Unit 1-4

Department of Distance and Continuing Education
University of Delhi
nwjLFk ,oa lrr~ f'k{kk foHkkx
fnYyh fo'ofo|ky;
B.A. (Hons.) Political Science

Semester-II
Course Credits-4
Discipline Specific Core Course (DSC-6)
INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS:
THEORIES, CONCEPTS AND DEBATES
As per the UGCF - 2022 and National Education Policy 2020
Introduction to International Relations: Theories, Concepts and Debates
Editorial Board
Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout
Dr. Shambhu Nath Dubey
Dr. Mangal Deo
Content Writers
Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout, Dr. Santosh Kumar,
Dr. Pramod Kumar, Dr. Hijam Liza Dallo Rihmo,
Ms. Looke Kumari, Dr. Abhishek Choudhary,
Dr. Deepak Yadav, Hema Kumari
Academic Coordinator
Deekshant Awasthi
© Department of Distance and Continuing Education

ISBN: 978-81-19169-23-8
Ist edition: 2023
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
Published by:
Department of Distance and Continuing Education under
the aegis of Campus of Open Learning/School of Open Learning,
University of Delhi, Delhi-110007
Printed by:
School of Open Learning, University of Delhi
© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

• All units have been written afresh except unit-II.
• Corrections/Modifications/Suggestions proposed by Statutory Body, DU/Stakeholder/s in the Self

Learning Material (SLM) will be incorporated in the next edition. However, these
corrections/modifications/suggestions will be uploaded on the website https://sol.du.ac.in. Any
feedback or suggestions can be sent to the email- [email protected]

Table of Contents
Sl. No. Title Writer Pg.

No.
Unit-I What is IR and, its Contested Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout 01
Origins:
(a) What is IR
(b) Reading the Big Bangs
(c) Bringing in Decolonial Accounts
(d) Understanding the Genealogy of
IR Discipline in India
Unit-II Theories of IR
(a) Introduction to IR Theories Dr. Santosh Kumar 19
(b) Realpolitik/Realism/Neo-Realism Dr. Pramod Kumar 33
(c) Liberalism/Neo-Liberalism Dr. Hijam Liza Dallo Rihmo 46
(d) Marxism/Neo-Marxism Ms. Looke Kumari 58
(e) Feminism Dr. Hijam Liza Dallo Rihmo 72
(f) Constructivism Dr. Abhishek Choudhary 86
Unit-III Concepts: Dr. Deepak Yadav 103
(a) Power, (b) Sovereignty, (c)
Empire, (d) International Order
Unit-IV Exploring The Future Trajectories: Hema Kumari 117
(a) Global IR, (b) A Relational Turn

Unit I
WHAT IS IR AND, ITS CONTESTED ORIGINS:
(a) What is IR, (b) Reading the Big Bangs
(c) Bringing in Decolonial Accounts,
(d) Understanding the Genealogy of
IR Discipline in India
Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout
STRUCTURE
1.1 Learning Objectives

1.2 Introduction
1.3 What is IR and its contested Origins?
1.3.1 What is IR?
1.3.2 Scope and Nature of IR
1.3.3 Evaluation of IR in Academic Discourse.
1.3.4 Three Levels of Analysis
1.4 Reading the Big Bangs
1.4.1 Contestation over the idea of the Big Bang
1.4.2 Let us bust the myth of Westphalia.
1.4.3 Many /Shared facet of IR
1.5 Bringing in De-colonial Accounts.
1.6 Understanding the Genealogy of IR Discipline in India.
1.6.1 Need for Indian (Indigenous/Original) theory on IR
1.6.2 Bringing Civilizational Values into IR
1.7 Conclusion
1.8 Glossary
1.9 Practice Questions
1.10 References
1|Page

1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• The lesson introduces students for understanding IR, the Scope of IR and levels of
Analysis in IR.
• It makes the students understand the Eurocentric and Indian discourse on IR.
• It also strives to elaborate on the connection between the core values of IR like,
sovereignty, the state as a powerful actor and other non-state actors.
• Prime objective of the lesson to introduce students about the ongoing debate and to
bring an Indian account of IR.
1.2 INTRODUCTION
International Relations (IR) are the study of how nation-states and non-governmental
organizations interact in a wide range of subjects involving politics, economics, conflict, and
security. The disciple discusses conflict and harmony and serves a wide range of functions in
modern society. As a student, IR is said to have started in the West after the Treaty of
Westphalia in 1648. The current IR largely represents the values and norms of the West
(Europe). The non-Western world received little attention from the subject of international
relations, which is dominated by Western norms and theories. The non-western world served
as the colonized region, the passive subjects, and the students of the superior West. Even after
extensive cultural and civilizational interactions, non-westerners are not yet active
collaborators in the discipline. In this lesson, we would discuss the origin and evaluation of
IR, its contested origins and the debates going on to establish a discipline based on diversity,
equality, and pluralism.
1.3 WHAT IS IR AND ITS CONTESTED ORIGINS?
Let us start with the definition of the International Relations (IR)

1.3.1 What is IR?
International Relations is a branch of Political science which is concerned with the relations
among nations, the activities of non-state actors like the United Nations, the International
Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and International Non-Governmental Organizations like
Amnesty International, Green Peace, Human Rights Watch etc. IR also concerns international
security issues, foreign policy of various nations, globalization, international terrorism, the
international environment, and various area studies.
2|Page

International Relations is a struggle for power among nations, writes Hans J.

Morgenthau in his well-known book Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace. According to Charles Reynolds, international relations is the mechanism through
which conflicts develop and are settled on a worldwide scale. In this setting, nation-states
attempt to advance their political objectives through decisions and actions that may be at odds
with those of other countries. Therefore, the study of IR deals with issues related to conflicts,
including their causes, how they are handled by the parties involved, and how they are finally
settled.
Prof. Charles Schleicher defines international relations as the relation among States.
However, a good working definition of international relations is given by Harold and
Margaret Sprout. They define international relations as "those aspects of interactions and
relations of independent political communities in which some element of opposition,
resistance or conflict of purpose or interest is present.”
According to Hartman “International Relations as a field of study is focused upon the
process by which states adjust their national interest to those of other states”. Palmer and
Perkins opine that international politics is essentially concerned with the state system. Sprout
& Sprout also defined international politics as those aspects of the interactions and relations
of independent political communities in which some element of opposition, resistance and
conflict.
1.3.2 Scope and Nature of International Relations
Grayson Kirk defined five key areas of international relations (IR) in 1947: the nature and
functions of states; the influences on state power; the position and behavior of Great Powers
on the world stage; recent IR's rise and the creation of a more stable international system. At
the 1948 Paris Conference of the International Political Science Association, the scholars had
decided that IR would include subjects like international politics, international organization
and administration, and international law. Since then, the scope has evolved into the vast and
comprehensive field.
Karl Deutsch has outlined various facets of IR and its subject matter, such as state,
power, conflict, power relations, global dependence and limitations, global process, and
global interdependence; global challenges related to world population and the environment,
poverty, reforms and changes, identity, and more. Seven elements were discovered by
Vincent Barker in the 1970s, as the fundamental topic of international relations (IR); the
components of national power; the resources available to advance national interests; the
nature and strength of global politics; the political and socioeconomic structure of
international life; the limits and control of national power; the foreign policies of one or more
3|Page

major powers and, sporadically, a small state; and the recent history of international events.
According to Baylis and Smith, the background of globalization has led to the
inclusion of numerous new problems within the purview of IR. Human rights, environmental
problems, and gender issues are all included in this area of IR. In contemporary times the
definition of IR continues to fall under the broad umbrella of properly establishing the
relationship between each state's national interests and its obligations under international law.
As a result, Baylis and Smith have summarized the basic features of IR and its
multidimensional scope into:
▪ Nations state as Major Actor: The activities of Nation states as major actor remain
the prime focus of the IR discipline. This has been the basis of the subject matter
since the inception of the system of Westphalia in 1648. In the meantime, in all the
other provinces of the globe of Africa, Latin America and South Asia the nation-state
had different connotations which are being theorized these days. We will discuss this
in the coming part of the lesson.
▪ Existence of Non-State Actors: The importance of non-state actors in the study of IR
has increased in the globalized era since 1980s. The actors like Multi-National
Companies (MNCs)/Transnational Companies (TNCs); International Non-
Governmental Organizations (Green Peace, Amnesty International) exert lots of
influence on issues of IR.
▪ Power: Hans J Morgenthau in his famous book ‘Politics among Nations: The struggle
for Power and Peace’ states that, ‘International Relations is struggle for power among
nations’. As we know, International Relations is the process by which conflicts arise
and are resolved at the global level through power assertion, mediation and dialogue
making. So, acquiring power and using it for expanding the territory of the state and
keeping the national interest as its main objective.
▪ Security: Security is the prime concern of all nation-states. A peaceful and secure
international order is always linked to the notion that all the sovereign entities should
follow some amount of restriction on their independent actions relating to other. The
activities related to bilateral relations like mediation, negotiation, dialogue, talks on
disarmament; nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and reduction of
tension among nations are the prime objectives of IR. Discussion on war and peace,
along with strategic thinking in IR is directly related security of any state.
▪ Foreign Policies of Major Powers: Foreign policy of the major powers like, USA,
Russia, China, European Union (EU), Japan and India constitute the important subject
4|Page

matter of IR. The major power interactions are the driving forces of foreign policy
matters. The idea of balance of power, cold war, detente, and new cold war depict
foreign policy and their impact on other nation-states, are part of the IR.
▪ International Political Economy: The study of foreign political economy focuses on
how markets and politics interact, including how markets affect politics and how
policies affect markets. With the beginning of Globalization in the mid-1980s, a
renewed interest in IPE has developed among scholars.
▪ Globalization: The term "globalization" refers to the increasing interdependence of
the economies, cultures, and social activity around the globe because of technology,
cross-border trade in products and services, and flows of capital, labor, and
information. Over many ages, nations have developed economic alliances to support
these movements. But the word gained popularity after the Cold War in the early
1990s, as these cooperative arrangements shaped everyday activities in IR.
▪ International Environment: Environmental issues have increased concern for states
across the globe. The rise of Global warming, melting of glaciers and shortage of
drinking water, lessening of forests lead us to think about the one globe we are
sharing.
▪ International Terrorism: Terrorist activities involving citizens of more than one
country. It is a global phenomenon making global peace in conflicting situations. By
using hi tech technology, communication means terrorists are becoming menace to the
globe. There are many forms terrorism, cross border terrorism, religious and
fundamentalist, Maoists and separatist groups.
▪ International Health and Medicine: The prime purpose of international health and
medicine is to establish global public goods. The main activities of it includes, disease
prevention, detection, and treatment, are detailed in the part on health information
(health information). With rise of unknown viruses like Covid-19, Ebola and N1H1
etc. forced the academia and medical researchers to establish a network of health and
medicine to solve the issue globally.
1.3.3 Evaluation of IR in Academic Discourse
IR is an applied and very comprehensive disciple with interdisciplinary influences. IR has a
recent historical beginning, and it is a relatively new academic discipline. As a part of
political science, IR is about politics going on at the international level-especially the
decisions of governments about foreign policy issues; persuading about the national interest
during both the phases of conflict and peace (cooperations), reciprocity of interstate
5|Page

relationship; and politics related to international security; international political economy

(IPE); concerns of trade and financial relations among nations. The field of international
relations (IR) aims to examine some of the most important issues of our time, including
terrorism, issues related to climate change, human trafficking, migration, and poverty, as well
as the evolving nature of international cooperation and conflict, diplomacy, power struggles,
and other pertinent topics. Traditionally, a significant part of IR has dealt with questions
relating to changes in state systems within a broader international framework.
According to Baylis and Smith, the background of globalization has led to the
inclusion of numerous new problems within the purview of IR. Human rights, environmental
problems, and gender issues are part of IR. The definition of IR continues to fall under the
broad canopy which has established the relationship between each state's national interests
and its obligations under international law. Globalization has made us think that the states are
no longer self-sufficient, they are more interdependent and complexly bonded on political,
economic and environmental issues.
Since its inception as a disciple, the study of IR has been seen from various levels of
analysis. Let us understand IR through various Levels of Analysis. People are separated and
live in various political communities or groups. These political groups come together to
create a global system that includes many different countries. States are thus formally
separated from one another. However, that does not imply that they are isolated actors. Even
though they are divided by physical boundaries, they still have a significant impact on one
another. Thus, they create the structure at the Centre of IR. The modern society defines in
terms of interdependent manner. Therefore, everyone must comprehend the various events
that are taking place around the world. Politics, international trade, and non-state actors all
play equal roles in events that must be understood in the context of IR.
Let us discuss it from a different viewpoint. The discipline of IR has broad goals in
the modern era. As it explains: first, the causes of conflicts and the necessity of preserving
peace on an international scale; second, IR seeks to comprehend the nature and exercise of
power within an international framework; and third, IR seeks to comprehend the evolving
nature of state and non-state actors who are essential players in the global system's decision-
making.
The level of foreign cooperation is growing in our time. Therefore, in addition to the
work done by the United Nations and its various wing organizations that affect nation-states
and the people who reside in them, work done by regional-level organizations also plays a
crucial role in everyone's lives. General human cultures have been concerned about
international terrorism. It has also been crucial for economic organizations that shape foreign
6|Page

relations, such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. As a result, IR scholars
and students now place a great deal of importance to study IR.
1.3.4 Three Levels of Analysis

Let us investigate the significance and usefulness of the level of analysis, a key idea in IR.
From a eurocentrism perspective, three levels are typically used in IR to evaluate
international relations. When Kenneth Waltz published his book Man, the State, and War in
1959, it sparked a discussion about the degree of analysis in international relations. Waltz
proposed three levels or three stages in his work to highlight the behavior patterns of states
and their choices regarding war. Three levels of analysis, according to Waltz, can be used to
examine the causes of conflict. Therefore, the level of analysis explains how different levels
of foreign policy instruction are understood.
Individual Level of Analysis
Waltz stated that the individual level is the first level of analysis and that conflicts generally
arise due to patterns of human nature (human behaviour) or due to the personality of a
specific political leader. Human nature is the centre of analysis at the individual level. These
people make choices that affect foreign policy and other interstate political interactions,
which affect how other states behave in the international system. According to individual-
level analysis, foreign policy instructions are primarily influenced by the political leaders of
various countries. The character and behavioral patterns of man are the main subject of
analysis at the individual level. Self-interest, impetuous misdirection, and ignorance are the
causes of conflicts (Waltz, 1959)
State Level of Analysis
The behaviour of states is examined in the second stage of the image. Waltz holds the
position that a nation's property has a substantial impact on its directives and policies at the
second level. These include its form of government, its internal stakeholders, its mode of
productive activities, and the duties involved in distribution. Analysis at the state level
reveals how a state's character influences the direction of its foreign policy. At this level of
analysis, countries are also seen as carriers of culture and its ties to things like religion,
customs, history, the economy, and geographic characteristics. Waltz holds that conflicts
primarily result from internal structures (internal political structure) of states in this second
stage of analysis. Waltz in this context is reminiscent of Lenin's theory of imperialism, which
highlights that capitalist states' goal of opening new marketplaces to boost the economies of
their nations is the fundamental cause of conflicts. For instance, some people think that
7|Page

democratic nations act in a certain way or refrain from conflict while capitalist and socialist
nations exhibit various attitudes and behaviours to ally with others. Failure of internal
democratic institutions and state types of machinery may lead to war and unstable
government. Analysis at the state level is another tool we can use to comprehend US
involvement in Iraq. The US has always pursued idealistic foreign policy goals, such as the
democratisation of the globe. It has intervened in various state affairs to establish human
rights and democratic values.
System Level of Analysis
The global level system is examined by system-level analysis, specifically how the global
pattern affects state attitudes. To comprehend state directives, Waltz examines the anarchic
character of the international system. To this understanding, the state is directed by the global
level structure. This suggests that any change in the global system will also be followed by a
change in the policies and directions of the various states. The strength of a nation-state is the
key factor at the world level. While some of them are in places of greater authority, others are
not, and vice versa. However, the US and the Soviet were both parties to the Cold War. Later,
the cold war had an impact on and impacted the actions of all other nations. Since in a world
with two giants, the US and the USSR were both. The world is now thought of as being
unipolar, with one strong country determining the course of all other countries in the
international system. This analysis makes it simple to understand why the US acted in Iraq. It
can be said that the US, the world's superpower, tries to impose order on nations that pose a
danger to it. The US wishes to keep being the best, so it will fight everyone who stands in its
way.
1.4 READING THE BIG BANGS
Let us understand what Big Bangs certainly mean in IR. You may know that the ontology of
IR always starts with Westphalia. Why do we always begin to study IR, with the Treaty of
Westphalia? Alike many writers, the classical realist Hans J. Morgenthau believed and wrote
in his book Politics among Nations that ‘the treaty of Westphalia brought the religious wars
in Europe to an end and made the territorial state the cornerstone of the modern state system.
A few scholars also took the year 1919 as a milestone when the League of Nations was
created. Somehow these milestones are being set up to atone for the fact that the subject
matter of international relations is confined to the ideas propelled by European history.
However, the treaty of Westphalia had evolved into a system of anarchical set-up in
IR. The years like 1648 and 1919 set a formative tone of an anarchical, sovereign state
8|Page

system, which can be considered as the ‘big bangs’ of the discipline. The treaty of Westphalia
became a milestone in IR and established the importance of the principle of sovereignty,
territory and various other issues related to international politics like trade and transport etc.
The idea of sovereignty recognized in the peace of Westphalia represented an essential
element in the creation of the modern nation-state. It has developed a notion that a state being
sovereign recognizes no higher authority. However, eurocentrism in IR has pertinently
established the importance of realism (Classical realism by Morgenthau) and the idea of a
new anarchic set up of self-help, and security dilemmas opined by Waltz and others. The
British historian and journalist E.H. Carr distinguished between realism and utopianism in his
book "The Twenty Years "Crisis" (1939). Carr employed the realism that underlies
Machiavelli's works as his starting point for IR. He also insisted that history is a chain of
events that can be expostulated through intellectual as well as self-serving means. The second
point is that politics produce praxis, not theory. Finally, morality and ethics have no bearing
on politics. Politics even affects ethics, and morality is the outward manifestation of
authority. Power, rather than morality and ethics, is the driving factor behind international
relations (IR).
Major Approaches on IR
1.4.1 Contestation over the idea of Big Bang (Origin of IR)
Why do teachers still teach students about Westphalia as the beginning of IR and then
the course followed by the discussion on Realism, liberalism, and constructivism? The
discipline also gives undue emphasis upon the developments that took place in Europe like
World War I, World War II, and Cold War etc. Thus, it’s time to rethink what should be
taught to the students in India about their theories of IR. The discourse of IR can’t possibly be
9|Page

monistic and confined to European history and politics. All the European formulas of peace
and conflict and statecraft can’t be applied universally to regions like Africa, Latin America,
or South Asia. For example, the USA had adopted isolationism in certain times, proactiveness
in the next and withdrawal in a certain phase. While India had adopted non-alignment at a
certain time, proactive, equidistance, at a certain time. Consequently, we can conclude that
the universal application of theories of IR is not practically feasible.
A lot has changed in the scope and jurisdiction of IR since its inception of it as a
discipline. But still, in our syllabus, we are supposed to teach our students about the
Westphalian Treaty of 1648 as the milestone and foundational starting point of interstate
relationships based on peace. We make our students look at the historical growth of IR from
the conception of bipolarity during the Cold War. They are said to look at the cold war as a
process of ‘long peace’ or a type of balance of power maintained by the USA and USSR.
Though, many of the proxy wars, ideological divisions and conflicts took place beyond
Europe, or in the so-called Third World. In that way, the Cold War can be considered
differently in different regions. Let us take for example Superpower’s ‘long peace’; for third-
world states, it’s about ‘proxy wars or phases followed by Détente. Maybe a phase of
transition for them after independence. A phase can be differently theorized by Asian,
African, and Latin American scholars.
The Westphalian concepts of sovereignty and state-centricity are most often contested
in the framework of globalization by two groups of actors. One group of multinational
companies sees the world as an enormous "marketplace for production, consumption, and
investment" and is driven by the desire to make money. On the other hand, some
transnational actors are more altruistic and believe that "the fundamental rights of all people"
are upheld, and that the world is bound together by a common humanity. In these conditions,
the states try to respond to the difficulties by redefining and honoring some laws while
accommodating and upholding others. The idea of Westphalian sovereignty appears to be
inconsistent with the shifting context, where the focus is now on internal conflicts within
states rather than fighting states. The interdependence of states is growing, making it more
possible that a disturbance in one area will have an impact on other territorially defined areas.
Additionally, the emergence of various categories of non-state actors calls into doubt the
state's indisputable authority.
1.4.2 Let us bust the myth of Westphalia.
The time has arrived to take a step to bust the myth that Westphalia established. It gave a
parochial, Eurocentric, and one-dimensional view of the State system and its underlying
principles and institutions. We must bust the myth and create a many-faceted, non-western,
10 | P a g e

and pluralist theoretical set-up which can study IR through regional or provincial narratives
across the globe.
As we know, till the 21st-century states remain the most effective, sole actor in IR.
All the theoretical set-up has surrounded by the idea of the interaction of state; national
interest; conflict and conflict management by the states. In other words, IR is constructed as a
discipline dealing with states in a world where states are sole actors. The historiography of
the IR was confined to the activities of the European colonial powers like France, Italy,
Germany and Great Britain. With decolonization coming into account, the activities of newly
independent states in world politics have been overshadowed by the bipolarity of two
Superpowers like the USA and the USSR. During the period of the Cold War, the newly
independent states remained congregated through the Non-Alignment Movement, then South-
south Cooperation and G 20 etc. The emergence of globalization also tinkered new reality to
the scope and nature of IR. Let us examine how globalization has challenged the monistic
idea of state supremacy.
1.4.3 Many /Shared facet of IR
In the age of globalization, the concept of unrestricted, total sovereignty did not remain sway
for very long, either nationally or internationally. The power of the monarchy and the
governing classes was severely curtailed by the emergence of democracy. The increasing
interdependence of states brings a limit on the idea that might make right in international
relations. Most people agree that there cannot be peace without law and that there cannot be
law without some limitations on sovereign authority. In order to maintain peace and
prosperity, groups such as the United Nations (UN), North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), World Trade Organization
(WTO), and the European Union (EU), among others, started to combine their sovereignties.
These regional and Intern Governmental organizations, national governments, and the
peoples of the globe have all gradually claimed sovereignty. Consequently, the concept of
shared sovereignty has evolved these days.
Despite existential threats from a variety of sources, nation-states won't go away from
the main discussion in IR. Instead, they'll coexist with non-sovereign entities that are more
powerful than ever before, such as MNCs/TNCs, NGOs, terrorist groups, regional and
international institutions (like IMF), banks (like World Banks), private equity firms etc.
Sovereignty will suffer from the continuous and accelerating flow of people, ideas,
Greenhouse gases, products, money, viruses, and weapons within and across boundaries.
Controlling what crosses borders is one of the pillars of sovereignty, but all this traffic puts
that to proof. In contrast to one another, the sovereign governments will increasingly assess
11 | P a g e

how vulnerable they are to the forces of globalization which is outside of their sovereign
authority.
1.5 BRINGING IN DE-COLONIAL ACCOUNTS
Looking at the new changes coming into the world political system after the 1950s, we have
an urgent requirement to bring in de-colonial accounts of the creation of a modern nation-
state. The decolonial account must speak about the specific scenario or the reflective
engagement of previous colonial states and their narrative about IR. How their relationship
was specifically built in the shadow of imperial powers and existing state setups of colonial
powers. It would majorly suggest that the grant narrative of ‘realism, liberalism and
constructivism cannot possibly be universally applicable to all the nation-states which
emerged during decolonization. As Acharya and Buzan 2010; Acharya 2011a, rightly
mentioned, when considering the ideas that have shaped IR thinking, we always investigate
the contribution of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke and Kant, but we certainly
ignore what Ashoka, Kautilya, Sun Tzu, Iban Khaldun, Nehru, Raul Prebisch, Franz Fanon
and many others from developing world had said. Thus, the eurocentrism in IR reflects a
monistic, rigid statist ontology that is ill-equipped to handle the new challenges of post-
colonial states and their global governance.
Hence ‘Pluiversality’ or Plurality of the universe in IR is the most generated in IR
writings now. This would establish the fact that there can be many narratives of IR, maybe
from many regions. This concept suggests that there is no IR grand narrative (Major
theoretical approaches) and that there aren't many voices in a single world. Instead, there are
numerous worlds. From the India and South Asian region, we have placed our worldview and
established our theories. Reflecting on the subject Amitav Acharya (2014), wrote that ‘the
discipline of International Relations (IR) does not reflect the voices, experience, knowledge
claims, and contributions of the vast majority of societies and states in the world, and often
marginalized those outside the core countries of the West’. Thus, IR scholars across the globe
are seeking to find out their voices and reexamining their traditions, and their specific
challenges. Adding to this Cox, offered “an alternative conception of universalism, which
rests on “comprehending and respecting diversity in an ever-changing world” (2002:530).
Thus, pluralism in IR theorizing was held to be valuable and instrumentally required
to constantly engage scholars and academia to indulge in dialogue making. Rengger (2015),
identified a relevant point in favour of pluralism, he said that an “effective means of
encouraging dialogue across approaches is required”. He says that the strict rigid patrolling of
West on the theoretical debates needs rationalist and consistent attempt by third world
12 | P a g e

scholars to work empathetically.

