary International Relations

The end of the Cold War and the exponential growth of globalization as key trends of the late-twentieth century brought issues such as human rights, sustainable development, poverty, conflict, economic development, gender, information and communication, and many more to the center stage. Thus, the field of international relations is in a state of transition and expansion. These new issues require reflection in formulating the discipline. There is a schism between the problems of the international system called for by the democratic revolutions outside what used to be called the First World, and the intellectual apparatus of the international relations field. These new global issues challenge the traditional ideas of international relations. New theories have emerged out of these changes. These challenge the ideas of realism, liberalism, and other established frames of references.

In conclusion, international relations as a discipline has not only come of age and established itself in the community of academic disciplines, but is recognized as an interdisciplinary field of study. The state is no longer the only participant in international relations. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), individuals, and businesses play important roles at international levels. Similarly, non-state actors have become objects of study in the field of international politics. However, the nation-state system continues to be the most important actor in international relations. International relations has also come under significant pressure as a discipline concerned mainly with the world of the twentieth century, and unable to address the distinctive issues of the twenty-first century.

5. Conclusion and Future Directions

As the introductory chapters to this review suggest, we might anticipate discussion of contemporary issues such as environmental deals and regional trading blocs that are probed by existing economics topics as an area that can inform, but is not informing, international relations questions. A reading of the list of “bold” print shows that, indeed, these topics are below the threshold. This investigation adds to the two voices already in the arena with 3-D International Relations: Theorists of International Relations.

In summarizing our review of the content of a comprehensive book on the dynamics of international relations, we find that it is important to examine the topics represented in the individual existing textbooks on these important issues that are read by the educated public. Regarding the areas of diplomacy, economic instruments, and national capability, which are relevant to this examination, it is significant that both liberal and realist international relations theory inform these textbooks, and that each is weighted about the same – at about two-thirds and one-third respectively. Naturally, some provide a discussion of “bold” print subtopics, while others just list them. Nevertheless, theory, much of it under the sub-category of the “examples” subtopic, abounds in all three areas.