Thus, it has been clear that we are making attempts to codify and theories our
perspective of Bhartiya Darshan in India. In the sense that we should not do a ‘hurried
attempt’ to just chalk down some ‘ancient Indian’ flavor to the contemporary IR. We have to
engage constantly to find out a theoretical methodology (either rational or reflexive) which
can effectively produce an indigenous theory on IR.
1.6 UNDERSTANDING THE GENEALOGY OF IR DISCIPLINE

IN INDIA
Let us Search for Indian Genealogy on IR. We certainly know that the Western theoretical
framework of IR overlooks ‘Indians and the terms in which they comprehend the world’
(Datta-Ray, 2015, Pp195-197). Thus, being a colonial state, knowledge creation has been part
of colonial powers. They had come on with a civilizing mission to ‘orient’ India and another
part world.
When we look back at our academic research on theorizing IR we find, ‘all, Indian IR
scholars are from West, outside or belong to Anglo-American Academy’. The academia of
Anglo-America has hegemony on IR theorizing and India has limited control over the
publication and research in this area. (Kanti Bajpai and Mallavarapu: 2009:1-13).
1.6.1 Need for Indian (Indigenous/Original) IR Theory
Let us try to understand, why India is searching for identity in a world order based on
indigenous/original knowledge. The imported, majorly English/Western, superficial
codification of the Indian knowledge system is failing to estimate the growth of India as
emergent Global power (Viswa Guru). Contemporary political change directs us to think
from the lens of ‘Swadeshi’ and ‘Swa Dharma’. It is high time India should codify its
theories on IR. As Gautam has rightly said ‘In Indian tradition, there is a dearth of written
political history with chronology’. Shivashankar Menon points out that India’s supposedly
incoherent strategic approach is a colonial construct, as is the idea of Indians somehow
forgetting their history and needing to be taught it by Westerns who retrieved it. (Gautam et
al,2015, vol.1, p.xiv).
The research on Indian culture and its establishment theoretical foundation on IR can
be traced back to the ruling of the Mauryas, the Pala dynasty, and the Chedi dynasty. Even
though foreign forces repeatedly invaded India, the Indian empires themselves never
13 | P a g e

surpassed the subcontinent. Despite this, India has had a significant influence on other
cultures. This dominance was cultural rather than political, and it depended on trade rather
than physical force. These facts of IR can be theorized based on rationalism and empiricism.
For example, let us understand the theories of Kautilya, an ancient Indian scholar, offers a
very significant contribution to the hierarchy of realism. Kautilya uses the concepts of power
and contentment to analyze international politics. He claims that using authority wisely can
lead to happiness. He adds that contentment is a sign of effective foreign policy, which is
based on righteousness and internal stability and introduces new ideas in determining one's
place in the world. In comparison to comprehension of the loose bipolar system, Kautilya's
Mandala theory distinguishes between Vijigishu (the righteous King) and his friends versus
Ari (Vijigishu's enemy) and his friends in a superior and complex way. It suggests that the
countries can be near together geographically and thus exhibit loose centricity.
Kautilya made a unique addition to the study of international relations by identifying
non-aligned Kings and neutral, indifferent Kings. Locational determination of Kings suggests
that one's neighbour is one's enemy and that, consequently, one's neighbour’s enemy is a
friend in Kautilya's view of international relations. To expand his power and become a
"Sarvabhauma," Kautilya urges the King (Vijigishu) to wage constant war (the King of the
entire earth). Therefore, Kautilya perfected the realist concepts from the past, when using
violence to gain power and prominence in international affairs was encouraged.
Mere studying the volume of Kautilya Arthasatra and Manu’s Manu Smriti would not
solve the issue that India can produce its strategic thought productively. It requires a
regressive, rational, consistent, diplomatic approach to develop vocabulary, doctrines,
debates, and perspectives. More importantly, there is a ‘need for India to secure theoretical
emancipation’(Kumar:203) from Western knowledge. The codification of historical facts and
value systems that are deeply embedded in India is of utmost importance. Many scholars in
academia like Datta-Ray, in the Making of Indian Diplomacy (2015), Gautam, Mishra and
Gupta tried in their book Indigenous Historical Knowledge, Nivedita Chadha Behra, Acharya
and Buzan (Why there is no non-Western international relations theory? An introduction)
many more tried to bring in the idea of pluralism in IR theory.
Acharya and Buzan (2007) advocated that non-Western theories do exist but are hidden. Even
if they exist, they are generalized. Non-Western IR Theories, even if they exist, remain
hidden mainly due to the barrier of language and since they are “located in areas of study
outside the Western-defined IR realm”. They also empathized that the cultural and political
differences should be considered non-western countries. In her article globalization,
deglobalization and knowledge production Navnita Chadha Behra (2021), proclaimed in a
14 | P a g e

similar voice to Barry Buzan and Acharya, that, IR is yet to grow, beyond its Anglo-
American origins. She urged for the decolonizing of knowledge production at the regional
and provincial levels. As said, that, ‘deglobalization promises a new realm of possibilities;
but it is too early to predict whether the new wave of nationalism will further fragment the
domain knowledge of IR, or whether the discipline will succeed in recasting itself to reflect
the globe’s multiple worlds. Looking at the various dimensions of argument we can conclude
that we must think out of box and produce a non-Eurocentric, Indian construct of IR
theorization which will become the foundation for other understanding. Thus, we must frame
the Indian version of IR from more objective, positivist, and exclusive manner.
1.6.2 Bringing in the Civilizational Values into IR
Looking at the contemporary time India is consistently trying to establish a nation-state based
on civilizational and cultural values leading us to rethink on the idea of indigenous/ original
theorization on IR. Thus, it’s time for students, researchers, and academicians to give
rationalist approach to find out theoretical perspective on IR. Looking at the composite
history of India and civilization values of tolerance, peace, and non-interference, we need to
look at the IR subjects from our ontological style. Thus, need to have a ‘composite Indian
civilizational perspective’ of IR, narrated by scholars and academicians living across India.
Once effectively completed Seventy-Five years of independence from British colonialism we
should showcase ourselves as self-reliant to produce ‘indigenous/ original Knowledge’, may
be Bhartiya Darshan based on ancient Indian Civilizational values.
The core of the ancient Indian IR was connected to just state activities a paramountcy of Niti
and Nayaya in IR. Even the best of ancient Indian traditions like Arthasastra, Narada Puran
and Mahabharata oppose, militarism (unjustly) and expansionism of state territory. The state
and monarchy were treated by and large as a sacred trust conducive to the security, peace,
and prosperity of the people (Mathur: 398). Even in the writings of Kautilya, the ideal of
Dharma Chakra was predominant.
Kautilya has advocated the idea of Chakravarti Raja who would always be pursued for
universal righteousness. For this reason, Kautilya’s premium on Dharma Vijaya was opposed
to Lobha Vijaya and Asur Vijaya under the category of Kutayuddha, or unrighteous war, is a
signal contribution to international law (Mathur: 400) as Mathur writes, a cardinal maxim of
ancient Indian diplomacy was to avoid war. The main objective of the state was to keep it as
a last resort.
15 | P a g e

Points to Ponder
Let us try to figure out what can be the big bang of IR in India. As we know, the
wars in Ramayana and Mahabharat were fought to establish Dharma over Adharma.
Can we bring back the genesis of state since then. But how we need to codify them?
Can it be considered as the Indian perspective on IR.
Like the Eurocentric realist understanding on IR, the main objective of diplomatic
relationship in those time was state sovereignty, security, national interest, and national
integration. However, Nitisastras exhort the predominance of means conducive to the ethical
ends. In this context, the concept of Chatur Upaya, or fourfold alternatives of diplomacy
needs special mention. The alternatives are -Sama, Dana, Danda and Bheda. The Manusmiriti
goes to the extent of permitting the use of any or all of these if a state is in dire trouble (ibid:
401).
1.7 CONCLUSION
Therefore, India is presently searching for its civilizational and cultural genesis of IR. The
values can be of any kind and may be based on Sanatana Dharma or Advaita philosophy,
Sikhism etc. It can be combination of the values of Jainism and Buddhism and Gandhism.
Thus, contemporary knowledge must focus on self-development, with indigenous role model
and should be clear, consistent, compact theoretically. Knowledge production should
consider the collective interest of the globe that we all share. For instance, India’s persistent
demand to create world brotherhood (Vasudeva Kutumbakam) or one, nation, One Culture
and One People can be the foundational value for the IR theorization in future.
1.8 GLOSSARY
Realism: A broad intellectual tradition that explains international relations mainly in terms of
power.
Idealism: An approach that emphasizes international law, morality, and international
organizations, rather than power alone, as key influences on IR
Anarchy: State of complete chaos, no authority.
16 | P a g e

Power: The ability or potential to influence others’ behaviour, as measured by the possession
of certain tangible and intangible characteristics.
1.9 PRACTICE QUESTIONS
1. Write a short essay on the evaluation of International Relations (IR) as an academic

discipline.
2. Analyze the nature and scope of IR in reference to the idea of three levels of Analysis.
3. Analyze the significance of searching Indian genealogy on IR. How European and
Indian understanding differ from each other. Explain.
1.10 REFERENCES
➢ Acharya, Amitav. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New
Agenda for International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly (International
Studies Association ), no. 83 (2014): 647–659.
➢ Acharya, Amitav. “Human Security: East versus West.” International Journal (Sage
Publications, Ltd.) 56, no. 3 (2001): 442-460.
➢ Alagappa, Muthiah. Asian Security Practice: Material and Ideational Influences.
Stanford University Press, 1998.
➢ Behera, Giorgio Shani and Navnita Chadha. “Provincialising International Relations
through areading of dharma.” Review of International Studies 48, no. 5 (2022): 837–
856.
➢ Behera, Navnita Chadha, Globalization, deglobalization and knowledge prodution,
International Affairs, 97:5, 1579-7, DOI:1O.1O93/ia/iiab119
➢ Buzan, Amitav Acharya and Barry. “Why is there no non-Westerninternational
relations theory?An introduction.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific (Oxford
University Press) 7, no. 3 (2007): 287–312.
➢ Cox, Robert. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International
Relations Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 1981.
➢ Carvalho, Benjamin de, Leria Halvard & John M. Hobson (2011), The Big Bang of
IR: The Myths That Your Teachers Still Tell You about 1648 and 1919, Millennium:
Journal of International Studies, 39(3), Pp735-758
17 | P a g e

➢ Chatterjee, Aneek (2019), International Relations Today: Concepts and Applications,

Pearson, New Delhi
➢ Charles P. Schleicher, Introduction to International Relations (New York, 1954) p. 31
➢ Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace
(New York, 1954) pp. 14, 20.
➢ Jackson, Robert and Georg Sorensen (2006), Introduction to International Relations,
Oxford University Press, Oxford
➢ Mahendra Kumar, Theoretical Aspects of International Politics (Agra, 1967, 2nd
revised ed. 1972) p. 11.
➢ Quincy Wright, The Study of International Relations (Bombay, 1970 Indian reprint,
1st ed. 1955) p. 6.
➢ Rengger, Nicholas (2015), Pluralism in International Relations Theory: Three
Questions, International Studies Perspectives, vol.16, No.1, Pp 32-39, Stable URL: //
www.jstor.org/stable/44218766, accessed on 08/02/2023.
➢ https://www.orfonline.org/research/the-forgotten-history-of-indian-international-
relations/#_edn2
➢ Kumar, Vikas (2018), Recovering/Uncovering the ‘Indian’ in Indian Diplomacy,
Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, Vol.5, No.2, Pp 197-215,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48601952
18 | P a g e

Unit-II: Theories of IR
(a) INTRODUCTION TO IR THEORIES
Dr. Santosh Kumar
STRUCTURE

1.2 Introduction
1.3 Meaning and Definition of IR
1.4 International Relations and International Politics
1.5 Subject Matter and Scope of International Relations
1.6 Need for the Study International Relations: Level of Analysis
1.7 Three Level of Analysis
1.8 History of Emergence of International State System
1.9 Challenges to the Westphalian System
1.10 Conclusion
1.12 References
• The discipline of international relations has gradually developed over the period
spanning the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
• Will get to understand the difference between international relations and international
politics.
• Treaty of Westphalia and the Rise of Modern State System
• Understand about the concept of realism, neo realism and various other theoretical
1.2 INTRODUCTION
The discipline of international relations has gradually developed over the period spanning the
nineteenth and twentieth century. Jeremy Bentham first used the term International in 1780
when he talked about ‘international Jurisprudence’ as a branch of law. Since then, the term is
19 | P a g e

used to refer to those relations carried on among or between different states. However,
international relations as an academic discipline emerged after World War I. International
relations as a system of operation dates back to the era of Greek city-states as seen in the
work of Thucydides, the Greek historian (460-395 BC) who wrote ‘The History of
Peloponnesian War’. The Greek city-states were facing problems associated with managing
recurring conflicts between them, a problem central to the later understanding of international
relations. The conflict between Athens and Sparta, the former being a weak city-state in
comparison to the later reflected another important issue of international relations. The issue
of power and the powerful is evident in this case-conflict between the two states. It was based
on index of power; the Roman Empire later prevailed over the Greek city-states. Barry Buzan
and Richard Little mark out that the international arrangement is visible in the Sumerian state
systems that operated in the year 3500 BC. The original point in the development of
international relations must be traced to the period of Greek city-states because of the
presence of conflict and small-scale wars among the Greek city states for the purpose of
domination. The entire period from Greek city-state to that of the Roman Empire is beset
with the theme of war, annexation and domination. This theme become central to formulation
of international relations as a subject. This is also the period when discourses concerning
relations between the states were discussed in early India Scenario. Kautilya‘s Arthashastra
was a treatise on conduct of state and its relations. However, the origin of modern
international relations goes back only to the times of the beginning of the 20th century.
Several scholars made an attempt to explain as to why states behave in a particular manner
which results in war and how conflicts or war could be avoided. International relations as an
academic area of study gained its foundation as an independent discipline in the aftermath of
World War I upon the establishment of a separate chair of International Politics at the
University of Wales, United Kingdom. In 1920 at London School of Economics an
independent chair for international relations was created in the name of Phillip Neol Baker.
Before WWI, the study of international relations was the sub-discipline within the disciplines
of history, Politics and International law. Therefore the origin of international relations is not
very old and IR as an academic field is very recent. Modern states are no longer self-
sufficient and ties among them concerning different aspects have led to the growth and
formation of new branches of knowledge. The discipline of IR tries to scrutinize some of the
vital issues of our times like the changing nature of international cooperation and conflict,
diplomacy, power struggle, nature and impact of globalization on various nations and security
issue such as terrorism, issue related to climate change, trafficking, migration and poverty
etc.
A traditionally major portion of IR has involved issues on changes with regard to state
20 | P a g e

systems within the larger international framework. It has dealt with states and the inter-state
ties have served to provide an explanation on peace and conflict that emerge as major issues
in the discipline of IR. Nevertheless, contemporary studies on IR is not only merely
concerned with political ties alone but also pertain to subjects of human rights, multinational
organizations (MNCs), International organizations, ecology, gender, development, terrorism
and others.
This chapter will try to introduce the historical background of IR. At the outset it will
make an attempt to discuss the meaning and the attributes of international relations within the
field of political science as a discipline. It will then focus on elaborating the difference
between the notion of international relations and international politics. The next segment of
the chapter will deal with issues pertaining to the need for studying international relations
through the lens of different levels of analysis, namely, individual, state and international
standpoints. It will further delve into the topic of emergence of international state systems
vis-à-vis the pre-Westphalia period, the birth of modern states and the post-Westphalia
approach.
1.3 MEANING AND DEFINITION OF IR
There is no unanimity among the writers and scholars of IR regarding the meaning and
definition of IR since there have been various meanings and definitions offered on the
subject. In view of various explanations and definitions given by various scholars it is be
essential to examine some of those definitions of IR. According to Quincy Wright
international relations serve to concerned with the official links among states that serve to be
sovereign entities. As per the opinion of Wright, IR attempts to mention the realities involved
in the subject implying the conduct of relations within states and view them through a
scientific outlook. Hence IR as a discipline should be concerned with a variety of aspects
including politics, trade, diplomacy and many others within states. It must take into
consideration inquiries of various kinds involving types of government, organizations of the
international order, common people, culture and religious denominations which serve to be
primary subjects within IR. Prof. Schleicher defines International relations as relations among
states. Hans J Morgenthau in his famous book ‘Politics among Nations: The struggle for
Power and Peace’ states that, ‘International Relations is struggle for power among nations’.
Charles Reynolds regards International Relations as the process by which conflicts arise and
are resolved at the global level. In this environment, nation-states try to serve their political
interests by means of their policies and actions which may be in conflict with those of other
nations. Thus the field of IR involves matters of conflicts, how they originate, how the parties
21 | P a g e

in conflict behave in an attempt to deal with it and how these conflicts are resolved.
Another comprehensive definition of IR has been put forward by Harold and Margret
Sprout. According to them, IR deals with matters of communication and ties of independent
political entities marked with some concerns of conflict and opposition. Professor Alfred
Zimmern had mentioned much before the World War II that International Relations does not
merely concentrate upon single field of inquiry. It does not provide a single body of teaching
matter. It is not considered with any particular subject but based on multiple fields of study,
namely law, economic relation, politics, geographical ties, and so on. Hartman opined that
International Relations serve to be a field of study which is based upon the “processes by
which states adjust their national interest to those of other states.” It is noted that interests of
states are often not in agreement with each other due to which reason Morgenthau suggested
that political at the global level like other matters of political inquiry is based power relations
and further conflicts within the field. Therefore, power has been viewed as the yardstick
through which states uphold their primary national interest.
Thus, almost all the writers have focused that IR is concerned with relations among
states. However, there are other scholars who have included in their definitions of IR the
issues concerning relations involving the non-state actors as well. Therefore, the study of
international relations is interdisciplinary in nature. IR is a combination of political science,
history, and economics to understand issues such as rights-based frameworks, poverty,
climate change, economic issues, and globalization. It also covers various security related
issues as well as the political environment.
1.4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL

POLITICS
The term international relations and international politics are often used as synonyms. In fact,
some of the most renowned scholars of International politics such as Hans J. Morgenthau and
Kenneth Thompson have used these terms interchangeably. The term international relations is
used in larger context than international politics because it includes different kinds of aspects
such as political, social, cultural, diplomatic and non-diplomatic ties. Harold and Margaret
Sprout have viewed IR as human behavioural patterns on one side of national boundaries
affecting the human attitude on other side of the country’s borders. The term international
politics is used in a narrow sense. The term international politics is concerned with the study
of conflict and collaboration within states mainly at political level. According to Padelford
and Lincoln, international politics is the interface of state regulations and rules inside the
altering mode of power association. Palmer and Perkins have opined on the same level
22 | P a g e

mentioning politics at the international front mainly involves the state system.
Both IR and international politics also differ with respect to the methodology of study.
International relations as a subject is descriptive in nature that includes the study of various
factors in systematic manner while international politics is analytical in nature. In this sense
international relations is much more vast than international politics. But there is a close
relationship between international relations and international politics. In fact some scholars
have regarded international politics as a subfield of international relations. Despite some
differences between the two, we cannot deny the fact that the international relations and
international politics intend to pursue the same goals and objectives.
1.5 SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS
In 1947 Grayson Kirk identified five crucial subject-matter of IR; the character and function
of states; factors that shape power of states; the global position and behaviour of Great
Powers; the emergence of recent IR and the building of a more stable global order. The Paris
Conference of International Political Science Association in 1948 decided that subject matter
of IR should include international politics, international organization and administration and
international law.
Karl Deutsch has identified different aspects of IR and its subject-matter which includes:
state and world; global process and global interdependence; conflict; power-relations and
limitation; global politics and society; world population and environment challenges; poverty;
revolt and steadiness; identity and so on. Vincent Barker (1970s) has identified seven
elements as basic subject-matter of IR; elements of national power; tools available for
promotion of national interests; character and principal strength of global politics; political,
socio-economic mode of international life; limits and control of national power; foreign
policy of one or more major powers and occasionally of a small state; history of recent
international events.
Baylis and Smith have argued that in the background of globalization many new issues
have been included within the scope of IR. This scope of IR includes Human Rights,
Environmental issues and Gender issues. The scope of IR in the modern period remains
within the large framework of appropriate establishment of relationship between national
interests and international obligations for each state. Due to this reason Baylis and Smith
have proposed the use of the term world politics instead of international relations to make the
scope of IR more inclusive.
23 | P a g e

1.6 NEED FOR THE STUDY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS:

LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
The need for studying IR is due to cause that people are divided and reside in different
political communities. Together these political communities form an international system
involving various nations. So legally states are independent from each other. But that does
not mean that they exist in isolation. In fact, they are only separate by borders influence each
other in various ways in the international state system. So they form a system, which is core
of IR. The contemporary world is identified by a system of states that are dependent upon
each other. Hence, it serves to be important for everyone to gain an understanding on the
different events that are occurring across the world. Events involving politics, global trade,
non-state actors are all to be known equally.
The discipline of IR has broad objectives in today’s times, as it explains: first the origin
of conflicts and need for maintaining peace at the international level, second IR tries to
understand the nature and exercise of power within international framework and lastly, the
discipline of IR tries to understand the changing nature of state and non-state actors which are
main players in the decision making in the global system.
We live in an age of increasing international collaboration. Hence, not only do tasks of
the United Nations and its various wings that influence nation-states and the individuals
residing in them but work being carried on by regional level bodies also have an instrumental
role in everyone’s lives. International terrorism has been a concern for the human societies at
large. It has also served to be important for economic organisations (like the World Bank and
the World Trade Organisation) that influence international relations. The study of IR has thus
gained huge significance for the scholars and students of IR.
1.7 THREE LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
The aim of this section is to examine the meaning and effectiveness of level of analysis which
is a vital concept of IR. In IR generally three levels are used to analyze the international
relations. The debate related to level of analysis began in IR when Kenneth Waltz (1959)
came up with his book titled ‘Man, the state and war’. In his book Waltz propounded three
levels or three images to point out the behavioural patterns of states and their decision with
regard to war. Waltz suggested that there are three levels of analysis that can be utilized in the
study of how wars occur. So level of analysis explains the forms of understanding the foreign
policy directives that are taken up at various levels of the nations, the law makers and the
24 | P a g e

administration or the states as a united entity.

1.7.1 Individual Level of Analysis
Waltz was of the opinion that the first level of analysis is the individual level, in which Waltz
suggests that conflicts mainly occur due to patterns of human nature (human behavior) or due
to the character of particular political leader. Individual level of analysis focuses on human
nature. These individuals make decisions related to foreign policy and other political relations
in state system that determine the behavior of other state in global system. Individual level of
analysis views the political leaders of nations as being the main source of influence for
foreign policy directives. According to individual level of analysis the major focus is on the
character and behavioural patterns of man. Conflicts result out of self-interestedness, from
misdirect impulsiveness and from folly (Waltz 1959: 16). So the individual level of analysis
focuses on human behavior that means wars occurs due to human nature or nature of
particular statesmen or political leader like Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Napoleon and the
policy of Hitler during the World War II.
1.7.2 State Level of Analysis
The second level or image examines the behavior of states. In the second level, Waltz regards
the view that property of the nations is significant in influencing its directives and policies.
These are inclusive of its type of government, its internal constituents or mode of productive
activities and the distributive tasks. State level of analysis finds out how state’s nature goes
on to decide its foreign policy directive. This level of analysis also views nations as bearers
of culture and associated affiliations like religion, traditions, history, economy and
geographical attributes. Waltz in this second level of analysis views that conflicts mainly
occur due to internal structures (internal political structure) of states. In this context, Waltz
reminds of the Lenin’s theory of imperialism that point out that the root cause behind
conflicts lie in the agenda of capitalist states that open up new markets to strengthen the
economy of their own countries. For instance, some believe that democratic countries behave
in certain manner or they don’t fight with each other while capitalist states and socialist states
generate different attitude and behavior. Failed state like North Korea may equally affect
state behavior and failure of domestic democratic institutions may also result war. We can
also use state level analysis to understand US intervention in Iraq. The US always had an
idealist line in its foreign policy e.g. democratization of world.
1.7.3 System Level of Analysis
System level analysis takes notice of the global level system; mainly, how the global pattern
influences the attitude of states. Waltz looks into the feature of the international system
25 | P a g e

(anarchical in nature) in order to understand state directives. Within this understanding the
global level system directs and the state in a certain way. This implies that any alteration in
the global system will also be accompanied by the alteration in states policies and directions.
The major element in the international level is the power of a nation-state. Some of them
have more power while others are not in similar positions. However, the cold war involved
two nations, namely, US & USSR. Later, the behaviors of all other countries were influenced
and affected by the cold war since both that the US and USSR were the two superpowers in a
bipolar world. Today, the world is identified as unipolar in nature with one powerful nation
and that goes on to influence the direction of all other nations in the international system.
Within this analysis, it can be easily explained why the US intervened in Iraq. It can be
viewed that US, the superpower, that makes an attempt to order the world against states that
serve to act as its threat. The US wants to maintain its supremacy and therefore defeat all
opponents.
1.8 HISTORY OF EMERGENCE OF INTERNATIONAL STATE

SYSTEM
This section will discuss in detail the inception of global level system and its significance in
modern study of IR. Generally, the scholars of IR trace the emergence of state arrangements
to the period of 1648 during the time when the treaty of Westphalia was signed, which led to
the end of thirty years war. This section is divided into three parts; state system in pre-
Westphalia period, second; Westphalian system and third is post-Westphalian system.
1.8.1 Pre-Westphalia
Much before the treaty Westphalia, states were present and they formed ties with other states,
but these states did not have a sovereign nature, their ability was restricted by the Roman
church. People did not reside in sovereign political arrangements then. In major part of
human civilization, people have set their political living through different arrangements, and
the significant among them is through past empires that existed. One of the most important
empires of yesteryears is the Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire. It is not known how the
future political arrangements will be like. In the later stages of human history, the world may
cease to remain set in forms of a nation-states. It may so happen that later individuals no
longer adhere to state systems. Many kinds of political associations and arrangements have
been disbanded by humans earlier, namely, the Greek Polis, systems like feudalisms and so
on. It is not unthinkable to be of the view that a form of international level political set-up
could be viewed as better option that could be gradually established. There was no existence
of independent sovereign states before the 16th century after which state system originated.
26 | P a g e

The foremost expression of state like political arrangements can be traced to that of
Greece of 500-100 BC. Greece during that period was not marked by states that characterize
modern times. It was representative of a similar kind of structure in place. They existed
mainly in form of city-states or what was termed as Polis then. Some of the major city-states
of them were Sparta, Corinth while Athens served to be the largest of them all. These
political arrangements formed the oldest system like states that operated together in the
history of Europe. However, as mentioned earlier these political arrangements operated in
different manner, unlike the modern states which are sovereign in character. This Greek
system in place was finally overpowered and destructed by adjoining empire systems and
Greece went on to become a part of Roman Empire thereafter. The Roman Empire by then
had begun occupying territories of many parts of Europe as huge portions of West Asia and
North Africa.
Thereafter the Roman Empire had to deal with various political communities that were
acquired. It followed a policy of subordinating the acquired territories instead of than
reorienting them and organizing them together. As a replacement for IR or similar nature of
system, the only possible mode that could be adopted by various political arrangements is
either of submitting to the Empire of Romans of taking up arms and revolting against it. Due
to many such revolts that occurred against the Roman Empire whose forces could not tame
these power centres of rebellion the empire gradually shrinked. This led to the fading away of
the prowess of Roman Empire slowly which met its end after centuries of flourishment and
survival.
These systems of empires involved a common form of political arrangement that made
its way in Europe, stood powerful for centuries and then met its downfall thereafter. The
Roman Empire’s downfall led to the growth and development of two different successive
such empires one centered in Western Europe and the other in Eastern Empire known as the
Byzantine Empire. Other than these two settlements the regions of North of America and the
Middle East went on to form a different setting mainly of the Islamic origin that came up in
the Arabian Peninsula region. There were other civilization like India and Iran as well. The
other oldest empire was the Chinese empire that was ruled by various dynasties. The
medieval period was marked by the existence of systems of empires and their issues and
conflict-riddeness within them. During these centuries states did exist but in the form of
empire. First, they were not independent and sovereign in modern sense. Second there were
no well defined territories and borders. So the territorial political independence that we have
in modern state system was completely absent during the pre-Westphalia period. The pre-
Westphalia times involved considerable amounts of distress, wars and distrust among
different political arrangements. These empires were always in war some time wars were
27 | P a g e

fought between religious organizations and sometime between kings such as the hundred
year’s war between France and England. During this period the king was only source of
power.
1.8.2 Treaty of Westphalia and the Rise of Modern State System
The contemporary international state system was established by the signing of Westphalia
treaty in the year of 1648. This mainly brought the end of the thirty years conflict and war
(1618-48) which began in 1618 over religious issues. The war was fought inside the Sacred
Roman Empire which involved the Catholics of Hapsburg dynasty and the protestant
population in Bohemia. During these years, the war advanced gradually through stages and
converted into a huge large political chaos and conflict involving others. The other parties to
this conflict were Austrian and Spanish allies of the Hapsburgs together with their other
friendly alliances involving the catholic German Princes in opposition to Denmark, France,
and Sweden and their alliances and friends within protestant Princes of Germany. Therefore
the war involved the entire Europe and most of the part of Europe was devastated. The war
that went on for thirty years only met its ends in 1648 with the signing of Treaty of
Westphalia, in which major European powers agreed to respect each other’s sovereignty and
territorial integrity. The signing of this treat made way for the setting up of new political
entities with different form of arrangement and nature. This led to the foundation and
beginning of the story of modern states. These modern states had sovereignty as their
defining feature. Apart from the feature of sovereignty, issues of diplomacy and mediation
gained prominence only after this treaty. This led to new kinds of relations that emerged
between the state and its population. This also led to the codification of new norms and
structures within the law at the international level. The coming up of United Nations
Organisation and similar set-ups can be credited to the signing of the Westphalia treaty. The
contemporary international level of operation finds its origin and reflection in the
Westphalian model. The need for maintenance of peace found its expression in this model.
After Peace of Westphalia modern states came up as the only source of author and legitimacy
at the legitimate international level. Only sovereign nations could either go into wars, or enter
into ties or alliances together. After treaty of Westphalia, states were regarded as the sole
source of legitimacy in the political system of Europe established on grounds of their
independent territory, sovereignty, and government. Through this treaty state recognized the
principle of sovereignty, principle of territorial integrity, and principle of equality.
1.8.3 Post Westphalia State Systems
The Westphalian system began in 1648 within the next few centuries and stretched from
European nations to the bulk of the globe. The Westphalian model was viewed with immense
28 | P a g e

significance due to several causes. First, it secularized the global level relations by separating
it from religion and associated traditions, resting it on the attributes of a nation’s interest.
Second, it promoted the idea of sovereignty in international relations. And, third, it firmly
believed in the idea of a global communion established on grounds of equal treatment of all
nations. So over the next few centuries, the attributes and features and ideals of the
Westphalian model gradually reached to parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Westphalian system reached at the peak in the late 19th century. The mode of diplomacy
which took shape with the establishment of the Westphalian model set the arrangement and
grounds through which international cooperation took place during the WWI. Thereafter with
global relations being reorganized after the end of WWI, experts have argued that the
consequence of the Westphalian model and the arrangement that it set in can be seen in many
modern international level associations which includes the United Nations, the former League
of Nations, and the likes. The charter of United Nations created in 1945 has some of the very
same provisions of the peace of Westphalia.
The contemporary move towards transition of the international level system has been
marked by shift towards post-Westphalia modes. As per this view the Westphalian model has
paved the way for a post-Westphalian era. However, this does not imply that centralized form
of international system is about to make its beginning. The ongoing and contemporary post-
Westphalian mode is filled with issues of co-existence and confrontations. Nevertheless,
there are certain issues which call for attention of international organizations which create an
orderly hierarchical system into an otherwise equal sovereign state system.
1.9 CHALLENGES TO THE WESTPHALIAN SYSTEM
There has been debate among the scholars and the policy formulators regarding whether the
Westphalian system continues to dominate in the present century. Centrifugal and centrifugal
forces shape modern international relations. Simultaneously, globalization is hauling many of
the incumbents together; disintegrating development is forcing community aside. At the same
time World is becoming more multinational as well as more parochial. Many non-state actors
such as international organizations and MNCs are now competing with sovereign states.
There has been a sharp increase in number of global organizations and institutions. Under
globalization politics can operate over the nation through politically collaborative measures
through organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World
Trade Organisation (WTO). Today nations are entangled in a web of international level of
governance that involves MNCs, IOs (International Organizations’) and NGOs (Non-
Governmental Organizations. Hence the contemporary world is being molded by agents that
29 | P a g e

are challenging the Westphalian model.

The results of globalization are not only confined to the rules of global interactions, it is
also challenging the authority that rests with nations. A state is no longer in a position to deal
with decision-making alone; policymaking is increasingly being shaped by other actors
associated with the nation. Increasing forces involved in globalizing the world mainly around
the decade of 1990s strengthened the belief that with globalization the sovereign feature of
the state would be restrained. Hence, it can be viewed that there has been a huge
transformation within the context of Sovereignty and its purpose with regard to the state. The
post WWII period has been marked by a restraint for the states towards pursuing of their
individual objectives due to coming up of numerous international level organizations and
because of nations abiding by global rules and regulations.
Nation-states and their sovereignty is also challenged by the presence of international
level governance. The global governance is operating through a host organization ranging
from international organization to regional or local organizations. Some of these institutions
or organization can be identified as the United Nations and its various organs and agencies
such as WHO, WTO, IMF and regional organization like EU, ASEAN, SAARC and the
NATO. So the end of Cold War saw growing integration and the erosion of Westphalian
sovereignty.
Theorists and experts in the field of IR would contend that the Westphalia model did
account for a revolutionary system of its period and time. It advanced the model for
international level diplomacy, a concept that was not thought of or existed before the 17th
century. This influence of the Westphalia model is significant even in the contemporary
times.
1.10 CONCLUSION
The present chapter mainly introduced the discipline of International Relations that has
flourished in the contemporary times and acquired a major ground as a field of study of its
own. The chapter began by underlining the meaning and different definitions of International
Relations put forward by eminent scholars and researchers within the field. The advancement
of IR as an academic subject has been discussed at length. Thereafter an attempt has been
made to lay out the differences that exist within International Relations and International
Politics. It is well known that these two terms are quiet often used interchangeably and
sometimes as synonyms as well. The subsequent section of the chapter has dealt with the
levels of analysis that is used to understand the subject-matter of international relations.
30 | P a g e

There are three levels of analysis, namely, the individual level, the state level and the system
level which are used while analyzing and studying issues within the discipline of
international relations. The emergence of international state system has been elaborately
taken up for discussion following the framework of levels of analysis. It has been argued by
experts in the subject of IR that the international state system that took shape has mainly
resulted out of the treaty of Westphalia of 1648 which gave birth to the modern and sovereign
states. Before the existence of the present state system, the world was organized in form of
different political arrangements and last such setting was in the shape of empires. These
empires were unlike the present states. The difference between empires and modern state has
been explained briefly in the chapter. However, many argue that the modern states which
came up in the post-Westphalia phase has undergone a huge transformation with the concept
of globalization setting in. Globalization has questioned the sovereign nature of modern states
as they are closely tied with each other, interacting and in relationship with each other. In a
world marked by globalization the modern states have entered a new phase of political
arrangement which has given birth to an international-state system where one state interacts
with another state as well as various other non-state actors.
1. Explain Westphalia treaty and relate it to emergence of International Relations.

2. Why should we study IR? Discuss about ongoing debate on theorization of IR.
1.12 REFERENCES
• Baylis John, Smith Steve and Patricia Owen (eds), (2008) ‘The globalization of World
Politics: Introduction to International Relations’ Oxford University press.
• C. Brown and K. Ainley. (2009) Understanding International Relations, Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
• Christian Kreuder Sonnen and Bernhard Zangl (2015) Which post Westphalis?
International organizations between constitutionalism and authoritarianism’ European
Journal of International Relations, vol 21(3). 568-594.
• Jackson Robert & Sorenson George, (2010), “Introduction to International Relations;
theories and approaches” Oxford University press.
• Jayabrata Sarkar (2015) ‘debating a post Westphalian international order’
Mainstream, vol III, No 5.
31 | P a g e

• K. Booth and S. Smith, (eds), International Relations Theory Today’, Pennsylvania,

The Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Lansford, Tom. (2000) “Post-Westphalian Europe? Sovereignty and the
Modern Nation-State”. International Studies 37(1): 1-15.
• Level of analysis in international relations by Webber:
https://www.academia.edu/25476049/Levels_of_Analysis_in_International_Relations
#:~:text=Levels%20of%20Analysis%20in%20International%20Relations%20Politica
l%20Science%20151%3A%20Professor,complex%20problems%20in%20world%20p
olitics.
• Little, Richard. (2005) “Sovereignty” In Encyclopedia of International Relations &
Global Politics, ed. M. Griffiths. London: Routledge.
• M. Nicholson, (2003) ‘International relations: A concise Introduction’ New York
University press.
• M. Smith and R. Little (2000) (eds.), Perspectives on World Politics’, New York,
Rutledge.
• Patton, Steven (2019) “The Peace of Westphalia and it Affects on International
Relations, Diplomacy and Foreign Policy,” The Histories: Vol. 10: Issue 1:
https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/the_histories/vol10/iss1/5
• R Mingst (2011) Essentials of International Relations, New York: W.W. Norton and
Company.
• Raymond, Gregory A. 2005. “Westphalia” In Encyclopedia of International Relations
& Global Politics, ed. M. Griffiths. London: Routledge.
• S. Josua. Goldstien and J. Pevehouse, (2007) International Relations, NewYork,
Pearson Longman.
• Vaughan Michael, ‘After Westphalia, wither the nation states, its people and its
governmental Institution’ paper presented at the international Studies Association
Asia Pacidic Regional Conference on September 29, 2011.
• Vermani RC (2017) ‘Perspectives on International relations and World history’
Gitanjali Publishing House, New Delhi.
32 | P a g e

(b) REALPOLITIK/REALISM/NEO-REALISM
Dr. Pramod Kumar
STRUCTURE
2.1 Learning Objective

2.2 Introduction
2.3 Understanding Realism
2.4 EARLY HISTORICAL REALIST
2.5 Later Historical Realist
2.6 Classical Realism
2.7 Contribution of E.H. Carr
2.8 Contribution of Hans J. Morgenthau
2.9 Criticism
2.10 J. Ann Thickner’s Criticism of Morgenthau
2.11 Neo-Realism/Structural Realism
2.12 Contribution of Kenneth N. Waltz
2.13 Conclusion
2.15 References
2.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVE
• After completing this lesson, the student would understand various approaches on IR
like realism and neo realism.
• Would understand the feminist J. Ann Tickner’s criticism on Morgenthau ‘idea on
realism.
2.2 INTRODUCTION
Realist tradition in International Relations (IR) is a most prominent theory to understand the
phenomenon of the discipline. We can understand the realist tradition from the perspective of
33 | P a g e

various ancient scholars like Greek philosopher Thucydides, Italian thinker Niccolo
Machiavelli, British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, Genevan scholar Jean-Jacques
Rousseau etc. In 20th century Edward Hallett Ted Carr, Reinhold Niebuhr, Hans. J
Morgenthau, George Kennan, Raymond Aron and others emphasized on the realities of
International Politics in a very comprehensive manner and also they have provided so many
substantial tools to the study of International Relations. Neo realist or structural realist such
as Kenneth N Waltz, Stephen Krasner and Robert Gilpin elaborated the generation of détente
after the end of cold war. John Mearshiemer, Randall Schweller, Charles Glaser, Stephen
Walt discussed on the politics of reality of the contemporary world. Neo Classical realist like
Fareed Zakaria and Gidden Rose argues that states always drive for their relative material
power capabilities and the influence of the domestic factor reflects in foreign policy
formulation of the nation-state.
2.3 UNDERSTANDING REALISM
Realist thinkers emphasize on the prudent behavior of human beings and they believe that the
reality of international relations is rooted in human nature or selfishness of humans. They
accepted the notion of universal egoism and in the absence of a central international agency
or authority the basic behavioral dynamics of international politics is anarchical. Hence,
accumulating more and more power is necessary for survival of the units. In this manner
states power maximizes in the anarchical system of international relations.
Realist considers that states are the main actor in the international system therefore
states-centrism is the basic assumption in the entire theoretical paradigm of realism. Utility
maximizing and comprehensively self-serving is the basic behavioral dynamics of the units in
the anarchical international system. States are always concerned for their self-interest and try
to maximize their national interest. National interest is always defined in terms of power.
Hence, there is a close relationship between the power and national interest. According to the
realist national interest always determines the foreign policy of any country. They also
distinguish between vital national interest and non-vital national interest. In the anarchical
world order units never compromise their vital national interest even they can go for war to
protect the same.
In the anarchical international order the states are always concerned about their survival
and therefore they try to maximize their security for which they are dependent on self-help
system. In international order states are generally not inclined to help other countries without
any profit motive or chances of their security maximization. Hence, countries/states in
international order are alone in this anarchical world and struggle for their security and
34 | P a g e

survival. This condition of the states in international order is extremely deplorable. As a

result, states merely look into their own interest. This situation is exemplified by taking
example of war between Germany and France in the Second World War, where France was
vulnerable in terms of military power viz-a-viz Germany and was totally overpowered by
Germany. As a result, France was decimated and defeated. France during the war with
Germany did not get any consolidated support from the European countries and United States
of America. France had to endure the barbarism and exploitation of Germany for a
considerable time. Thus, it can be observed that the states in international order are
completely lonely, without any help during the times of crisis. States therefore rely on self-
help and try to maximize their power to become more secure in the international anarchical
system.
In realist school of thought the concept of ethics and morality does not occupy a
significant position. The realist school of thought believes that ethics and morality are not as
much important as power maximization. Ethics and morality holds a secondary position in
comparison to military strength. However ethics and morality are stable and constant
determinants which are to be followed by general masses and not by the states themselves in
the international arena. The Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli has opined in his famous
book ‘The Prince’ that the king should not be moral or ethical in his duties rather should
make the subjects moral and ethical so that it becomes easy to rule over them and dictate
terms and conditions for them. Machiavelli further says that the king should not be moral and
ethical while dealing with other states in international politics. The king should employ
tactics and strategies to defeat his enemy without becoming moralistic and ethical.
2.4 EARLY HISTORICAL REALIST
The realist school of thought finds its origins in the work of ancient scholars like Thucydides,
Sun Tzu and Kautilya. Greek historian scholar Thucydides is considered to be oldest of
realist who had studied the Peloponnesian war (431-404 BC). After analyzing the
Peloponnesian war, he stated that the conflicts and competition between the states have its
root in unequal distribution of power in the international politics. He argues that all the state
should accept the reality of unequal distribution of power so that they can improve onto their
position in global power hierarchy. The state which becomes more powerful in a shorter
period of time becomes more secure, independent and in longer terms becomes a hegemon.
The state therefore in international politics has to be cautious and judgmental in their
approach in international politics.
The ancient Chinese scholar Sun Tzu who lived some 2000 years ago analyzed the
35 | P a g e

continuous occurrence of war between several states. Sun Tzu believed that the kings should
not be extreme moralistic in their reasoning while dealing with armed adversary, rather fight
with them with all might to protect their interest and to survive.
In the hierarchical school of thought of realism, Kautilya an ancient Indian scholar
makes a very rich contribution. Kautilya conceptualizes power and happiness in the study of
international politics. He states that happiness can be achieved by judicious use of power. He
also states that happiness is also an indication of successful foreign policy which has its base
in righteousness and internal stability, thereby bringing in new concepts in determination of
international status. Kautilya’s Mandala theory identifies Vijigishu (righteous King) and his
friends viz-a viz Ari (enemy of Vijigishu) and his friends is more superior and complex
manner; in compare to understanding of loose bipolar system. It indicates that geographically
the countries can be close and therefore exemplify a loose centricity. Kautilya’s identification
of non-aligned Kings and neutral indifferent King is unique contribution to study of
international relations. In Kautilya’s understanding of international relations locational
determination of Kings imply that one’s neighbor is one’s enemy and therefore one’s
neighbor’s enemy is a friend. Kautilya exhorts the King (Vijigishu) to increase his power and
therefore engage in continuous warfare until he becomes a ‘Sarvabhauma’ (the King of entire
earth). Kautilya therefore had perfected the realist ideas in ancient times where the use of
violence was glorified to achieve power and grandeur in international relations.
2.5 LATER HISTORICAL REALIST
The ancient understanding of realism got carried on throughout the centuries in which several
wars took place and new twist and turn in international politics stabilized new dimensions to
international relations. Carrying over the ideas of realism Niccolo Machiavelli an Italian
thinker, diplomat and writer tried to conceptualize the principle of realism in his work ‘The
Prince’ which was written in 1513. He tried to establish the role of King, importance of
nation-states and diplomacy among the nations. Machiavelli asserted that the prince should
be as brave as lion and as cunning as fox. For the lion can show his might and courage in
wars, whereas the fox can trace the traps. The Prince therefore should be courageous and
crafty. Machiavelli asked the Prince to be strong and crafty against his opponent. He believed
that the prince should be brutal and crafty so that he can suppress any kind of revolt against
him in domestic arena. Machiavelli believed that norms, morality and religion should be used
by the Prince only for the general masses. The Prince should encourage people to follow
religion and morality so that they become submissive and obedient. He asserted that if a
Prince could consolidate his power and position in domestic politics he can also consolidate
36 | P a g e

his power and position in international relations. Therefore, the realist idea of power
maximization, tactics and craft was visualized in Machiavelli’s works.
Carrying over the understanding of realist school of thought was prominently articulated
and conceptualized to a greater extent in the work of English political philosopher Thomas
Hobbes. Hobbes’ magnum opus, Leviathan was published in1651 in which the state of nature
for the human beings was visualized. Hobbes made three assumptions, firstly, men are equal,
secondly, the men’s interest in anarchy and thirdly, they are motivated by competition,
diffidence and glory. The result of these conditions was war of all against all. Hobbes
believes that since men considered themselves as equal they competed for control over
resources and power. In this process the weaker men got subdued by the stronger men. The
continuous struggle between the men, made the life of men solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and
short. Thereby men conceptualize the idea of ever powerful leviathan became a hegemon.
Hobbes believed that it was human nature to quarrel, wage war and compete for resources
and glory. The war of one against all, exemplified the anarchical international order which
required a hegemon to stabilize global order. Hobbes believed that the anarchical system in
international relations was predominant and a man has to work hard for his survival. Hobbes
ideas percolated into the understanding of realism in modern times. Hobbes visualization of
anarchy and hierarchy in society was an example of international anarchical order. Hobbes
therefore played an important role in shaping the ideas of realism.
2.6 CLASSICAL REALISM
Classical realists believe that it is completely favored to make a peaceful world order but the
reality of international relations is security, power struggle and conflicts among the units. So,
to create a peaceful world order may be a seductive idea but it is not feasible. American
realist scholar E.H. Carr (1939) notes “tends to emphasize the irresistible strength of existing
forces and the inevitable character of existing tendencies, and to insist that the highest
wisdom lies in accepting, and adapting oneself to these forces and tendencies”. German
strategists Karl von Clausewitz argued that “war is a continuation of politics by other means”.
Classical realists substantially consider that state as the dominant actor of world affairs and
they believe in the politics of great powers. They criticize the utopian assumptions of liberals
during the world war politics.
2.7 CONTRIBUTION OF E.H. CARR
The British historian and journalist E.H. Carr in his propaedeutic work ‘The Twenty Years
37 | P a g e

‘Crisis’ (1939) distinguish between realism and utopianism. Carr used the foundation state of
realism which is underlay in the writings of Machiavelli, first he believes that history is the
sequence of cause and effect which is to expostulate not only by vainglory but intellectual
efforts. Second, theory does not create praxis, but it is created by politics. Third, politics is
not determined by ethics or morality. Even ethics is a function of politics and morality is the
emanation of power. So the leading forces of international relations are power not ethics and
morality.
E.H. Carr believes that realism is a well-established path to understand the reality of
international relations. On the other hand utopians emphasized on ‘what ought to be’ and they
try to sustain the world from imaginations. Utopians believe that a peaceful world can be
achieved if international agencies like League of Nations exist. But Carr said that League of
Nations is unrealistic and Treaty of Versailles is the main cause of Second World War. He
also gave some examples from the war between Japan and Manchuria (1931) and Italy’s
attack on Abyssinia (1935) during which the League of Nations kept watching as a mute
spectator at this juncture. Hence, an international agency completely failed to prevent war
and maintain a peaceful world order. Finally, E.H. Carr alleged that utopians are also unable
to explain the tangibility of power politics.
2.8 CONTRIBUTION OF HANS J. MORGENTHAU
The classical text of Hans J. Morgenthau ‘Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power
and Peace’ (1948) created a paradigm in the field of discipline. Morgenthau’s work is
considered as classic because it described the very fundamental and methodological attempt
to theorize the international politics. He accepted the challenge to stabilize the ‘Science of the
International Politics’ to use the positivist methodology to study the politics of nation states.
His work was based on scientific method and helps to understand the objective laws and
reality of international relations. For example Morgenthau takes his definition about theory
from natural science. He argues that theory cannot be justified if it is not related to the reality
and based on abstract assumptions or imaginations. For Morgenthau theory should be based
on facts, objectivity, science and empirical observation etc.
Morgenthau invented new tools to understand the real power politics. He strongly argues
that ‘balance of power’ system is more pragmatic to explain the struggle among nation states.
He finds inadequacy in the liberal concept of ‘collective security’. So that state will have to
go for ally with others and they should increase their own amount of power. Like Niccolo
Machiavelli Morgenthau also explains the basic traits of human nature. He emphasizes to the
imperfectness of the nature of human beings. He argues that ‘world imperfections are the
38 | P a g e

result of forces inherent in human nature’.

Morgenthau had contributed in the foreign policy of the United States of America and
we can see the various reflections of his ideas in the foundation of American foreign policy.
He succinct the contemporary world politics and the major foundation of real politik in his
six principles of realism.
Six Principles of Morgenthau
i. Morgenthau believes that generally, politics is governed by objective laws and that
have their roots in human nature which is unchanging. It is possible to develop a
rational perception to understand the discipline in pragmatic manner. These
universal laws about human nature do not change according to time and place that is
why these norms are impervious for human preferences. International relations and
intellectual foundation is always dependent on laws rooted in human nature. Hence,
these objective laws are reflected in the theories regarding international relations.
ii. Concepts of interest defined in terms of power which infuses rational order in
subject matters in politics and makes the theoretical understanding of politics
possible. Power and interest are the key concepts in realist tradition and it makes
international relations more independent from other discipline that is why politics is
an autonomous domain and do not depend on history or economics. Morgenthau
provided a new assumption about power politics. He argues that the foreign policy
and the behavioral dynamics of units are determined from power and interest in a
very fundamental manner. Therefore, units in the international system always try to
secure their interest through power maximization.
iii. Realism assumes that its core concept of interest defines as power which is
universally valid. Morgenthau argues that the universal law of power applies on the
behavior of nation state and national interest could be maintained only through
power. Morgenthau also explains essence of power like natural resources, capacity
of industrialization, military capabilities, geography and locations, size of
population, national character, diplomatic abilities and government. He tries to
define power in a very comprehensive manner and argues that the nature and scope
of power keep changing with time, place and context. Morgenthau finds an
ingenious relationship between power and interest; if any kind of change occurs in
power dynamics the objective of interest will be automatically altered.
iv. Political realism refuses to identify the moral significance of political action. Ethics
or morality is not determined by the action of units in international system.
39 | P a g e

Individual could be influenced to the moral code of conduct, but nation states are
considered as moral agents in international relations. When nations formulate their
foreign policy, they never consider morality, they only pay attention towards their
cruel national interest. According to political realism prudent behavior of units
always supersede the yardsticks of morality. Therefore, in international relations we
cannot expect moral behavior to the state as they are always considered as utility
maximizers.
v. Political realism refuses to identify the moral laws that govern the universe.
Universal moral laws do not guide the basic behavioral dynamics of the state in
international relations. When nation states declared some universal moral laws,
basically at this juncture they want to impose their national and cultural norms on
entire world. Whenever a nation state follows the basic norms of ethics then they are
actually doing feign of ethics.
vi. Political realism maintains the autonomy of the political sphere. According to the
political realism politics is autonomous from ethics, economy, and any kind of
universal laws. On the hand international politics always determine from the key
concept of power, rationality, and national interest.
2.9 CRITICISM
During 1960s and 70s, the hold of classical realism was broken as it’s methodological,
theoretical and policy agenda was considered as anachronistic. The following notions
challenged the predominance of classical realism in international relations theory.
1. Behavioralist believed that classical realism was not a single coherent theory and it
did not satisfy scientific investigation.
2. Political Realism lacks precision despite large number of contributions. It provides
bleak opinions about concepts like balance of power, national interest, and deterrence.
3. It was unable to factually analyze and make systemic study of the discipline. Realism
also failed to answer some of the real-world questions like national security, military
arms, and weapons.
4. Realist scholars failed to evaluate the concept of power as they could not explain how
much power is sufficient to nation-states for their security and survival. They also
provided less importance to the other factors beyond the power politics amongst
nations.
40 | P a g e

5. Post-Modernist criticized Morgenthau's opinions that human nature is selfish and

constant. They opposed realist claim that power and knowledge has objective
meaning.
2.10 J. ANN THICKNER’S CRITICISM OF MORGENTHAU
Feminist scholar J. Ann Tickner criticized the six foundational principal of Morgenthau
political realism. She argues that Morgenthau’s theory about realism is completely based on
masculinity and gender biased. Morgenthau claimed that human nature is universally self-
centric and always search for power accumulation, but Tickner believes that the incomplete
and masculine understanding about human nature is partial towards the women. It is premised
on the very exclusion of women and feminine attributes which reflects gender biasness in
order to understand international politics, where women are not included in conceptual
framework of political realism.
Glorification of war in political realism provides masculine power and neglects the
female domain in the discipline. She said that Morgenthau is only interested in a political
man who is supposed to be prudent, rational but not moral. Morgenthau completely neglected
the ethical dimensions of international politics while morality and ethics are an integral part
of feminine virtues.
According to J. Ann Tickner principles of political realism and foundational theory in
international relations voices a patriarchal perspective. The discipline of international
relations has become unreceptive to women. In terms of its assumptions, prescriptions,
descriptions and perspective; it is masculine. So, for men it provides a comfort zone but for
women it is inhospitable.
Why Tickner makes this assumption?
Women excel in other subdivision like gender studies, political economy and
environmental studies etc. women are considered excelling in soft study areas, and they are
not there in mainstream security studies and in the study of use of force or the threat of use of
force. Society has been a victim of biased theorization. In security, there is disproportionate
dominance of military security, where men whatever doing has been standardized. That
acquires exploitative capacity for example war is privileged over peace, state is privileged
over society, instrumentality is privileged over process and rationality privileged over ethics
and morality.
41 | P a g e

2.11 NEO-REALISM/STRUCTURAL REALISM
Neo-Realism or structural realism is considered as a mainstream or foundational theory in

international relations. Neo-realist believes that the basic structure of international politics is
anarchic so the behavioral dynamics of the state is determined from this systemic constraints
or structure. In the anarchical state of affair units are always concerned about their survival
and relative security. Units can secure and maintain their survival only with the means of
self-help. Therefore with the absence of any highest authority/government they have to
accumulate more and more power in order to sustain in this system. Statism is another aspect
of neo-realism; it believes that state is the dominant and single actor in international relations.
Key contributors of neo-realism are Kenneth N. Waltz, John Mearsheimer, Joseph Grieco and
Stephen Walt etc.
2.12 CONTRIBUTION OF KENNETH N. WALTZ
Kenneth N. Waltz published his phenomenal work about the foundation of neo-realism in
‘Theory of International Politics’ 1979. Waltz substantial contribution to the sphere of
political science is the creation of neo-realism, which posits that state actions can often be
explained by the systemic pressure which limits their choices. He argues that the international
order exists in a state of perpetual anarchy. He also distinguishes the anarchy of international
milieu from the order of domestic regime in his ordering principle i.e. anarchy versus
hierarchy. Waltz believes that in domestic regime there is hierarchy with the existence of a
central agency that can regulate the irrational and evil behavior of individuals. Central
authority in domestic regimes set up a bunch of norms, rules and regulation, provision of
punishment to maintain the order of hierarchy. But in international system there is absence of
a powerful central or universal authority, lack of central enforcer means the state act in a way
that ensure their security above all or else risk falling behind. He believes that without the
existence of the international agency there is a system of anarchy and every state have to
survive on its own.
Accordingly, in the systemic pressure states have to maximize its security through
relative powers/gain. Therefore, states are the security maximizers and the main concern of
nation states to ensure their survival. In this manner Waltz argues that states are different in
their capabilities but similar in their task, whether the big states like U.S., Russia, China,
India or the smaller states like Nepal, Bhutan etc. these difference in capabilities of state
define their position in international system and thus distribution of capabilities define the
structure of the international system. Any change in the capacity of state, change the structure
42 | P a g e

of international system for example Unipolar to Bipolar or Multipolar world order.

State according to Waltz uses two kinds of means to achieve their ends. First, internal
efforts i.e., to increase economy and military strength. Economic development of any country
provides surplus capital to strengthen its diplomatic position in international system and the
military strength guarantee to the security of fences. Second, external efforts i.e. increasing
own alliance and shrinking one’s opposition.
2.13 CONCLUSION
Realist tradition of international relations has a paradigm shift in the discipline. Realist
believes in a positivist methodology/epistemology to study the discipline and provides a
scientific tool in a systematic manner. They argue that our knowledge should be based on
empirical observation, rectification of facts and should be value free. Realist also invented a
new framework of study to understand the key concepts like power, security, deterrence,
anarchy, position of state, relevance of ethics and morality. The realist tradition has been
successful in explaining the causes of war in international relations. From the times of
Thucydides, Kautilya and Sun Tzu to the contemporary times of international relations; the
meaning of power and security has been satisfactorily explained. In doing so the realist
tradition has successfully guided world leaders and military generals in accomplishing their
goals.
1. Critically evaluate Realist Theory of International Relations with reference to Kenth

Waltz theory?
2. Write a short essay on classical Realism given by Hans. Morgenthau.
3. Examine various approaches to International Relations. How feminist criticize
Morgenthau’s theory on IR.
2.15 REFERENCES
• Ashley, R. K. (1981), ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, International Studies

Quarterly, 25.
• Ashley R.K. and Walker R.B.J. (1990), ‘Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissidence
in International Studies, International Studies Quaterly, 34(3).
43 | P a g e

• Barry, B. (1998), ‘International Society from a Cosmopolitan Perspective’ in D.

Marpel and T. Nardin (eds.), International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspective,
Princeton University Press.
• Bell, Duncan. ed. (2010), Political Thought and International Relations: Variations
on a Realist Theme, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Blieker, R. (2000), Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics, Cambridge
University Press.
• Booth, K. (2007), Theory of World Security, Cambridge University Press.
• Bull, H. (1966), ‘The Grotian Conception of International Society’ in H. Butterfield
and M. Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International
Relations, London.
• Bull, H. and Watson, A. (eds.) (1984), The Expansion of International Society,
Oxford University Press.
• Burchill, S., Linklater, Devetak, R. et al. (2009), Theories of International Relations,
Palgrave Macmillan.
• Carr E.H. (1939), The Twenty Years’ Crisis: 1919-1939: An Introduction to the study
of International Relations, London.
• Hobbes, T. (1946), Leviathan, Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
• Jervis, Robert (1998), “Realism in the Study of World Politics”, International
Organization, 52 (4): 971-991.
• Machievelli, N. (1950), The Prince and the Discourses, M. Lerner (eds.) with an
introduction, New York: Random House.
• Molloy, Sean (2006), The Hidden History of Realism: A Genealogy of Power Politics.
London: Palgrave.
• Morgenthau, H.J. (1946), Scientific Man Versus Power Politics, Chicago
• Morgenthau, H.J. (1948), Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace,
New York.
• Ruggie, J. (1983), ‘Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a
Neo-Realist Synthesis, World Politics, 35(2).
• Tickner, J. A. (1997), “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between
Feminist and IR Theorists”, International Studies Quarterly, 41, pp. 611-632.
44 | P a g e

• Thucydides (1972), History of Peloponnesian War, translated by R. Warner, London:

Penguin.
• Walker, R. B. J. (1987), “Realism, Change, and International Political Theory”,
International Studies Quarterly, 31 (1), 65-86.
• Waltz, K. N. (1959), Man, the State and War, New York: Columbia University of
Press.
45 | P a g e

(c) LIBERALISM/NEO-LIBERALISM
Dr. Hijam Liza Dallo Rihmo
STRUCTURE

3.2 Introduction
3.3 The Liberals
3.4 History of Origin
3.5 Old and New Liberalism
3.6 Liberalism and International Relations
3.7 Main Assumptions in Liberalism
3.8 Critical Evaluation
3.9 Conclusion
3.11 References
• After Completing this lesson student would understand about liberal theory on IR
• Also have idea about Neo-Liberal Theory on IR
3.2 INTRODUCTION
Liberalism is a term that is widely used in today’s world. It is commonly associated with
modernity, growth and progress. It is an approach that extends to every aspect of human life
and in every form of human organisation. It is a movement resulting from the age of
enlightenment in Europe affecting the political and economic organisation of life even across
the globe. Liberalism provides one of the most rigorous theories on society, politics and
economy. Because of globalisation, multiculturalism, growth of international organisations,
multinational national corporations and the global economy the importance of liberalism is
growing and gaining grounds. Liberalism is an economic and a political philosophy that is
based on the notion of individual liberty. Liberalism revolves around the overall development
46 | P a g e

of an individual. The philosophy rests upon the assumption that human beings are inherently
good. It assumes that individuals have the capacity to cooperate when it concerns the interest
of all. In order to bring out the best of an individual and lead towards human progress, it
focuses on the principles of liberty, rationality, moral autonomy, human rights, liberal
democracy, opportunity and choice. Based on these foundational principles’ liberalism
extends its philosophy towards explaining all aspects of human life, whether of a political or
economic nature. Generally, liberalism supports free trade, property rights, free market,
limited government, rules of law, capitalism, free and fair competition among others. This
chapter shall outline its meanings, history of origin, main assumptions, its various
approaches, critical evaluation and its contemporary relevance.
3.3 THE LIBERALS
The liberals are the supporters of liberalism but there are different liberal viewpoints
depending on their understanding of what it means by freedom of choice, expression,
opportunity and human progress. But despite its variations, in terms of their analysis and
viewpoints, they converged on the basic assumption of an individual’s liberty. Humans have
self-interest. Their pursuit of realising their self-interest makes them rational actors. They
make rational choice when making decisions so that they achieve their interest and if
cooperation amounts to greater benefits they will pursue it. It emphasised that self-interest
and individualism don’t always amount to non-cooperation. It rather means that humans
make cost-benefit analysis with a purpose to achieve maximum gain or the most desirable
outcomes.
Over the years liberalism has been criticised by other formidable theories like Realism,
Social Constructivism and Marxism. But its philosophy still influences and prevails among
the intellectuals as well as the policymakers. Liberalism continues to be relevant in today’s
world. But the fact remains that liberals have been used to describe every aspect of life and
many have associated themselves as liberals leading to different interpretations as to what is
meant by the word liberal. The term “liberal” is applied to a wide variety of people. In
examining the existing literature on the liberal tradition, Duncan Bell (2014: 682) maintained
that by the middle of the twentieth century the liberal tradition shifted its meaning as a
constituting ideology of the West. However, there exist some fractures within the liberal
tradition. Although, he rightly observed that the literature on the liberal tradition is rather an
amalgamation of different viewpoints by self-proclaimed liberals, albeit within the liberal
tradition, and thus, represent a comprehensive whole.
Arguing along the same line Kahan observed that liberalism in Europe was defined by its
47 | P a g e

contradictions and further examined the debate surrounding the “Right-wing” “Left-wing”
movement in liberalism (Kahan 2003:1). Jill Steins et al. also maintained that although the
liberal political philosophy and its core principles still prevailed when it came to the question
of economic organisation of the society there is a division in the liberal thought between the
political right and the political left (Steins et al. 2010:24). They further elaborate that the
liberals who are political right believed that individual liberty must extend to their economic
activities as well. They should be free to buy and sell their labors, goods, services, property in
a free market and as such the role of the state should be limited. It advocates minimum
regulation for the highest development of an individual. On the other hand, the political left
advocates for some form of the regulatory framework because the concentration of economic
power and wealth can threaten the principles of liberty and equality. Therefore, it supports a
more interventionist state so that it delivers basic amenities and extends opportunities to the
less privileged people. But despite the variations in liberalism, they maintained that it is a
coherent school of thought, the same position as Bell.
From the above arguments, it can be argued that liberal philosophy has far-reaching
implications. It has an overarching reach. From the basis of individual self-interest, the
concept of individualism can be applied to the economic organisation of an individual life
regarding the property, work, opportunity, the process of production, competition, etc. As
such liberalism and capitalism as an economic system are closely interrelated that sometimes
it is often used together to mean the same thing. In the political field, liberal philosophy can
be interpreted in terms of liberty, equality and justice. These principles are embedded in
liberal democracies. In fact, in the twentieth-century liberalism was the political ideology that
countries were adopting as their political and economic system. But liberal philosophy not
only informs the domestic political governance but also influences the political realm of
international relations concerning state’s behaviour in conflicts and areas of cooperation,
especially in the international political economy. Hence, in examining the development of
liberalism it can be broadly divided into two strands, in terms of economic history or political
history. Economists and political philosophers contributed towards liberalism in their own
tradition of thought. However, they are not exclusive and many times it overlaps one another.
To reiterate the main assumption, both economic and political strands have a common
foundation, i.e., individual liberty. Individualism is the basis on which they make their
analysis. In the following section it briefly explains the history of origin for liberal
philosophy.
48 | P a g e

3.4 HISTORY OF ORIGIN
In outlining the historical background to liberalism it can be observed that it stems from both
economic and political intellectual traditions. But they are not exclusive to each other but
rather interdependent.
The notion of liberty and other liberal values received significant growth during the Age
of Enlightenment in Europe. Liberalism as a major guiding philosophy for economic and
public policies began in Britain and then in the United States, later to the rest of Europe and
the world. During the early 18th and 19th centuries, there was a shift in the social and
economic organisation of European society. It was transitioning from feudalism to capitalism
(Phukan 2016). Capitalism is based on private ownership, liberalisation, and the free market
which reflect liberal values. The economic and political philosophers supported secular
institutions calling for the limitation of the church-state. This is necessary for exercising
liberty and realising the highest potential of the individual.
Economic Liberalism: It is based on the principle of private property, free market and
limited government. Individualism was the centerpiece of liberalism (Roselli 2020: 4)
although it took different forms. Since the focus is on the individuals they emphasised a new
form of relationships between the state and the individuals. It amounted to individuals
securing the right to ownership of properties through a legal system whereby their property
rights are not infringed by the state or the society. Self-regulating market is one of the
principles of liberalism. Economic activities such as production, exchange and transactions
should be left to its device. The belief is that “each individual pursuing their interest the best
interests of society are served” (Gissy 2008). The role of the government is limited.
Economic liberalism can be traced back to the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
They postulate that private property incentivised individuals to increase productivity. And the
market should operate freely from government interference then it would lead to higher
production and wealth leading to a higher quality of life. There will be efficient division and
distribution of labour and resources as it will be determined by the demand and supply of the
market. As such there will be minimum wastage of resources. But Adam Smith also
maintains that the government is necessary for taking care of the basic needs of the people.
He was aware that public goods would not be necessarily produced by the market (Steins et
al. 2010: 28). He described the limited role of the government. One of the functions of the
government is to maintain social order, prevent corruption, enforce fair competition and make
sure contracts are not broken. In short, the role of the government is limited to providing a
stable and conducive environment for the market to grow.
49 | P a g e

However, this liberal economic policy or market economy is not only for the domestic
economy but it also for the international economic system as well. Because for increasing the
national wealth and economic growth there must be free trade. Countries should be able to
trade freely and with each other. Ricardo’s work on comparative advantage can be applied
here to explain how the growth of the domestic market will lead to the demand for raw
materials that must be supplied through international trade. His arguments make a lot of sense
in this globalised era where there is a high volume of trade and flow of finance. The global
economy is sustained by international trade.
Political Liberalism: Liberal thoughts also took shape as liberal political philosophers of
the enlightenment period contributed towards liberal values. The political writing of John
Locke was fundamental to the growth of liberal philosophy. His work “Two Treatises
Government” (1690) cemented the principles of natural liberty, right to life and property.
When he emphasised that the consent of the governed is fundamental to the state that it gives
legitimacy to the authority. Thus, Locke is considered the father of modern liberalism. His
work on political theory justified revolution if the sovereign authority failed to fulfill its
obligations in administering justice and protection of life and private property. Indeed, the
political philosophy of liberalism has influenced and affected important historical events,
most importantly the French revolution (1789). By invoking the principles of “liberty,
equality and fraternity” to overthrow authoritarianism it reflected liberal ideas. The French
revolution gave a strong impetus to the spread of liberalism because after the revolution the
liberals associated themselves with the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” (Kahan 2003:1)
which was based on liberal principles. And the triumph of the revolution spread the message
that tyranny, authoritarianism and other oppressive forces can be overcome and individual
development can be pursued by protecting civil liberties.
Another eminent political philosopher to be noted for the contribution towards liberal
philosophy is Montesquieu who conceptualised the notion of separation of powers. In order
to ensure liberty for the highest human development proper governance is necessary. The
concept of separation of powers makes sure that there is a division of power so that it does
not pose a threat to an individual's liberty. Thus, it supports a constitutional government that
caters to the needs of the people and maintains healthy rules of law. Liberal values are
sustained by political stability. Rules of law are important so that individuals have equal
treatment, rights protected and provide a healthy environment for economic activities
bringing growth and progress in society. Liberalism is based on the moral philosophy that
focuses on ensuring the right of an individual person to life, liberty and property. This is the
highest goal of government thus, for the liberals the development of individuals is the
foundation of a just political system. Therefore, the liberals are concerned about institutions
50 | P a g e

that will protect individual freedom from unchecked political power.

Further contributions towards political liberalism are Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill. To
be precise Bentham’s political theory rests on the idea of utility. Based on the assumption that
individuals have self-interest they will behave in ways that will bring the maximum
happiness. It is a calculated action to achieve desirable outcomes. As such humans are
rational beings as they assessed the risk and the cost for any course of action. This notion of
rationality is also there in liberalism as the liberals also make an assumption that human
beings are rational actors. J S Mill in his political work “On Liberty'' strengthened the notion
of liberty. He examined the parameters of exercising one’s liberty. His work reflects his
suspicion of the majoritarian power, his position was that one’s liberty should only be limited
only when its enjoyment harms the liberty of others. According to him, there is no
contradiction between liberty and utilitarianism because to achieve happiness one should be
able to grow and develop in a free environment. Freedom is the criteria on which the greatest
happiness can be achieved.
Although, coming from different intellectual traditions liberalism is enriched by both
their contributions. Their work is premised on the concept of liberty and they extended this
concept to explain both economic and political life. This division between economic
liberalism and political liberalism shouldn’t lead to the misconception that they are different
and exclusive from each other. It complements each other.
3.5 OLD AND NEW LIBERALISM
However, examining the development of the political and economic landscape in the early
20th century there was a transformation in the liberal policies. Classical liberalism had given
way to a new form of liberalism where there was a stronger regulatory framework. In this
period political leaders were driving towards social welfare programmes in their
macroeconomic policy. Policymakers were making different approaches in terms of market
economy and public policy, but they did not abandon the liberal principles at all. This section
makes a brief outline of the development in the liberalism movement and understands the
conditions of this transition from old liberalism to new liberalism.
The contributions made by eminent economic and political philosophers like John
Locke, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Bentham, J.S Mill and others broadly categorised as classical
liberalism. Classical liberalism maintains that an economic system based on private property
is consistent with the enjoyment of one’s liberty. Unless an individual can buy and sell their
labour, possessed and disposed of property in the market s/he is not actually free. The ability
51 | P a g e

to make these economic decisions embody the very notion of liberty itself. And since the
enlightenment period, European powers and the United States played an important role in
spreading liberalism across the world. The European imperialist design based on capitalism
contributed towards the expansion of liberal ideas in terms of private property, rules of law
and free trade. Although capitalism and liberalism have some contradictions there is a mutual
relationship between the two to the extent that sometimes, it is wrongly assumed today that
liberalism is capitalism. Liberalism is an economic and political philosophy but capitalism,
on the other hand, is an economic system that necessarily reflects those liberal values. It is
not one and the same. Another important feature of old liberalism is the notion that private
property is important for protecting liberty itself. The argument is that because of the
inalienable right to private property individuals can protect its liberty from the encroachment
of the state. The state’s role is limited.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the market-based order was questioned. There
was a revision or new liberalism. The foundational liberal principles were kept intact but
some underlying liberal assumptions were re-examined in view of the market instability and
the post-World War economic crisis. “The Great War gives a further, heavy blow to the
liberal economic vision: we see interventions by the State in the economic life” (Roselli
2020). The involvement of the state was a great divergence that marks the beginning of the
new liberalism from the old. The market was unstable with high unemployment. Classical
liberalism as a foundation for the economic organisation of life for a free society was
questioned. While people were increasing their faith in the government, in their supervised
economic policies like welfare programmes. This change in the public perception and the
perceived notion of the role of the state in stabilising the market led to the revision of
liberalism. It is observed that the state was no longer limited in its roles. Rather, strong
government interjection with welfare programmes was welcomed and this redistributive
policy was seen as strengthening the market-based economy and expanding liberal values.
Another prominent liberal of the modern period, John Maynard Keynes, also recommended
state intervention to mitigate the problems of unemployment through strong fiscal and
monetary policies (Keynes 1936).
There was also a growing understanding that property rights foster inequality. In
principle, it prescribed equality before the law, free and fair competition, etc. but because of
the differences in material wealth or property, some individuals have a greater advantage over
others. Thus, it fails to secure the liberty of the people, especially for the working class.
Rawls's theory of justice contributed to this new form of liberalism, the concept of social
justice. He postulates that a just society should be structured in ways where the greatest
advantage should be provided to the least representative groups. He attempts to re-arrange
52 | P a g e

social and economic inequality. Liberty and justice are related. The argument put forward is
that one’s true freedom can be protected only in a just society. These liberal and egalitarian
views were components of the new liberalism.
3.6 LIBERALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The majority of the discussion is about domestic politics, but international relations is also
important to the liberals especially in the realm of the international political economy. Today,
there is a common understanding that because of globalization and the importance of
multiculturalism any state’s activities abroad strongly influence the notion of liberty at home.
For instance, militarization and securitization of national interest can lead to increased
military power which can be used against their own citizens and infringed on their rights and
liberty (Meiser 2018). For this reason, a liberal political system often attempts to delimit
military power as a precautionary measure or impose civilian control over the military.
Another issue with securitization and militarization is that it will lessen cooperation and
increase the possibility of international conflicts which will subsequently decrease market
value as well.
In examining international conflicts and how it adversely impacts the international
economy, national wealth and liberty it can be argued that the liberal’s biggest contribution
towards international relations is the democratic peace theory. Democratic peace theory
postulates that the liberal democratic countries avoid going to wars because war is costly.
Since the liberals believe in the principle of rationality and utility value it can be assumed that
war is not sustainable for both individual freedom, free market, and trade. It is because of
rationalism that contemporary liberal institutionalist explained the importance of institutions
like multinational corporations (MNCs), International Monetary Fund (IMF), European
Union (EU), World Trade Organization (WTO), etc. States can receive substantive benefits
as derived from economic interdependence. The liberals especially the liberal institutionalist
believed that since individuals are rational actors with the capacity to act collectively for
better outcomes and these institutions can facilitate cooperation and avoid conflicts which
will bring heavy loss. It creates a situation in which mutually beneficial trades between states
decrease conflict and makes war less likely as war would disrupt or remove the benefits of
trade.
We are now living in an international system structured by the liberal world order. “The
international institutions, organisations and norms (expected behaviours) of this world order
are built on the same foundations as domestic liberal institutions and norms; the desire to
restrain the violent power of states” (Meiser 2018). There exists a corpus of international
53 | P a g e

laws prohibiting acts of aggression so if a state goes to war, it knows that it is breaking
international law and runs the risks of a considerable international backlash. Based on the
analysis about international economy and international institutions is that it can safely be
argued there exist international liberal norms. These norms favour international cooperation,
human rights, market economy and the rules-based order. Non-compliance to such
international norms can inflict costs but compliance to international liberal norms has
functional utility in terms of security, productivity, and progress. Thus, there is widespread
support for such enterprises to succeed and replicate it across the globe.
3.7 MAIN ASSUMPTIONS IN LIBERALISM
As discussed above, it can be observed that liberalism does not present a single monolith
structure of arguments. They evolved and are varied. But despite the lack of a comprehensive
work, it nevertheless presents a widely accepted economic and political philosophy still
today. There are some underlying assumptions in liberalism, some are discussed below.
Human Nature: The liberals believed in the goodness of human nature. Humans are not
necessarily bad. They don't make worst-case assumptions all the time. They have the capacity
to change and cooperate with one another.
Individualism: Liberalism stressed individualism. Liberalism strives for the highest
development of an individual. The liberals begin with the assumption that individuals have a
self-interest. The achievement of their interest depends on the principles of liberty, property
rights and the free market. It argues that when each individual is working towards their
interest it contributes to the larger interest of the society.
Liberty: Individual liberty is the foundation of liberalism. It is in the condition of freedom
that humans can achieve the highest possibility of desirable outcomes. In order to grow and
progress it is fundamental that individuals should be able to freely sell or sell labour, own or
disposed of property and it is in this regard that the state must play a role limited to providing
a regulating framework.
Property Rights: Liberalism strongly supports privatisation and liberalisation of the market.
Ownership of property and other production processes stimulates productivity and growth. It
is also important to mention that a certain degree of liberty is reflected when states are
prevented from encroaching into private properties.
Rules of Law: For the highest possible exercise of liberty and property rights it is important
that the state protects them. All are equal before the law. Another function of a legal system
put in place by the state is to make sure that contracts are respected, ensure fair competition,
54 | P a g e

remove corruption and provide political stability for the market to thrive. Sound
macroeconomic policies will give ample opportunity for individuals to increase production
and wealth.
Rationalism: It is one of the main themes in liberalism. Informed by the principle of utility,
to achieve the greatest happiness of the greatest number, individuals will cooperate when
such cooperation is going to bring better outcomes than working alone. Humans are rational
actors because they make cost-benefit analysis before taking any action. This is informed by
the utility principle which argues that people behave in ways that will maximise their interest.
Free Market and Free Trade: The assumption is that liberal values are best upheld when the
market is free from state regulation. One can exercise freedom of choice and reach its highest
development when the market is free. A regulated market will only restrict people’s choices
which can be translated into restricting one’s liberty. Although, the limited role of the state
was revised by new liberals who supported a strong state policy to achieve liberty and
equality in a just ordered society.
Cooperation: The liberals believed that when people pursue their own interests there can be a
harmony of interests among them. They have an optimistic view of human nature. In pursuit
of a common goal, they will cooperate with one another. Such cooperative behaviour is
facilitated by institutions as well. Inevitably, liberals argued that there is a growing
importance of non-state actors like the MNCs, IMF, World Bank and other intergovernmental
organisations which rival the state. The state is no longer the only important actor in the
international system.
Domestic Politics and International Politics: Liberalism maintained that the liberty of the
people in their home country can be affected by external international activities. It flows from
here that there is no real distinction between domestic politics and international politics. In
this age of globalisation there exists interdependence, multiculturalism, pluralism,
internationalism and other kinds of relationships that transcend national borders.
3.8 CRITICAL EVALUATION
Ludwig Von Mises argued that a society where liberal principles are put into effect is
generally a capitalist society and the condition of that society is known as capitalism (Mises
1985: 10). Today, because of this close connection between liberalism and capitalism the two
are often, misleadingly, used as synonymous. So the anti-capitalist are often seen as directing
their criticism towards liberalism. Capitalism is an economic system that supports private
property, liberal economy, democracy hence the confusion between capitalism and
55 | P a g e

liberalism. The problem arising from such confusion is the misconception that the unjust and
unequal society (capitalism brought about) is because of liberalism. While in reality, the
opposite is true, liberalism is ideologically inclined towards achieving the best possible
desirable outcomes for the majority of the people. It is not the ideological antecedent of the
present unjust social order as some might have observed.
However, it can be noted that some liberal strands like classical liberalism focus more on
principles of liberty, competition, free market and limited state intervention at the ideological
level that the ground reality is that it fosters social and economic inequalities. As such this is
seen as detrimental to the lower classes. When capitalism spread and at the same time the
liberal values were invoked to justify capitalism this was seen as an expression of the elite
social class. “In a nutshell, it has become almost a commonplace to dismiss liberalism as
something superficial, a mask for the hegemony of the privileged classes, if not as a ploy to
horizontally spread Western dominance over the rest of the world” (Valdameri 2015).
3.9 CONCLUSION
To sum it up, it can be argued that liberalism is one of the most important economic and
political philosophies. Liberal values are embedded in every aspect of our society. Although,
in examining liberalism there exist various liberal views depending on their interpretations of
liberal principles all these viewpoints are within the liberal tradition. This chapter attempts to
capture many of those liberal arguments and understand the liberal strands. Apart from laying
down the main liberal principles upon which liberalism stands some of the important main
themes were also underlined for better understanding. Based on the discussions made in this
chapter we can positively identify liberalism as an evolving school of thought. Depending on
the historical context some of the main assumptions of liberalism, like the role of the state,
changed to suit the liberal pursuits by countries. Another noteworthy characteristic of
liberalism is its challenge between domestic politics and international politics. Liberalism is
not confined to the domestic realm but it exerts great influence in the conduct of international
relations as well. It is a fact that liberalism has come under heavy criticisms by other theories
like the Realist and the Marxist but liberalism is still a strong force to be reckon with as it is
strongly accepted by many countries, it prevails.
1. What are the main assumptions of Liberal Theory on IR.
56 | P a g e

2. How New-Liberalism explain IR differently from classical liberal theories. Explain

briefly.
3.11 REFERENCES
1. Bell, Duncan (2014), “What is Liberalism?” Political Theory, 42(6): 682-715.

2. Gissy, William (2008), “Political Economy of Violence and Nonviolence,” (eds.)
Lester Kurtz, Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict (Second Edition),
Academic Press.
3. Kahan A.S. (2003), “Introduction: Defining Liberalism” in Liberalism in Nineteenth-
Century Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/
9781403937643_1
4. Keynes, John Maynard (2018). The general theory of employment, interest, and
money, Springer.
5. Meiser, Jeffrey W. (2018), “Introducing Liberalism in International Relations Theory”
[Online:web] Accessed on 10 January, 2020 URL https://www.e-
ir.info/2018/02/18/introducing-liberalism-in-international-relations-theory/
6. Mises, Ludwig von (1985), Liberalism in the Classical Tradition, California: Cobden
Press.
7. Phukan, Meenaxi (2016), The Rise of the Modern West: Social and Economic History
of Early Modern Europe, New Delhi: Trinity Press.
8. Rawls, John (2009), A Theory of Justice, Harvard university press.
9. Roselli, Alessandro (2020), Economic Philosophies: Liberalism, Nationalism,
Socialism: Do they matter?, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Valdameri, Elena (2015), “The Influence of Liberalism in the Definition of the Idea of
the Nation in India” [Online:web] Accessed on 10 January, 2020 URL
https://journals.openedition.org/lrf/1333
11. Valdameri, Elena (2015). The Influence of Liberalism in the Definition of the Idea of
the Nation in India. La Révolution française. Cahiers de l’Institut d’histoire de la
Révolution française (8).
57 | P a g e

(d) MARXISM/NEO-MARXISM
Ms. Looke Kumari
STRUCTURE

4.2 Introduction
4.3 A Theoretical Outlook of Marxism
4.4 Evolution of Marxism in International Relations
4.5 Marxist Approach to International Relations
4.6 World System Theory
4.7 Understanding the World System
4.8 Critical Theory
4.9 New Marxism
4.10 Conclusion
3.12 References
• Students would understand about Marxist approach to IR, about Neo-Marxism.

• The lesson would make students aware about the World System Theory and critical
theory on it.
4.2 INTRODUCTION
Marxist approach of international relations provides some substantial tools to understand the
discipline from the perspective of global south and as well as it also problematizes core
concepts of foundational theories like state, power, anarchy and hegemony, etc. After the end
of the cold war and disintegration of Soviet Union, scholars declared the triumph of
capitalism and free competitive market economic system. Francis Fukuyama in his work
‘End of History and the Last Man’ argued that the disintegration of the Soviet Union proves
that there is no existence of a competitive theoretical paradigm that challenges the liberal
58 | P a g e

capitalist regime. On the other hand, some scholars believe that in a unipolar world and in the
tendency of Pax-Americana from the very beginning of the 1990s the relevance of Marxism
had fundamentally increased. Like the other international relations theories, it does not
maintain the status quo. Moreover, it tries to carry vital changes in the predominant political
and social order. However, it has grown into a very influential form of social sciences
theories. Marxism focuses to explain the laws and exotic of the market-oriented economic
system or liberalization like global disparities, class struggle and changing mode of
production and force of production, alienation of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. It
however replaces them with a form of egalitarian world order and emancipation of the
subdued which would promote real world of freedom and substantial equality to all. The
important dimension of Marxism is that it provides an alternative understanding of
International Relations and problematizes the core concepts of realist theorization about
international relations. The foundation of Marxism is rooted in the peculiar work of Karl
Marx in terms of philosophical, economic determinism, systematic and scientific analysis of
capitalist political order.
4.3 A THEORETICAL OUTLOOK OF MARXISM
In international relations, Marxism had emerged as an anti-thesis of the rationalist approach

and liberal economic ideas advanced by thinkers like Adam Smith and David Ricardo. In
liberal economic theory, Smith and Ricardo suggested that the theory of comparative
advantage and competitive market economic system is the most efficient predominant actor
in the international system in which the role of the state remains minimal. They argue that the
invisible hand’ plays a very crucial role in the natural phenomenon of the market system. A
free market system has its own capacity of self-balancing and self-equilibrium so there is no
need of any external forces like state to intervene in the natural phenomenon of the market.
The core idea of market system is based on a very conventional but relevant concept of
demand and supply. It also enhanced the quality of goods and promotes the free flow of
capital in market system and intensified competitiveness. In the competitive market economic
system, there is a clear relationship between producer and consumer. Consequently, the
competition between the producers will force the market to manufacture goods at lower costs.
Marxist scholars challenge the liberal economic perspective which is based on the
exploitation of marginalized sections or the haves not. They vehemently argue that in the
ongoing capitalist mode of production the market forces are dominated by the bourgeoisie
and they control demand and supply for their own profit. They criticized the market’s natural
capacity for self-balancing because it is based on the unequal distribution of economic
resources. Marxists perceive a law of disproportionality in liberal economies. Thus, the
59 | P a g e

concentration of capital was restricted only to few hands and the purchasing parity of haves
do not fell drastically. It resulted in an economic slowdown and the fall of a free competitive
market economy. Therefore, instead of establishing values as per the logic of demand and
supply, the markets became a place for the exploitation of workers by setting the values of
goods and services and reducing the cost of wages of labourers who produce those goods and
services.
In Marxism, throughout centuries there have been many cases that reflect the inequalities
of economic power between the proletariat and the capitalist. According to Marx if the
control of economic resources is vested in the hands of private individuals, then it will result
in economic inequalities and exploitation of the workers, for example in the private sectors.
Marxist theory of international relations emphasizes that the state and its apparatus is a means
of exploitation of the proletariat. Therefore, Marx viewed the states as an instrument of
exploitation of the poor and downtrodden masses and also a puppet in the hands of the
affluent and dominant class of the country. The state according to Marx makes the rich richer
and the powerful more powerful. This is the reason why Marxist scholars propounded the
idea of an instrumental theory of state.
Marxists scholars find the class struggle as an important factor to understand the
international system. There is an antagonistic relationship between the bourgeoisie (economic
elites) and proletariats (working class). The economic elites are capable of manipulating and
exploiting the working class. The bourgeoisie use state institutions along with international
political and economic institutions and laws for their benefit at the cost of the workers.
Consequently, Marxists have criticized the international financial regimes such as the
World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World
Bank (WB) for promoting liberalization, privatization, and globalization. The Marxists
believe that the World Trade Organization while working to reduce tariffs and to ease the
trade had failed to provide sufficient protection to workers in terms of wages and creating a
suitable working environment for the workers.
Apart from this, the Marxists believe that Multinational Corporations (MNCs) can easily
produce goods and services where the human rights of workers are deplorable. The MNCs
are successful in producing goods and services only due to the availability of cheap labour
and exploitation of workers. The availability of cheap labour and exploitation of workers
increases the profit of the corporations by producing cheaply and selling costly. Thus while
the workers continually suffer, the corporations keep on increasing their profit. Further, the
workers fear job loss and punishment by their bosses and the state and therefore they are
afraid of protesting injustice meted out to them (Buecker, 2003).
60 | P a g e

The Marxist sees Colonialism as historically important phenomena as the idea of private
property was pushed and justified in the societies around the globe. Colonialism helped
capitalism to establish in those societies which were oblivion of capitalism. It however began
the onset of industrial development in the entire world which became a precondition for the
establishment of a socialist society (Linklater, 1986). This was also a period that also saw the
emergence of struggle against the colonialists who were propagating a capitalist economy.
Davenport (2011) points out that the onset of the socialist revolution in the 19th century in
the Western Europe region is quite confounding. The thrust on capitalism further spread to
those areas which were in the periphery and which were non-capitalist countries. In
comparison to Marx and Engles argument, the theory of imperialism attempts to link the
dynamics of international politics to the changing nature of capital accumulation. The
imperialism theory, therefore, is a part of monopoly capitalism dynamics. Marxism in the
expectation of revolution has pioneered its analysis in terms of epoch and conjecture. This
idea has long drawn attention as a dominant and critical thought.
Hence, the Marxist theory in international relations is not merely about the exploitation
of the people by state and non-state actors but it is also about people’s struggle against the
exploitation to free themselves from bondage (Buecker, 2003). To stop exploitation and to
free themselves from injustice the only way left is to end the economic division between the
capitalist and the workers. This could happen only when the workers of the world or the
proletariat unite themselves against the capitalist and end any kind of economic difference in
society. The communist system could come into existence only when the notion of class
comes to an end and people are treated equally with the development of a classless and
stateless society (Buecker, 2003). Also, the means of production would not be concentrated in
one single hand but would be nationalized. In this condition, everyone can be at best in their
qualities. The Marxist theory of the state in international relations would therefore aim to
eliminate the modern structure of the state and the government. If this aim is achieved then it
would become the pure form of communism with all its qualities. While explaining the
classes, Marx considered the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as two classes. Marx did not
consider the peasant as a modern class but a traditional class as they lack class consciousness
and relationship among themselves. Marx considered the modern classes as the only final
class as he considered capitalism as the last adverse stage before the creation of a communist
society. Marx pointed out that private property plays an important role in the transformation
of the traditional class into a capitalist class. The final transformation culminates in the
creation of a communist society. Marx believed that to attain world peace in the international
system it would be necessary to end the state system (Buecker, 2003).
61 | P a g e

4.4 EVOLUTION OF MARXISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Parkinson (1977) has argued that most of the theory regarding imperialism had emerged and
grown out from the thoughts of Marx and his disciples. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are
pioneers of scientific socialism and highly influenced by Adam Smith and David Ricardo’s
theory of capitalism. There are some common assumptions shared by scientific socialist and
initial capitalist thinkers such as Smith and Ricardo. Firstly, both believe that a homogeneous
world market provides a foundation for the expansion of capitalism (production and trade).
Secondly, the state and its apparatus at the initial level always concern about the interests of
the ruling class. Finally, fancies are irrelevant because they believe that free competitive
market economic system is based on trans-border trade regimes that are universal in nature.
But in its core aspects of the market and the capitalist mode of production both have different
meanings. Scientific socialist finds substantial internal contradictions in the capitalist mode of
production and in the theory of comparative advantage (free market). They emphasized
capitalism has its own seeds of destruction in its foundation as capitalism is based on social
and economic inequality (between bourgeoisie and proletariat), the law of disproportionality,
falling of profit rate of producer, class struggle, etc. Finally, Marxists believe that a capitalist
system will be automatically destroyed because of internal contradiction (dialectical
materialism) and the state will wither away as well. Contemporary Marxist scholars find the
unequal distribution of economic resources between the developed and developing world. A
scholar like A.G Frank talks about Centre- periphery model, dependency theorist and
Immanuel Wallerstein exposed the hegemony and dominance of the developed world on
international trade. The Neo-Marxists points out that internationally, capitalism would cause
undue conflicts because imperialism is entrenched in inadequate domestic demand. Hence,
capitalism is forced to search outlets abroad and if necessary the use of force is allowed. The
debate in Marxism give raises two categories of thought, namely:
(i) The reformist group (Karl Kautsky and Joseph Schumpeter).
(ii) The revolutionists' group (Rosa Luxemburg, N.I. Bukharin, and Lenin).
Lenin’s illustrious work ‘Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ was published in
1916. In his book, Lenin pointed out that imperialism is an unavoidable consequence of
capitalism. Lenin emphasized that the unequal distribution of wealth, the limitation of
resources, and the market would give rise to economic tension at the global level.
62 | P a g e

4.5 MARXIST APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Unlike realism and liberalism, Marxists believe in a social world that should be analyzed in
totality. While famous realist scholar Kenneth N Waltz considers Marxism as a ‘second
image’ of international relations because Marxist believe that if a socialist regime comes into
existence it is suffice to prevent struggle among the states. On the other hand Marxists
believes that the basic image of world politics is based on the octopus model in which
capitalist superpower captured the entire world system. We can understand the essential
elements of Marxism and the contribution in the discipline by four strands given below:
1. World system theory
2. Gramscianism
3. Critical theory
4. New Marxism
4.6 WORLD SYSTEM THEORY
Marx's legacy of the social theory lies in his analysis of capitalism and its contradictions.
Contemporary times witness a relevant world system theory. It was developed by Immanuel
Wallerstein in the 1970s. World system theory emerged at a time when modernization theory
to understand development was being criticized. The Dependency Theory at that time
presented an alternative approach to an understanding of development in the context of
Africa and Latin America. Some important scholars who are the main proponents of the
dependency theory in Marxist tradition are Immanuel Wallerstein, Terence Hopkins, Samir
Amin, Andre Gunder Frank, and Giovanni Arrighi. The chief argument proposed by
Wallerstein was that the international system has a stratified structure of inequality which is
based on institutionalized exploitation. The World System Theory considers the entire
international system as a unit of analysis. It believes that the development and
underdevelopment in international relations are a result of global power relations which has
been witnessed for long centuries.
According to Wallerstein, capitalism had strengthened its roots in Europe and its
periphery in the sixteenth century. Core State getting the maximum benefit from economic
activity. They exploited semi-periphery and periphery states by the process of colonialization
and international division of labour based on unequal exchange. In order to understand the
world system, various thinkers presented many ideas that were mainly based on global
63 | P a g e

inequality but their terminology was slightly different. Sameer Amin and A.G. Frank
emphasized on the core and periphery relations. For better analysis, Wallerstein proposed a
three-tiered structure in which the concept of semi-periphery was introduced between core
and periphery. With the emergence of world-system theory, the focus shifted to the Third
World countries which were considered as periphery and semi-periphery states. In the present
lexicon, the Global North countries are the Core countries while the Global South countries
are the periphery and semi-periphery countries. Wallerstein points out that the modern
nation-states interact in a set of economic, political, and legal framework which can be called
as “world-system”. The state behavior cannot be analyzed until its behaviour is observed in
the socio-cultural system in which they exist. Therefore condition and status of nation-states
or individual societies cannot be understood without analyzing the world system in which
they exist.
To understand the world system theory of Immanuel Wallerstein, his arguments can be
put into four broad categories. They are:
1) Unit of Analysis and Stage
2) Evaluation of World System
3) Core-Periphery and Semi-Periphery Relationship
4) Demise and Crisis of the World Capitalist System.
Immanuel Wallerstein points out that the capitalist world economy grows only when there is
a growth in industrial production. Therefore the modern capitalist world system has
developed with several stages of continuity and transformations.
4.7 UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD SYSTEM
According to Immanuel Wallerstein (1974), “a world-system is a social system with

boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of legitimacy, and coherence. It is made up of
conflicting forces that hold it together by tension and tear”. In the world system, each
member of the group is concerned only about their own profits. The concept of separate
societies in Wallerstein’s study can be understood only after analyzing the world system of
which they are apart. As modern nation-states are part of the world system they form various
kinds of social systems. Hence, there are three kinds of social systems.
1. Mini system- The mini system is a group of small homogeneous societies. They are
relatively economically self-contained as they normally engage in hunting, food
gathering, and live a rustic life. The states in the mini-system produce all the necessary
64 | P a g e

goods and services within their system. These kinds of the system did not interact with
the external world; rather the interaction was need based and very much local.
2. Social system- The social system is far bigger and wider and can be called a world
empire. In the social system, the surplus goods and services are extracted from the
external sector of the economy. A large part of the surplus-value is utilized in
compensating the administrators and the army for their services to maintain domination
over the societies and the rest goes to compensate for the political leadership of the state.
3. World-economies or world capitalist system- The proponent of world economies or
world capitalist system is Immanuel Wallerstein. The sixteen century Europe witnessed
the domination of this system. During those times the capitalist system was at a peak in
Europe and specific types of trade practices were followed which was based on capitalist
economic activities. Thereafter Wallerstein distinguished the world system as Core,
Semi-Periphery, and Periphery respectively.
Core
The core countries had benefitted the most from the capitalist nature of the world economy.
Countries existing in the north-west part of Europe are considered as the core countries.
According to Wallerstein the chief characteristic of the core countries are presence of
democratic regimes, comparatively high purchasing power, import of raw material, and the
subsequent export of the manufactured finished goods. The core countries have stable and
strong governments at the center which is assisted by professional bureaucracy and the army.
Therefore this organized set-up help the domestic capitalist to achieve higher control of
international trade and commerce which brings them benefits on the economic front. With
proper tax management, government policy for procurement, and development of research
and other infrastructure, these core states promote capital accumulation. To reduce the risk of
class antagonism and conflict it maintains a proper social order. Another important
characteristic of the core states is that they promote capitalism in the global economy.
Periphery
Those states which do not have a strong government at the center and weak, submissive and
easily influenced or controlled by other states, largely come in the category of the periphery
states. The chief characteristics of the periphery states are that they export raw materials to
those states which are in the core. Due to the unequal trade relation between the core and the
periphery states, the surplus value generated by the periphery states benefits only the core
states. The periphery states are therefore the least developed countries of the world. The core
65 | P a g e

states exploit the periphery states in form of cheap labour, import of raw materials in form of
minerals, forest products and agricultural products.
Semi-Periphery
The semi-periphery states or the area are those countries which are generally the declining
core or periphery states that had attempted to improve their relative condition and status in
the global economic system. The chief characteristic of the semi-periphery states is that it
witnesses a tension between the government at the center and the dominant local landed
communities of the country. The semi-periphery states maintain only limited access to
international banking. Even the production of high-cost goods or the high quality
manufactured goods has only limited access. The semi-periphery states could not succeed in
international trade and therefore could not benefit as the core states had done. The land-
owning class in the semi-periphery resorts to stake claiming in the feeble capitalist rural
economy. The semi-periphery states mark an intermediate position in which they are being
exploited by the core and at the same time they exploit the periphery regions. In
contemporary times the semi-periphery countries are expanding their manufacturing activities
especially in those sectors which the core had rendered unprofitable.
According to Wallerstein the world capitalist system is a dynamic system that keeps on
changing over time. Despite this, the basic features remain constant. One of the most
important features is that the countries of north-western Europe are the chief beneficiaries.
The core regions benefit at the expense of the periphery regions in which the core nations
derive tremendous high profits in the international trade where the manufactured goods are
exchanged for the raw materials from the periphery or the quasi-periphery regions. However,
this cannot be implied that everyone in the periphery region becomes poor or that everyone in
the core region becomes rich. The land-owning communities in the periphery profit and
become rich at the cost of the lowly paid workers. In the core regions, the rural or the pastoral
people lose their land and are forced to work as daily wagers which eventually culminate in
low living standards and a decline in income. Wallerstein therefore, believes that the
capitalist world system is not suitable for most people in the world. Wallerstein through his
theory tries to explain the wider and differential effects of modernization in the world. He
believes that due to the fall of feudalism in the north western part of Europe the political and
economic changes transformed Europe as a major economic and political power of the world.
As the capitalist world economy expanded across the globe the political and the labour
conditions witnessed a changed pattern. The relationship between the core, semi-periphery,
and periphery however kept on changing and never remained stable. Wallerstein emphasizes
that the history of the capitalist world-system should be studied and analyzed as it has
66 | P a g e

brought a distorted form of development in the world. The capitalist world system has
brought economic and social inequalities between different classes and could not bring
prosperity to the common masses despite high growth in the world economy.
Gramscianism
Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist is considered the chief proponent of this component of
Marxist theory. The chief question analyzed in Gramscianism was that why it has been very
difficult to initiate a revolution in the western European countries. Gramsci pointed out that
the concept of hegemony provides the answer to the question. While explaining the concept
of hegemony he accepts Machiavelli’s opinion of power as a centaur- a half beast and man
which in a political sense is a mix of coercion and consent. Gramsci views the capitalist
society in a specific manner where the structure of domination is complimented with
hegemony.
Capitalists maintain their hegemony with two different kinds of structures. These are:
1. Structure of legitimacy- According to Gramsci civil society provides consent and
legitimacy to the capitalist exploitation and structure through the process of
socialization, schools, religion (church), family, societal values so on, and so forth.
2. Structure of coercion- Gramsci includes the state and its apparatus as a core authority of
coercion over the citizen in whom he includes military, police forces, and state in itself.
Whenever the structure of legitimacy fails, the group of the capitalist’s moves towards
the structure of coercion.
Gramsci criticizes the process of globalization. Accordingly, capitalist economies forcefully
impose the process of globalization to maintain their hegemony over the developing world. In
academic milieu, the first world trying to legitimize the whole process of globalization for its
economic benefits and to maintain the prevailing social and economic structure. Therefore,
Gramsci suggests that the proletariat class and the developing world will have to create their
intellectual class for counter-hegemony.
4.8 CRITICAL THEORY
Critical theory of international relations has originated from the works of Kant, Hegel, and
Marx. The main aim of critical theory was to analyze the chief features of the present society
by studying its historical and social changes and understanding its complications and methods
of domination. To understand the possibilities of the fulfillment of emancipation in the
contemporary world order, Kant and Marx critically studied the obstruction in the
67 | P a g e

emancipation process along with an immanent tendency towards the rational organization of
humans. The concerns of Marxist scholars have been different as they study chief issue areas
like the structure of the family, knowledge production, culture, bureaucracy, and social
relations. The Marxist scholars have been highly ingenious in studying the role of media and
culture in society. The study and emphasis of the critical theory are largely super-structural.
The critical theorists have shown doubts in proclaiming the contemporary proletariats of the
society to be eligible for emancipation and transformation of the society as Marx would have
wanted.
Critical theory in the 20th century was associated with people related to the first
generation of Frankfurt school like Max Horkheimer, Theodore Adorno and Herbert
Marcuse. Critical theorists, especially that of the first generation believed that the
emancipation of the society has to reconcile with nature. This belief stands in contrast to the
traditional Marxists' understanding of emancipation in which humanity has achieved mastery
over nature. However, in the second generation of critical theory, Jurgen Habermas has not
only followed the path of the Frankfurt school but he had also theorized and developed some
new ideas. Habermas has argued that the formation of a better society depends on the nature
of communication. Habermas believes that emancipation in society can be achieved through
the advent of radical democracy.
In his most illuminating work “Social Forces, States and World Order: Beyond
International Relations Theory” (1981), Canadian scholar Robert Cox has argued that “theory
is always for someone and for some purpose”. Therefore, the process of theory and
theorization is not a neutral process. Cox also believes that the prevailing social, political and
economic order and promotes the status quo. Cox agrees with Horkheimer’s differentiation
between the traditional theories and the critical theory. He categorizes the traditional theories
as positivist theories which are considered as problem-solving theories. He believes that both
neo-realism and neo- liberalism are problem-solving theories because these theories maintain
the existing structure of dominance and hegemony of knowledge. For Robert Cox hegemony
plays a crucial role in maintaining stability and sustainability in the domestic system as well
as in international order.
4.9 NEW MARXISM
The chief proponents of New Marxism in international relations are Bill Warren and Justin
Rosenberg. They argue that the basic tenets of Marxist thought are being neglected in the
study of the discipline and it has also somehow misinterpreted by subsequent generations.
According to them, Marxism provides a depth understanding of international relations. New
68 | P a g e

Marxism also problematized the basic assumptions of mainstream theories that dominate the
entire theoretical tradition of international relations. In his famous work “Imperialism:
Pioneer of Capitalism” (1980), Bill Warren rejected the idea of Lenin, where Lenin has
claimed that imperialism was the highest and final stage of capitalism. According to Warren,
Lenin had empirically and theoretically failed to understand the relation between imperialism
and capitalism. He believed that imperialism should be seen as a pioneer of capitalism rather
than its highest stage. In his views, capitalism played a historical role to develop the means of
production in periphery states. Hence, it created room for the forthcoming socialist generation
and urban proletariat class to struggle against their exploitation.
Another new Marxist scholar Justin Rosenberg criticized the realist perspective of
international relations in his well-known work “The Empire of Civil Society: A Critic of the
Realist Theory of International Relations” (1994). Rosenberg has critiqued realism mainly on
three counts. These are:
1. Questions the binary between the domestic and the international realms of interaction.
2. A historical nature of its analysis
3. It’s not a theory but an operator’s manual which explains more about the complex
operations of Balance of power rather than how international politics works.
Rosenberg has argued that anarchy is a product of the capitalist system. It is therefore not
merely some sets of circumstances that are associated with international relations. It is
imbibed in the social relations which have developed in a capitalist mode of production.
Justin Rosenberg, therefore, develops Karl Marx’s work so that he can critique the
orthodoxies in international relations and produce an alternative theory. Rosenberg has been
successful in pointing out that the concepts like sovereignty and balance of power associated
with the realism theory of international relations are not of historical origin. Rosenberg
believes that concepts like sovereignty and balance of power emerged with the emergence of
the modern states and gained prominence in the international order between 1815 and 1914.
Justin Rosenberg further emphasizes that the concept of sovereignty and balance of power
grew with the rise of capitalism in the world. He, therefore, believes that the concepts like
invisible hand and balance of power are important concepts in understanding the modern
capitalist state. Justin Rosenberg, therefore, believes that capitalism has separated the
“public” governmental good from “private” economic good so that capitalism can take
individual advantage arising out of this situation.
69 | P a g e

4.10 CONCLUSION
Marxism provides a new vision to understand international relations based on economic

determinism and historical materialism. Marxist scholars believe that economic forces and
mode of production determine the behavioral dynamics of the international system. They
problematized the core concepts of foundational theories about military power and national
security. They developed a world system to understand the actual condition of the nation-
state with respect of their socio-economic and political condition. Marxist draws our attention
towards the internal contradictions and consequences of globalization and its forces. They
argue that globalization increased economic growth and intensified economic prosperity. On
the other hand, it also increased social and economic disparities between haves and haves not.
A scholar like Gramsci considered globalization as a substantial means of dominance over
the developing world. Therefore, the Marxist perspective of international relations is still
relevant to understand the class struggle between the societies and in international order as
well.
1. Write an essay on Immanuel Wallerstein’ concept on World political system. Explain

how world politics is divided between core and periphery.
2. Write an short essay on Marxist Theory on IR
4.12 REFERENCES
• Buecker, R. (2003), Karl Marx’s Conception of International Relations, Glendon

Papers, pp. 49-58.
• Cox, R, (1981), Social Forces, States and World Order: Beyond International relations
Theory’, Millennium Journal of International Studies, 10(2), pp. 126-155.
• Cox, R, (1983), “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in
Method”, Millennium Journal of International Studies 12(2):162-175.
• Davenport, Andrew, “Marxism in IR: Condemned to a Realist fate?”, European
Journal of International Relations, 19 (1), 2013:27-48.
• Dunne, T., Kurki, M., and Smith, S. (eds) 2010, “International Relations Theories:
Discipline and Diversity”, 2nd edition, London: Oxford University Press.
70 | P a g e

• F. Parkinson, (1977), The Philosophy of International Relations: a Study in the

History of Thought, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
• Goldstein, J. and Pevehouse, J. (2007), “International Relations”, New York: Pearson
Longman, pp. 494-496; 500-503.
• Linklater, A, (1986), “Marxism”, in Burchill, Scott, eds, Theories of International
Relations, New York: St. Martin's Press.
• Linklater, A, (1986), “Realism, Marxism and Critical International Theory”, Review
of International Studies, 12(4), pp. 301-312.
• Marx, K, (1953), “Communist Manifesto”, in Die Frueschriften eds., Siegried
Landshut. Stuttgart: Kroener.
• Miliband, R, (1988), “Marx and the State”, in Tom Bottomore, eds., Interpretations of
Marx, New York: Blackwell.
• Rosenberg, J, (2006), “Why Is There No International Historical
Sociology?”, European Journal of International Relations, 12(3):307-340.
• Rosenberg, J, (1994), ‘The Empire of Civil Society: A Critic of the Realist Theory of
International Relations’, London: Verso.
• Wallerstein, I. (2004), “World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction”. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
• Wallerstein, I, (1974), “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist
System”, Comparative Studies in society and History, 16 (4): 387-415.
• Wallerstein, I. (2000), “The Rise and Future Demise of World Capitalist System:
Concepts for Comparative Analysis”, in Michael Smith and Richard Little (eds),
“Perspectives on World Politics”, New York: Routledge, pp. 305-317.
• Warren, B, (1980), Imperialism: Pioneer of capitalism, London: NLB and Verso.
71 | P a g e

(e) FEMINISM
Dr. Hijam Liza Dallo Rihmo
STRUCTURE

5.2 Introduction
5.3 Waves of Feminism and International Relations
5.4 Gender and Early Feminist International Relations Scholars
5.5 Locating Feminist Analysis within Reflectivism
5.6 Types of International Relations Feminism
5.7 Themes
5.8 Criticisms
5.9 Conclusion
5.11 References
• After completing this lesson student would understand about feminist approach to
International Relations (IR)
• Student would understand how women are marginalized in the arena of foreign and
military policymaking because of gender stereotyping.
5.2 INTRODUCTION
The feminist approach to International Relations (IR) is a relatively new development.

Although feminism as a movement for gender equality already made a strong presence in
other Social Science disciplines it was not until the late 1980s that the IR discipline witnessed
a rigorous feminist intellectual engagement in the field. And by the end of the Cold War
feminist analysis of IR was firmly established. As the post-Cold War period opened up a
whole range of new issues and new ways of thinking some of the major theoretical
72 | P a g e

assumptions of mainstream IR theories on the state, power, national security, war, peace,
diplomacy, etc. were systematically challenged by feminist scholars. Feminist scholars were
analysing how gender affects international relations theory and practice. Feminist scholars
maintain that the field of IR is male-centred and the lived experience of women is not
accounted for. According to the IR feminist scholars, this is a major theoretical limitation in
the existing major IR theories like Liberalism, Realism, and Constructivism. Feminists
analyse core concepts of international relations such as war, state, diplomacy, policymaking,
etc. through the gender lens.
5.3 WAVES OF FEMINISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Feminism is a movement for the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes (Beasley
1999). It is not just about women. The modern feminist movement can be divided into four
waves. The term ‘wave’ is a metaphor used to identify the different generations of feminism
and its objectives. There exist different attitudes, agendas, and objectives among the different
strands of feminism and sometimes some of these objectives transcend into the IR discipline.
To examine briefly…
The first wave started in the 19th century through the early 20th century and they were
mainly concerned with voting rights, education, access to public offices, etc. Their political
objectives for bringing in women into the public space still resonates even with the
contemporary Feminist IR scholars today who want to bring in women into IR which is
otherwise a male-dominated field. The strategist, soldiers, diplomats, politicians, peace
brokers, policymakers, etc. in international politics are mostly men. But there has been a
growing number of women in this field recently.
The second wave began in the 1960s and continued into the 90s and they were radical in
their demands. There were civil rights movements and anti-war struggles. Most importantly
they proclaimed that ‘the personal is political’ arguing that sex, childcare, birth control,
domestic labour which is considered as a private matter is in fact institutionalised and
political, and it is fundamental to the fight for women’s equality. This public and private
divide are still relevant today for a feminist analysis of IR as well when we put gender into
perspective where construction of masculinity is seen suited for public and political spaces
(Goldstein and Pevehouse 2007: 103).
The third wave began in the 1990s. It is both a continuation of the second-wave and a
response to its perceived failures. It focused on the plurality of voice, differences, and
acknowledged intersectionality on the basis of colour, race, post-colonial experience, etc.
73 | P a g e

Apart from its earlier counterparts the Feminist IR scholars today also work towards
intersectionality. They look at the ways different identities, categories, gender, race, class,
sexuality, etc. are important to shed light on how the world works and disclose the hierarchy
of power relations (Hutchings 2014).
Lastly, the fourth wave (Chamberlain 2017:1) is a recent development that has been
ushered in since 2008 with the increasing use of the internet for feminist activism. Social
media has come to play a powerful platform for mobilising, sharing information, and
resistance demanding equal rights. Social media like Twitter and Facebook was paramount in
the ‘Arab Spring’ in the 2010s (Stepanova 2011:1) where women, in particular, came out to
the streets defying authorities, in an otherwise conservative society, affecting international
relations.
However, a common insight among the different waves is that gender matters in
understanding how IR works. It highlights the problem of how gender as a hierarchical
organising principle women are at the bottom of the power structures, disadvantage, and
invisible. This is inequality that is sustained and perpetuated in terms of work, wages, public
participation, division of work, etc. arising from the hierarchical gender distinction between
men and women.
5.4 GENDER AND EARLY FEMINIST INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS SCHOLARS
Feminist IR scholars begin from the gender concept. Feminist IR scholars want to introduce
gender as a category of analysis. When analysis of world affairs is made from the perspective
of gender roles it is generally term as making sense of the world through the gender lens.
Gender is a socially constructed category (Butler 1990) where ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are
attributed with masculine and feminine characteristics respectively. This perception and
practice of gender roles play an important role in shaping international relations. Feminist IR
scholarship can be said to be launched by the works of Jean Bethke Elshtain, Cynthia Enloe,
and J. Ann Tickner. These feminist scholars are hugely responsible for introducing the
concept of gender in the field of IR for analysing central themes in international politics like
war, diplomacy, policymaking, etc. Today, their works form the fundamental readings for the
introductory class to Feminist International Relations. They heralded a new form of
knowledge and an alternative approach to understanding international politics. In the field’s
formative debates it did not site women and gender in IR (Sylvester 2004: 10) they were
missing or simply ignored and these IR feminist scholars were attempting to right that wrong.
74 | P a g e

Jean Bethke Elshtain

She is one of the foremost feminist IR scholars, in her book Women and War (1987), used the
gender lens to examine the discourse on war where femininity understood as a woman is
categorised as one in need of ‘protection’ and masculinity understood as man is the
‘protector’. This gendered categorisation informs the relationship between men and women
and their power position which subsequently becomes determinant for their role in the war,
for instance, men as soldiers and women as civilians or victims.
Her work is very important not only in examining the role of gender in informing
inequality between men and women in terms of power structures but also in exposing the
general assumption that the political sphere is associated with masculinity or male
characteristics. It questioned the automatic link between the women and victimhood. Through
this book, she criticised the dominating symbols that recognised men as ‘Just Warrior’ and
women a ‘Beautiful Soul’.
This gendering process is not an innocent project because the conception about
appropriate gender roles of men and women is expressed in the theory and practice of war.
Because of the gender roles, women are not visible, tucked away as civilians whereas men
who were the fighters, strategists, negotiators, and peace-brokers wrote the history of war.
Women are made insignificant. Although, this assumption of a ‘non-combatant’ women in
war has come under major challenges as many women are in the military services are also
equally aggressive and dominant as their male counterparts.
Cynthia Enloe
Feminist IR scholars maintain that there is an under-representation of women in the discipline
of International Relations (IR). Theories of International Relations have been gender-blind
because until the feminist analysis of international relations major IR theories have largely
ignored the different gender experiences in global affairs. Feminist scholars were outraged,
and rightfully so, by the general lack of interests and the absence of women in IR that led to
the question ‘Where Are the Women?’ (Enloe 1990).
In her famous book Banana, Beaches and Bases (1990) she located women in a political
landscape dominated by men and where women were invisible in international relations
before. Such as the diplomat’s wife, cooks, nurse, garment workers, etc. their gender roles
also have new insights into the workings of international politics. A diplomat’s wife might
host a friendly dinner party where foreign emissaries sit together and exchange views
informally before entering into a formal agreement that affects foreign relations. Likewise, in
a combat situation men fights at the battlefront but it’s the domestic workers, nurses, cooks,
75 | P a g e

and tailors that hold the fort at home. Because of them the soldiers are clothed, fed, nursed,
and cared for but no history mentions their contribution. This is gender inequality. But the
topic of gender escapes mainstream international relations theories.
J. Ann Tickner
International politics is largely dominated by men which have created a very inhospitable
environment for women that J. Ann Tickner stated that ‘International politics is a man’s
world…’ (Tickner 1988: 429). There is marginalisation of women in the arena of foreign and
military policy-making because of gender stereotyping as these are gender roles not for
women. These activities are largely conducted by men and as such any discipline studying
them is bound to be primarily about men and masculinity (Tickner 1992). Thus, mainstream
IR theories, especially realism, are guilty of being gender-blindness.
Tickner is known for her critique of Morgenthau’s principles of political realism by
showing that there is a masculine bias. To sum up her arguments, she states that objectivity is
culturally defined thus associated with masculinity, national interest is multidimensional so it
cannot be defined solely in terms of power, power defined as dominance privileged
masculinity ignoring the possibility of collective empowerment, all political action has moral
significance, there can be common moral grounds which could become the basis for conflict
resolution, and denies the validity of autonomy since it is associated with masculinity and is
constructing a worldview that excludes concerns and contributions of women (Tickner 1988:
438).
5.5 LOCATING FEMINIST ANALYSIS WITHIN REFLECTIVISM
Feminist IR scholars contributed to the field of IR by introducing alternative ways of

studying and explaining international relations. Feminist scholars enriched the discipline of
IR by expanding its subject of study and have started to take gender seriously. They
emphasised the importance of gender as a structuring principle to what state is and how state
operates in the international system. The feminist approach to international relations is
diametrically different from mainstream approaches. So the question is, where do we locate
feminist analysis in international relations?
Looking at the development of IR discipline there exist competing paradigms but
Realism and Neorealism are the dominant theories. All along the First ‘Great Debate’
between idealism and realism and the ‘Second Debate’ or the inter-paradigm debate between
realism and neorealism in the IR discourse, there have been no accounts of women’s
experience in their theorisation of international relations (Sylvester 2004). It was a man’s
76 | P a g e

world where the experience of a particular man especially from the West, elite, and white
decides what’s going on in international relations. And this selected male experience is
projected onto all of us as a universal human experience. To elaborate further, the major IR
theories like liberalism, realism, and other proponents such as game-theory strategy are based
on broad theoretical claims centred on rationality, objectivity, and centrality. This
universalising approach by major IR theories which is based on ‘rationalism’ inadvertently
restricted diversity of voices and concerns resisting other determinants in international affairs
such as gender, class, race, etc. The lack of pluralism in their theoretical frameworks results
in systemic biases within the IR discipline as they decide what to study, what methods to
apply, basically they determined what international relations is.
However, it took a turn during the ‘Third debate’ as they were challenged in their
knowledge and methods. Post-modernist and feminist criticised their intellectual tradition.
Their effort was to make the IR discipline re-evaluate their approaches and revisit critical
sites such as the nation-state, anarchy, war, diplomacy, policymaking, the global economy
and make it more inclusive and gender-sensitive. Although, despite this effort for the IR to
‘revisit the history of the field with the tools of today, women, gender, and feminism still go
missing’ (Sylvester 2004:14). Regardless of the little success, it introduced different ways of
thinking, methodologies, and theorisation as their approach was radically different from the
dominant IR theories which are based on rationalism. Rightly, this Third debate is between
rationalism and reflectivism. Feminism along with other critical theories and postmodern
thinking are located within reflectivism.
Reflective approaches focus on intersubjective meanings and knowledge. Feminist IR
scholarship as a reflectivist approach emphasised on how social meanings such as
‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ are interpreted and engaged. For instance, masculinity being
understood as ‘manliness’ of a man, a man becomes a fighter and a protector making war a
male privilege activity. And femininity being interpreted as the essence of womanhood a
woman becomes a caregiver and a nurturer making her the custodian of cultural values and
ideals. Such interpretations have an impact on international relations. For instance, when war
occurs men as soldiers die fighting whereas women representing the cultural values and
honours of the community are subjected to sexual violence by the invading party which they
see it as attacking the honour of other men. The body of a woman is the marker of state
boundaries (Pettman 1997). As such gender matters in understanding war. Women
experience war differently.
77 | P a g e

5.6 TYPES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS FEMINISM
There are different strands of feminist analysis of international relations. There is no single
feminist approach to IR but several. According to Goldstein and Pevehouse (2007), they are:–
1) Difference feminism: According to this strand there are differences between men and
women. This difference rises because of cultural practices or biologically making men
and women experience the world differently. However, different experiences and
certain biological roles, such as reproduction, does not mean that value judgment
should be made on them as both genders are human beings. From this assumption, it
follows that the difference feminism to acknowledge and value the unique
contribution of women in the political sphere. For instance, because women are
socialised into certain gender roles as caregivers and nurturer they understand social
relations better than men, which is a potential for conflict resolution and peace-
building process. This women’s perspectives on society and politics create a
standpoint from which ‘to observe, analyse, and criticize the traditional perspectives
on IR’ (Goldstein and Pevehouse 2007: 103)
2) Liberal Feminism: This strand of feminism rejects the stereotyped gender roles
altogether. For them, men and women are equal. They asked for the inclusion of
women in international relations including positions of power that are generally
reserved for men like state leaders, military, economy, peace negotiators, etc.
However, the inclusion of women doesn’t mean that it would change the nature of the
international system. It doesn’t challenge international power structures per se but
challenges only the exclusionary practices in the system, in other words, male
domination.
3) Postmodern Feminism: According to the postmodern feminist there is no authentic
women’s experience or standpoint from which we can understand the social and
political world (Jill Steans and et al. 2010:163). It rejects the existence of a universal
women category. Women are products of specific social and cultural relations. What
is considered ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ is culturally constructed through language,
symbols and stories as such gender is not a stable or fixed category which can be used
for analysing international relations.
5.7 THEMES
Despite the different approaches, feminist scholars want to rewrite IR history and redefined
some of the core concepts in the field to encompass the history and experience of not only the
78 | P a g e

women but also the marginalised sections. This re-conceptualisation of IR core tenets can be
identified as feminist main assumptions in international relations.
State and Power
Mainstream IR theories are state-centric in their approach. According to feminist scholars
since the state has most men in its decision-making body, military industry, policymakers,
diplomats, corporate sector, etc. the state is a gendered institution. It is masculine in nature
where women are invisible to the state and are excluded from statecraft. The state is not
gender-neutral and it affects women in different ways from men through family laws,
customary laws, inheritance laws, and labour laws. The masculinity of the state can be
inferred from its high spending on defence and less on social security and healthcare.
Generally, man is identified with the state where the state is endowed with rationality,
objectivity, and capability to protect the nation where the nation is identified with the woman
who needs protection.
The under-representation of women in the political space is because of her gender role as
primarily being a caretaker, nurturer, and educator. Gender is a social category with relational
powers where men dominates a women. This male dominance is supported and legitimised
by the public/private divide which creates gendered power relations. This gendered
relationship permeates all aspects of the state. Thus, the public/private divide is central to our
understanding of international relations and to use Enloe’s expression ‘private is
international’ (Steans and et al. 2010: 168).
Conflict and Violence
According to the feminist, there is a close connection between the state and violence in
international relations. State’s military apparatus is masculine in nature because military
activities are of aggression, destruction, and domination. However, when it comes to the
establishment, sustenance, and perpetuation of the ‘masculinity’ of the military industry both
men and women can be agents in reinforcing the masculinity of the state military apparatus.
According to the feminist, there is also a link between militarism and structural violence.
When a state increases its military expenditure, fewer resources are spent on food and
welfare. In their view, instead of providing protection from the ‘other’, the military-industrial
complex actually harms the ‘vulnerable’ inside the country because the state resources are
diverted to militarised security rather than development, education, health, welfare, etc.
One of the direct forms of violence on women is sexual violence. IR feminists see human
trafficking and sexual violence being significant to understanding international relations.
These perspectives are not included in the analysis of the mainstream IR theories. They are
79 | P a g e

blind to gender violence. But sexual violence and rape especially during war are the lived
reality for women’s experience of war. Sexual violence is a major part of a war discourse and
feminist IR scholars are trying to include it and expand the discourse of war which is a core
concept of international relations.
War and Peace
Elshtain took up the core IR concept of war and exposed the gendered realities of war in her
Women and War. She explored the gender aspects of war and analysed men and women
different relations to militarism and pacifism. The importance of examining masculinity and
war discourse is that it put too much importance on militarised security. And the masculine
nature of the defence establishment leads to distancing of human emotions (Cohn 1987: 691).
Feminist theory criticised this militarised concept of security and broadens the concept of
security beyond a militarised state towards human security such as education, clean
environment, sustainable economy, food, etc. Women because of their gender role their
thinking is radically different from the ways men rationalised security. Feminist have
criticised and disclosed the ineffectiveness of the rationality behind militarised security which
is linked to armaments. This leads to arms race, increased tensions and creates more
insecurity.
Women think of peace and security in terms of food security, human security, water
security, health and education, development, etc. Women have been active in anti-war
struggles, against hyper-militarism which symbolised aggression, violence and dominance.
They emphasised on interconnectedness, dialogue and cooperation. Thus, providing an
alternative approach which redefines and revisits the terms in which public discourse on
peace and security are conducted. Thus, in the modern peace building process women need to
be actively engaged.
However, this is not to assume that there is an automatic link between ‘femininity’ and
‘peace’ but this is because of the gender role that a woman performs and because of her
experience of maternity that gave women a close relationship to peace.
National Security
National security is linked to military power. This has been challenged by IR feminist
scholars as it reflects a masculine view of security. The conceptualisation of men as fighters
and women as pacifists leads to a masculine culture of providing a militarised security. And
since women are seen as pacifist and radically removed from the war zones and negotiating
table for peace and conflict resolution they played no part in the formulation of national
security projects hence, instead of human security the focus is more on militarised security.
80 | P a g e

Feminist also have a problem with identifying woman with pacifism. Pacifism is not an
inherent essential quality of a woman, this is gender stereotyping. Margaret Thatcher, Indira
Gandhi, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice are some hard-line women in power who
defied gender roles.
However, since women are socialised into her gender role as a caretaker and a nurturer
they are more empathetic and understanding hence, better efficient for conflict resolution.
Women and children suffer a lot during conflict and war but women are usually absent at the
peace negotiating table. Although, feminist reject essentialising women as passive and peace
loving but because of their socialisation into appropriate gender roles we have to ‘bring in’
women in the peace building process. Not because they are women but because they suffered
as a women such as sexual violence which is unique from men’s war experiences.
Identity and Construction of Knowledge
Feminist are working on various issue areas of gender, sexuality and sexual identities. The
identity of a body as man and woman is a social construct. It is a cultural interpretation of our
biological body. And this construction of our gender identity determines our social roles and
sexual expressions. Construction of knowledge about who we are or our identity is important
in understanding power relations in our society and also in the larger context of international
politics. Whose knowledge gets heard or legitimated is another focal point for feminist
scholars. How we construct the world and how we teach the world have a huge impact on
how we act on the world (Tickner 2016). Through gender roles, language, social institutions
and state apparatus man established its dominance and perpetuates it. As such knowledge
imposes a hierarchical and conformist pattern (Keller 1996) which reflects a masculine
nature.
Feminist IR scholars are also interested in intersectionality. They emphasised that the
ways in which different identities are categorise such as gender, race, class, sexuality,
disability etc. are significant on how the world works as it helps us in understanding
hierarchies and discrimination because of those categories.
Feminists are also critical of the Western conceptualisation of nation-state building. The
Western nation-state system from Westphalia does not account for women’s lived experience.
Women are absent in the imagination of a theory of the state. There are also the neglected
voices of the colonised and the suppressed. The construction of knowledge about the
Westphalian state system is disconnected from them.
Even national identities are socially constructed where women are considered guardians
of national culture, indigenous religion and traditions. This serves to keep women within the
81 | P a g e

state boundaries prescribed by man. As such they often policed and controlled women’s body
and in the interests of demarcating identities (Steans 2014: 169). This is linked to sexual
violence in armed conflicts and honour killings.
Institutions and World Order
Important works are also done by IR feminist scholars in the field of international political
economy as well. They used gender as a category of analysis in exposing the gendered
division of labour in the international economy. There is a growing number of feminist
literature exposing the unequal gender relations where ‘women work’ is usually unpaid.
Domestic work or any women’s work is considered natural for her gender. It is her role and
responsibility thus, women’s work is appropriated and unpaid by justifying in the name of
‘mother’s love’, ‘wife’s duty’ or ‘girl’s responsibility’. Therefore, women’s work is not
‘deemed to be part of the activities of the state, markets and international institutions’ (Steans
and et al. 2010: 171). Since, women’s work is invisible to the state they are also made
invisible in the international system as well although, all these collectively constitute the
world order.
However, over the years international organisations and institutions are giving more
cognisance of gender and other gender related issues. Increasing feminist activism and their
substantial empirical works have come to influence international institutions such as the
World Bank where it committed to greater gender equity. Gender equity can materialise
through gender sensitisation, equal pay structure, policy against workplace harassment, better
working conditions, maternal leave, etc. These developments bring about transformation in
the governance of the global economy.
Inequality and Justice
One of the most prominent works by feminist is towards gender equality. Gender inequality
is prevalent in societies across the world. Inequalities such as division of work, wages, jobs,
wealth, and inheritance are so normalized that sometimes it is difficult to even realize that
injustice is happening. Inequalities because of one’s gender permeates different levels of
analysis; societal, national, and international. Gender relation is basically power relation.
There is an increased global economic growth because of globalization but there is no equal
distribution of wealth between men and women.
Another troubling feature of the global market economy is that women’s work is often
unpaid and invisible to the state. Any income earned by women is considered an additional
income and men as the primary breadwinner. Women’s work is hardly considered as a
contribution to national growth. Their work is invisible and being invisible to the state works
82 | P a g e

to the detriment of a woman because she remains outside that legal and regulatory
framework. She is not protected by labor laws, earns less than men, and is more vulnerable to
workplace harassment. Women are mostly employed in the informal sector which adds to her
problems. There is an increasing number of women labor workforce globally but in 2004, the
International Labour Organisation reported those women mostly remain in the low-income
insecure jobs. Gender equality and justice is a central preoccupation for IR feminist.
5.8 CRITICISMS
The most widely levelled criticism against the feminist IR scholarship is that it focus on
women. In gender studies there is too much focus on women that gender is taken
synonymously for women. There is less focus on ‘men and masculinity’ as a subject of study.
The argument is that equal attention can be paid to men and masculinity on how men also
suffer from toxic masculinity. For example, men have to be a breadwinner, protector, strong,
brave, rational, domineering, etc. otherwise they are effeminate and not ‘manly’. Men have to
prove their manliness.
However, more IR feminists like Tickner have examined both masculinity and
femininity in her work. Feminists are working on intersectionality and alternative forms of
knowledge for example indigenous knowledge tradition. The argument is that when feminist
started its intellectual engagement with international relations it focus on women because it
was the largest marginalised group that major IR theories didn’t take into consideration. But
over time as IR theories opened up to gender analysis feminist have expanded its concerns
and views in other sectors as well.
Another criticism against the feminist IR scholars is that, while offering important
insights, they have failed to construct a theory of their own. Feminist analysis of international
relations is largely considered as a meta-theory since they do not have grand theories about
international politics like traditional IR theories like Liberalism and Realism. They are
accused of not being able to provide a coherent account of the nature of international
relations. There is no single ‘feminist paradigm’ but several strands of feminism working in
the field. The immediate response from the feminist community was that it was not possible
to reduce multiple realities into a single theory nor it is desirable.
Feminist IR scholars are also challenged by the assumption of a universal category of
woman. Women’s experiences are different; it differs from society to society and from
culture to culture. Experience of Western women is in deep contrast to women situated in
Third World countries. This argument is central to post-colonial and post-structuralist
83 | P a g e

criticism of Western feminism. There is a general acknowledgement of this ‘difference’

politics among the feminist, but they maintain while working towards it one shouldn’t lose
the continued existence of gender inequalities and violence on women across all cultures and
societies.
5.9 CONCLUSION
Feminist analysis of international relations helps us to rethink and revisit some of the core
concepts in the field of IR which are taken for granted. They introduced a different form of
knowledge and helped to disclose the hierarchies and inequalities that are also shaping the
world. Their main contribution is ‘gender as a category of analysis’ for examining
international relations. Gender relations affect every aspect of international relations; state,
war, diplomacy, international political economy, etc. They destabilise the traditional IR
theories but IR as a discipline got new insights. Since the post-Cold War there has been
enormous increase in the volume of feminist IR scholarship. Today, feminist IR scholars are
venturing into marginalised sectors and are vocal about it. Feminist perspective is important
for international relations.
1. Critically evaluate IR theories from feminist perspective.

2. Discuss various issues on feminism in IR.
5.11 REFERENCES
1. Beasley, Chris (1999), What is Feminism? New York: Sage Publication.

2. Butler, Judith (1990), Gender Trouble, New York: Routledge, reprinted 2016.
3. Chamberlain, Prudence (2017), The Feminist Fourth wave: Affective Temporality,
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Elshtain, Jean Bethke (1987), Women and War, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
5. Enloe, Cynthia (1990), Banana, Beaches and Bases: Making a Feminist Sense of
International Politics, Berkeley: University of California Press, reprinted 2014.
6. Goldstein, Joshua S. and Pevehouse, Jon C. (2007), International Relations: Brief
2006-2007 Edition, New York: Pearson.
84 | P a g e

7. Hutching, Kimberley (2014), International Relations – Feminism and International

Relations, [Online: Web] Accessed 17 October 2020, URL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajAWGztPUiU&ab_channel=OpenLearnfromThe
OpenUniversity
8. Keller, Evelyn Fox (1996), Reflections on Gender and Science, New Haven: Yale
University Press.
9. Pettman, Jan Jindy (1997), “Body Politics: International Sex Tourism,” Third World
Quarterly, 18(1).
10. Steans, Jill et al. (2010), An Introduction to International relations Theory:
Perspectives and Themes, Third Edition, Harlow: Pearson.
11. Stepanova, Ekaterina (2011), The Role of Information Communication Technologies
in the “Arab Spring” : Implications Beyond the Region, [Online: Web] Accessed 17
October 2020, URL http://pircenter.org/kosdata/page_doc/p2594_2.pdf
12. Sylvester, Christine (2004), Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Tickner, J. Ann (1992), Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on
Achieving Global Security, New York: Columbia University Press.
14. Tickner, J. Ann (2016), “What has Feminism done for International Relations? –
Professor Ann Tickner,” [Online: Web] Accessed 17 October 2020, URL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B33FkDx4__k&ab_channel=CentreforInternatio
nalSecurityStudies
15. Tickner, J.Ann (1988), “Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A
Feminist Reformulation,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17(3): 429-
440.
85 | P a g e

(f) CONSTRUCTIVISM
Dr. Abhishek Choudhary
STRUCTURE

6.2 Introduction: Eurocentrism and its Critics
6.3 Theorizing IR beyond the West: Alternate Readings of International Relations (IR)
6.4 Perspectives from the Global South: Regional Theories
6.5 Homegrown theorizing in IR
6.6 Conclusion
6.8 References
• Student would know about the influential contribution for establishing

constructivism's theoretical foundation in IR.
• Also, student can understand the background factors sponsor the rise of
constructivism.
• Constructivism offer new insight into the study of international relations.
6.2 INTRODUCTION: EUROCENTRISM AND ITS CRITICS
The discipline of International Relations has been Eurocentric. Eurocentrism implies that the
‘western model’ is seen as better than the rest of the world. This sort of parochialism leads to
the perpetuation of the hegemonic nature of a particular system. This further leads to the
‘self’ versus ‘other’ bias. Due to this, the ‘self’ gets defined in relation to the ‘other’. Specific
to the discipline of International Relations, Eurocentrism meant that the focus remained
limited to the experiences of the West, the conceptualization of theories by the West, and the
applicability of grand theories to the West.
6.2.1 Emergence of Eurocentrism
The standard view, as propounded by Edward Said, is that Eurocentrism or Orientalism was
constructed in mid-eighteenth-century Europe. Hobson (2020) argues that “a nascent form of
86 | P a g e

Eurocentrism was constructed during the Spanish colonization of the Americas”. It was
Francisco de Vitoria’s text “On the American Indians” that invented the discourse of
“civilization/barbarism” to “understand” the natives, but which turned out to be a justification
for their colonization. The imperialist idea of “social efficiency” also emerged in the early
sixteenth century. On the basis of this idea, it was asserted that “if a non-Western people fails
to productively develop its land, the Europeans have a right to take over their land and do it
for them on their behalf” (Hobson 2020).
Emergence of Eurocentrism is related to the “whole process of the construction of
European identity” (Hobson 2020). Till the seventeenth century, Europe did not exist, and it
was known as Christendom. However, the Catholic Christendom faced an identity crisis
brought by a combination of “the Renaissance, the Reformation, the rise of the sovereign
state system in the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries and its challenge to the political
role of the papacy” (Hobson 2020). Therefore, a “new identity had to be forged” to maintain
a sense of order. This new European identity was forged through the invention of mature
Eurocentrism during the period of European Enlightenment.
6.2.2 Dominance of West in the Discipline of International Relations
Specific to the discipline of International Relations, Buzan and Acharya present “Eurocentric
framing of world history” as one of the two major manifestations of the Western dominance
of International Relations Theory. Another manifestation of this dominance is the that the
“origin of most mainstream International Relations Theory” lies in Western philosophy,
political theory and history (Acharya and Buzan 2007). Western history is equated to the
history of the world and western experiences are viewed as universal experiences.
Acharya and Buzan (2007) further discuss five explanations for the dominance of the
West in theories of International Relations. The main ideas in the discipline are “deeply
rooted in the particularities and peculiarities of European history”. Furthermore, historical
reality of the “rise of the West” and the imposition of its own political structure onto the rest
of the world - for example the Westminster model as the model of parliamentary system -
allows it to assert its worldview hegemonically. Thus, academic International Relations
“remains massively dominated by Western thinking” (Acharya and Buzan 2007). Coming
back to the five specific explanations for the dominance of the West, it is pertinent to
examine each one separately:
a) “Western IRT has discovered the right path to understanding International Relations.”
This claim implies that the western theories are universal and not dependent on cultural
context. This makes it pointless to argue about the distinction between the Western and the
87 | P a g e

non-Western. On this basis, it is not expected that laws of international relations would vary
if people from different cultural context discuss them. However, “the quality of criticism,
insight, and application” would improve with a larger number of participants discussing it.
Acceptance of this claim has the consequence that “anarchy” is over-emphasized as the
ordering principle and ignores the possibility of alternate ways of constructing “international
systems and societies”. This view is “rooted in a very specific history” (Acharya and Buzan
2007).
b) Western IRT has acquired hegemonic status in the Gramscian sense
This explanation rests on the idea that Western IR theory has indeed achieved the “Gramscian
hegemonic status”. This implies that it “operates largely unconsciously in the minds of
others”. The “intellectual impact of Western imperialism” have led to the successful
imprinting of the understandings of the West” on the non-Western minds. The Western ideas
“about the practice of political economy, sovereignty, territoriality, nationalism” were
adopted by the local elite of the newly decolonised non-West. The key elements of
Westphalian sovereignty and ideals such as “democracy, the market and human rights” were
readily embraced by the Third World. Now, if Western IRT achieved hegemonic status due to
its correctness, there is very “little scope for non-Western contributions”. However, if it is
dominant due to its link to the Western power, then there is “both room and reason to develop
a non-Western voice” (Acharya and Buzan 2007).
c) “Non-Western IR theories do exist but are hidden.”
Non-Western IR Theories, even if they exist, remain hidden mainly due to the barrier of
language and since they are “located in areas of study outside the Western-defined IR realm”
(Acharya and Buzan 2007).
d) “Local conditions discriminate against the production of IR theory.”
There are various historical, cultural, political as well as institutional local conditions that
may explain why the academic environment of the West is more conducive than the non-
West. Historically, the two world wars served as watershed moments and International
Relations Theory was “endowed with a strong problem-solving orientation” since its origin
(Acharya and Buzan 2007). The fear of war shaped the development of IR theorization. The
West and the non-West is divided by the factor of cultural differences. In general, theory “is a
Western way of doing things” (Acharya and Buzan 2007). The non-West focussed mainly on
their local affairs while the Western social theory was based on so-called universalism due to
their tendency to provide grand narrative. Additionally, there is a general lack of resources,
funding and career structure that inhibits a possible alternate theory.
88 | P a g e

e) “The West has a big head start, and what we are seeing is a period of catching up”
Acharya and Buzan (2007) argue that is the head-start explanation is true, then the main
problem is a question of time and resources. In case resources are available for the study of
IR, one should expect unfolding of local developments in IR Theory. The gap between the
West and the non-West may get bridged in cases where such resources are available.
These explanations about the dominance of the West could be at work in combination
with each other. But the existence of this dominance could hardly be questioned. In a recent
edited volume, International Relations from the Global South, Navnita Chadha Behera
(2020) provides an explanation of the “e” problem of Eurocentrism, epistemological frame
and empiricism. Specific to the issue of state and sovereignty, she argues that Europe has
been kept as the “foundational basis for all theorizing” (Behera 2020). Across the divide of
positivism and post-positivism, the fundamental premise of Eurocentric understanding
regarding origins of the modern state was shared unquestioningly. Eurocentrism, therefore,
“remains deeply embedded in the DNA of the very idea of the modern state” which considers
the 1648 Peace of Westphalia as the “big bang theory of world politics” (Hobson 2012).
This presumption is questionable due to the following reasons (Behera 2020):
i. It assumes that “the Europeans single-handedly created the sovereign state in the
absence of any Eastern input”. It was a phenomenon made in Europe and then
exported to the rest of the world. The earlier history of countries of India, China, West
Asia and Africa suggest that the reality is very different (Hobson 2013, cited in
Behera 2020).
ii. It fails to consider the history prior to 1648. Western scholars like Grotius, de Vitoria,
Hobbes and Locke generated a Eurocentric “standard of civilization” discourse. The
Americas were constituted as “an example of the original state of nature” inhabited by
savages and barbarians who lacked rational institutions. This caricature was
juxtaposed with the “civilized institutions” of Europe (Behera 2020; Hobson 2013).
The lack of sovereignty of the non-European world and emergence of European
sovereignty portrayed imperialism as natural and legitimate.
iii. “Eurocentric historicism” is problematic as it “assumes the existence of a singular,
universalizing narrative of modernity” and cannot accept “alternative modes of
temporality each with its own concept of the political” (Chakrabarty 2000, cited in
Behera 2020). Such a denial legitimizes the “civilizing mission” of colonialism.
Therefore, ignoring the history of state formation processes outside Europe, a
“particular slice of European history is considered to suffice as the singular basis” for
89 | P a g e

creating a “general theory for all”. The non-West, “as a site of knowledge creation of
international politics” was “structurally and intrinsically removed”, thereby excluding
any alternate conceptualization (Behera 2020).
6.3 THEORIZING IR BEYOND THE WEST: ALTERNATE

READINGS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (IR)
In an effort to engage with the possibility of imagining IR beyond the West, it is important to
“ask different questions and search for answers in different places”. The need is to shift the
focus “from looking for a universal idea of sovereign state to recognizing the possibility of
different imaginaries of political authority, different degrees of stateness and multiple
formulations” (Behera 2020). These imaginaries are shaped by the diverse histories of state
formation as well as the through the influence of various political, social, economic, military
and cultural forces.
Scholars seeking to challenge the Eurocentricity of IR have provided arguments that
suggest an alternate origin of the discipline. Davis, Thakur and Vale (2020) seek to
decolonize IR by challenging “Eurocentric historiographies”. They challenge the accepted
origin of the discipline of IR. They focus, instead, on the ‘Round Table’ society in tracing the
actual origin of the discipline. In doing so, they uncover the unexplored archives to assert that
race played a major role in founding of the discipline. Tracing the journey of the Round
Table across continents, Davis, Thakur and Vale (2020) move beyond the unquestioned
Eurocentric origin of the discipline. The British imperial societies of Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, South Africa and India formed the network called the Round Table. It was the
efforts of this network that in fact led to the establishment of the discipline of IR as we know
it. While the Round Table was aimed at having a more efficient imperial governance and
sought to place the empire in a position of controlling world affairs, it eventually led to
placing the Global South in an important position in the founding of IR. It was in this period
that IR scholarship got intertwined with imperial racial thought. Such a decolonial
perspective allows one to think about alternate realities and possibilities that remain hidden
otherwise.
6.4 PERSPECTIVES FROM THE GLOBAL SOUTH: REGIONAL

THEORIES
Global South refers broadly to the regions of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. It is
one of a family of terms, including “Third World” and “Periphery,” that denote regions
outside Europe and North America, mostly (though not all) low-income and often politically
90 | P a g e

or culturally marginalized. The use of the phrase Global South indicates a shift from a central
focus on development or cultural difference toward an emphasis on geopolitical relations of
power (Dados and Connell 2012). The term Global South functions more than just being “a
metaphor for underdevelopment” and it refers to “an entire history of colonialism, neo-
imperialism, and differential economic and social change” which have led to maintenance of
“large inequalities in living standards, life expectancy, and access to resources” (Dados and
Connell 2012).
The major scholarly interventions from the Global South argue against the acceptance of
the Westphalian notion of sovereignty. The Peace of Westphalia and the ensuing concept of
modern state is phenomenon specific of Europe. In search for alternate conceptions of state,
sovereignty, world order, justice and other relevant concepts, scholars have sought to recover
ideas from the past. The pre-colonial history of countries in Asia, Africa and the Latin
America provide us with such specific notions of order, justice, state, nation and sovereignty
that goes beyond the Eurocentric notions based on the Westphalian system.
6.4.1 India: Theory of State, Suzerainty, Order
According to Benoy Kumar Sarkar (1919), early Hindu political theorists had an indigenous
conception of sovereignty that recognised the importance of ‘self-rule’ and national
independence to the exercise of state authority. Kautilya has been viewed as one of the
world’s earliest realists and his contribution is noteworthy in this regard. In setting out the
principles of conduct central to the task of empire-building, his mandala (spheres of
influence) theory advanced ideas as to how a king should manage alliances and relations of
enmity with surrounding countries. Sarkar (1919) put forth his analysis of the doctrine of
mandala to suggest the presence of an idea of ‘balance of power’ and its link with
sovereignty. The doctrine of mandala is considered as the doctrine of vijigeesoo (aspirant to
conquest or expand). Treatment of a state as hostile, indifferent or friendly depends on its
distance from the vijigeesoo (Sarkar 1919). The geographical distribution of states influences
their psychology and the theory holds that there is a hypothetical tug-of-war always being
fought between the vijigeesoo and his ari (enemy). Along with these, another two states are
to be counted in order to complete the hypothesis. It is a situation of perpetual preparedness
and the quadrivium consists of the following four members:
1. The vijigeesoo or the aspirant;
2. The ari or the enemy who is situated anywhere immediately on the circumference of
the aspirant's territory;
91 | P a g e

3. The madhyama (the mediatory) who is located close to the aspirant and his enemy and
is capable of helping both the belligerents or of resisting either of them individually;
4. The udaseena (the indifferent or the neutral) who is situated beyond 1, 2, and 3 and is
powerful and capable of helping the aspirant, the enemy and the mediatory, together
or individually, or resisting any of them individually (Sarkar 1919).
The doctrine of mandala has “launched us at last into matsya-nyaya” or the logic of the fish
similar to the Hobbesian law of beasts and anarchy. This doctrine assumes and is prepared for
a world of eternally warring states. The theory of the state rested on two diametrically
opposite conceptions:
1. The doctrine of danda, which puts an end to matsya-nyaya among the praja (members
of a single state);
2. The doctrine of mandala, which maintains an international matsya-nyaya or the civil
war of races in the human family.
The Hindu theory of sovereignty goes beyond the doctrine of a universal matsya-nyaya. It
generated the concept of universal peace through the establishment of a world domination as
well. The doctrine of mandala as an outward force was counteracted by the inward
tendencies of the doctrine of sarva-bhauma (the ruler over the whole earth). The conception
of a world sovereignty is found in the earliest Vedic texts. The Aitareya Brahmana tells that
“Monarchy at its highest should have an empire extending right up to natural boundaries, it
should be territorially all-embracing… and should… establish one state and administration up
to the seas” (cited in Sarkar 1919). This theory of a world nationalism exercised a powerful
influence on the political speculations of the Hindus. The doctrine of chakravarti expresses
the same idea of the world state or universal sovereignty. It indicates that the chakra or wheel
of the state chariot rolls everywhere without obstruction. The wheel symbolizes sovereignty.
It is this conception of a “political dominion of a secular overlordship” (Sarkar 1919).
Behera (2020) draws historical examples from Indian experiences of suzerainty. She
cites Kaviraj (2010) who analyses Manusmriti, the Arthashastra and the Mahabharata.
Kaviraj (2010) argues that “while recognising the requirement of unrestricted royal
authority”, restrictions were imposed on it “by positing an order that was morally
transcendent – an order to which it was both subject and in complex ways eventually
responsible” (Kaviraj 2010, cited in Behera 2020). By distinguishing between “the law”
(danda) and a fallible human agent (the king), Manu is able to construct a theoretical
structure where the king in not able to enjoy unconditionally absolute power because he is
subordinate to the moral framework of dharma. (Kaviraj 2010, cited in Behera 2020).
92 | P a g e

“Political authority and control in the traditional Indian order tended to be dispersed and
distributed between various levels of authority” (Behera 2020). These levels included the
vassal states, regional kingdoms and empires, as distinct from a centralized political unity of
the modern sovereign state. Another major distinction was that the vassals usually became so
by “lawful conquest” or dharamvijya, instead of a contract. The suzerain operated in a
manner that a fluid and malleable political system was created and political status and
loyalties of kingdoms were constantly changing.
Uncovering the recent past and the present, Kanti Bajpai (2003) identifies four
perspectives on Indian conceptions of order and justice in the Indian discourse on world
politics. These are: Nehruvian internationalism or Nehruvianism, Gandhian cosmopolitanism
or Gandhianism, political Hinduism or Hindutva, and neo-liberal globalism or neo-liberalism.
These four conceptions “can be counter posed to the dominant Westphalian conception”
(Bajpai 2003).
The first perspective, Nehru’s ‘Westphalia plus non-alignment’ notion of order, may be
viewed as compatible with traditional Westphalia. However, non-alignment’s insistence on
freedom of strategic choice and the “ability of the non-aligned countries to play a
constructive role in order building” creates tension with the Westphalian notion of order. On
the basis of this perspective, “it is not the great powers but rather the non-aligned that are
positioned to play a positive and exceptional role in world affairs” (Bajpai 2003). Another
challenge to traditional Westphalian notions is the argument for economic equality based on
the notion that formal independence with economic weakness creates “vulnerability of
various forms of pressure” that impacts the possibility of making decisions freely. According
to the Nehruvians, “the Northern and the Southern countries have to combine to rid the world
of poverty, destitution, and economic backwardness in the post-colonial world”. (Bajpai
2003).
The second perspective, Gandhian Cosmopolitanism, is “ambivalent about the nation
state” which is the basic unit of the Westphalian system. Gandhians do recognize that
nationalism is a powerful liberating force at a particular stage in history and that it
“represents the possibility of a people’s rise to self-consciousness, emancipation, and
freedom”. They also accept the fact of an international system and other related phenomenon
like anarchy, sovereignty, conflict and war. However, for Gandhians, humanity “must, and
will, go beyond the nation state” (Bajpai 2003). For Gandhians, “order consists of the totality
of relations, rights, and responsibilities, as between individuals, communities, states, and
other agents” (Bajpai 2003). Gandhian argue in favour of “economic equality” which is “vital
to the persistence of any order”. For Gandhians, there is no place for violence. They argue
93 | P a g e

that morality and self-regulation rather than centralized political authority, power, and
violence are the basis for order. Each individual, community, and “state must exercise self-
discipline and ensure that its behaviour is consistent with the tenets of non-violence and
ethical truth” (Bajpai 2003).
The third perspective, Political Hinduism or Hindutva, considers India not just as a
nation state but also a civilization - a Hindu civilization. The proponents of Hindutva believe
that Hindu civilization needs to recover its vitality and integrity. Hindutva proponents have a
positive view of violence and they believe that violence can emancipate the suppressed and
colonized people. They argue that while “individualism, materialism, and utilitarianism” of
the west may have made it powerful, rich, and efficient, but these qualities have also rendered
it “selfish, self-centred, and exclusivist”. In contrast, Hindus believe in self-restraint,
spirituality, search for truth, and all-embracing inclusiveness based on the welfare of each
and every individual. Hindus conceive of a world state in which individual differences can be
reconciled with the collective good. Rules of behaviour in consonance with dharma would
regulate this unity where each individual, community, and nation will have its “own place
and role in the totality and will coexist in harmony” (Bajpai 2003).
The fourth perspective, that of the Neo-liberal globalists, views an anarchic interstate
system as the fundamental basis of international life, with sovereign states pursuing the
national interest as the basic unit of international relations. In absence of a supranational
authority, the international system is “a self-help system, conflict, war, and rivalry are a
constant possibility” (Bajpai 2003). But they argue that due to growing interdependence,
states will begin to have stake in each other’s welfare and war becomes a self-defeating
possibility. However, neo-liberal globalists in India remain suspicious that the Western great
powers will use this as an excuse to intervene in the affairs of the rest of the world (Bajpai
2003). There are some areas of tension between Westphalia and the neo-liberal globalist
vision of order. Firstly, order-building in a globalizing world requires universal standards
governing economic and social practices. This goes against the notion of sovereignty in
Westphalia where national economic and social policies are matters of domestic jurisdiction.
Secondly, tension emerges from the relative shift from national to human security. The issue
of international accountability for states again goes against the assumption that state security
is primary and that standards of well-being and freedom are internal matters. Thirdly, the
neo-liberals suggest that liberal values and democracy are at the heart of a stable order. This
goes against the Westphalian notion that “domestic values and institutions are autonomous
from the demands of international order” (Bajpai 2003).
94 | P a g e

6.4.2 Africa: Sovereignty, Ubuntu, Dependency

It has been argued that the Western IR theory either misrepresents African reality, or “it
participates in an exercise of neo-colonial theoretical hegemony” (Brown 2006). Amy Niang
(2018) takes a view of the pre-colonial pasts of West Africa to bring out an understanding of
the social structures that had sustained African political life. According to her, the Mossi state
had become the role model in the Voltaic region in Africa during its formative years through
the 15th and 16th centuries. It was constructed around the twin ideas of the Naam and the
Tenga. The Naam is an original conception of political authority that established the political
order and shaped the contours of social experience as a whole. However, it had to contend
with the “capacity for resistance of pre-existing social structures”, such as “the earth priests
and other first-settler figures that operated under the moral authority of Tenga” (Niang 2018;
Behera 2020). The Naam and the Tenga constituted “analogized articulations of imaginaries”
of authority (an ethics of legitimation), of cultural ethos (beliefs, values, artistic expression)
and positionalities (social statuses and relations, entitlements). In reality, these were brought
together by a legal covenant “whose terms were to be regularly revisited through ritualised
procedures” (Niang 2018; Behera 2020).
Explaining the nature of these underlying legal ideas and norms like rituals, Niang
(2018) argues that these were woven into “mutually binding relationships” and were legible
both internally and experientially (Behera 2020). The post-colonial state not only cemented
the original divide between the state and society fostered by the imperial rulers but also
invested the state power solely in the hands of the sovereign. When the state became solely a
political instrument, it became susceptible to its continued exploitative use for the benefit of
its erstwhile colonial masters at the expense of the majority of Africans. According to Niang
(2018), this led to contestations of various forms including an outright rejection of the state as
a parasitic thing that had been displaced and subordinated to external exigencies and interests,
people escaped from the state in resistance, avoidance and other means that could free them
from the state tutelage (Niang 2018, cited in Behera 2020). The idea of real statehood is
“predicated on a primordial universal formulation”, which serves as the benchmark for every
state to match. The “local and diverse pre-colonial pasts of African states simply do not
count” and Africa’s colonial pasts are understood purely “from the standpoint of the West’s
civilizing mission” (Behera 2020). This civilizing mission has been characterized as “the
moral, legal, material aid structure that maintained Africa,” and generally as “a basically
bloodless episode in the unfolding and development of the state system” (Doty 1996, cited in
Behera 2020). Furthermore, it “precludes any structural linkages between internal and
external dynamics of state-making” (Behera 2020). The failure of African states is attributed
to their own “lack of indigenous capacity for self- government” coupled with corruption and
95 | P a g e

incompetence. African states alongside other third world countries are constructed as
“freeloaders in the international system,” who pursue collective ideologies, thereby creating
“a normative dilemma” by getting sovereign independence and yet demanding development
support from others (Behera 2020).
Another relevant conceptualization is that of ubuntu. In Zulu, Ubuntu is expressed as
“umuntu umuntu ngabantu” or “a person is a person through other people”. It refers to the
idea that the individual is inextricably part of the whole, in fact, is identical with the
community. It presents “respect, hospitality, reciprocity, connectedness, and interdependence
as the ethical tools for creating a sustainable social order” (Ngcoya 2009, cited in Smith
2020). The notion of ubuntu focusses on a collectivist worldview which is aligned with
“more normative interpretations of order that take into account elements such as justice,
equality, etc” (Smith 2020). The notion of ubuntu assumes that when the order in a
community has been disturbed, for example through conflict, it requires a collective effort to
restore a sense of order. This means that everyone is responsible for everyone else, not
because of a sense of duty, but because they are inseparably connected. In the same way, an
injustice to one is an injustice to all. This is in opposition to the individualist, self-interested
understanding of personhood of the West.
Providing an explanation of West African states, Samir Amin (1976) propounded the
concept of ‘Centre and Periphery’. Amin was concerned with “conditions and relations of
production” (Martinussen 1997). Amin provided two ideal-type societal models - the
autocentric economy and the peripheral economy. The autocentric economy is self-reliant but
lack self-sufficiency. It relies on extensive international trade. The peripheral economy, on
the other hand, has an “overdeveloped export sector” producing goods for luxury
consumption (Martinussen 1997). One can see capitalism in circulation of capital but modes
of production remain pre-capitalist. The Centre is therefore able to extract resources and
cheap labour from the Periphery earning high profit. This relation of dependency is based on
unequal exchange and this asymmetric relationship leads to the continuation of dependency.
6.4.3 Latin America: Development and Dependency
Andre Gunder Frank (1966) provided the idea of “Development of Underdevelopment”.
According to Frank, the Third World could never follow the path taken by the West because
of the differences in experience (So 1990). The West did not experience colonialism while
most of the Third World countries are former colonies of the West. Thus, Frank dismissed the
‘internal explanation’ of the modernization school and emphasizes the ‘external explanation’.
In simple words, the backwardness of the Third World was not due to feudalism or
aristocracy but was an outcome of the colonial experience and foreign domination.
96 | P a g e

A.G. Frank formulated a “metropolis-satellite model” to explain the underdevelopment

of the Third World. Colonialism created a link between the metropole (or the colonisers) and
the satellites (or the colony) in a way that to an unequal relation of trade. All the surplus was
appropriated by the metropole leaving the satellite poor. The local bourgeoise also
contributed to this underdevelopment by draining the surplus outside the satellite, not using it
for investment and development internally and keeping the international inequality in place.
Thus, what occurred was the development of underdevelopment due to the link with world
market. Only way out of this vicious cycle was to delink from the world market (So 1990).
The principle of autonomy is an important principles extended by dependency theory.
The principle of autonomy implies “freedom from external control and/or influence,
possessing the capacity of each political community to rule itself”. Dependency is defined as
“a situation of objective economic subordination to outside nations and enterprises”. It is
depicted as the main obstacle to realizing this principle (Cardoso and Faletto 1979, cited in
Calkivik 2020). Challenging the global hierarchy produced by the capitalist division of
labour, dependency thinking embraces sovereignty and autonomous development as the path
for third world states to achieve self-determination and self-realization (Cardoso and Faletto
1979; Calkivik 2020).
6.4.4 China: Confucianism and Tributary system
Unlike the horizontal Westphalian system organized on the basis of sovereign equality, the
concept of Tianxia or “all-under-heaven” is organized in a hierarchy (Behera 2020). It is a
hierarchical system that values order over freedom, ethics over law, and elite governance
over democracy and human rights (Callahan 2008). According to Zhao (2005), the problem
in international politics today is not “failed states” but a “failed world,” which is marked by
disorder and chaos. While many would see world disorder as a political or an economic
problem, Zhao argues that world chaos is a conceptual problem: “to order the world we need
to first create new world concepts which will lead to new world structures” (Zhao 2005,
quoted in Callahan 2008). Blaming the Western concepts such as the Westphalia system,
Zhao argues that only the Chinese concept of Tianxia, or “All-under-heaven” is the solution.
Tianxia is “a utopia that sets the analytical and institutional framework that is necessary for
solving the world’s problems” (Callahan 2008). According to classical and modern
dictionaries, Tianxia also means China. Imperial China’s Tianxia system of governance
worked very well till it was “challenged by Western imperialism” (Callahan 2008). It was
due this challenge that China was forced to build a modern nation-state.
Based on Tingyang Zhao’s work, Tianxia carries three interwoven meanings. According
to the first meaning, Tianxia is a geographical term. Tian literally means “the heavens, the
97 | P a g e

sky, and what is on top”, while xia means “below, lower, inferior”. Zhao argues that world
chaos emerges from using the improper perspective to view the world, conceptualize its
problems and thus formulate solutions. Zhao argues that the present Westphalian world order
leads to conflict because it is based on competing national interests. Therefore, one needs to
“think about world order in terms of a truly global view” (Zhao 2005). The world’s problems
are too big for any one nation, superpower, region or international organization. Tianxia is a
method for looking at world problems and world order from a truly global perspective. It
allows one to look at the world in an all-inclusive (wuwai) way. In order to have world order,
one needs to “measure the world according to a world standard, rather than according to
national interests”. Zhao (2005) argues that one can have a “complete and perfect
understanding of problems and provide all-inclusive solutions by thinking through the world
with a ‘view from everywhere’” (Zhao, cited in Callahan 2008).
In addition to this material and geographical sense, Tianxia also contains two other
important meanings that are not just descriptive, but normative: (1) Tianxia as “all the
people,” and (2) Tianxia as the “world institution.” (Zhao 2005, cited in Callahan 2008). As
“All the People”, Tianxia is used convey that “China’s magnanimous thought does not reject
‘the Other’ (Zhao 2005, cited in Callahan 2008). While the West divides the world according
to differences of race, “Chinese thought unites it according to an ethical logic that is cultural”
(Callahan 2008). The goal of the Tianxia system is “transformation” (hua) that changes the
self and the Other. It normatively orders ‘chaos’ by “transforming the ‘many’ into ‘the
one’”(Zhao 2005). Defining Tianxia system as a “World Institution”, Zhao argues that the
“alternative world order needs to be established and maintained through a world institution”
(Zhao 2005). As Tianxia refers to “the greatest order”, its structure as the world institution
has “fundamental legitimacy” (Zhao 2005). Outlining the limitations of the European Union
and the United Nations, Zhao argues that “they are limited by a worldview that is based on
nation-states” (Callahan 2008). Thus, while the West organizes political life in terms of the
“levels of individual, community and nation-state,” the Chinese political thought looks to the
levels of “Tianxia, state, and family.” While the Western world prioritizes the individual and
works in terms of the nation-state, the Tianxia system starts at the largest level, i.e., Tianxia
(Callahan 2008; Zhao 2005).
The Tianxia system rests on the premise that World unity would leads to world peace
and world harmony. China’s ethical system of domestic and international order was
destroyed by the violent tendencies of selfish Western nation-states that operate in the
Westphalian world system. The Tianxia system is provided as a potential solution to the
world’s problems. This vision of world order, based on the tributary system and known as
Pax Sinica, conveys the alternate vision of order that is hierarchical and thereby challenges
98 | P a g e

the anarchical presumption held by the western scholars.

Another idea related to Chinese conceptualization of the International is that of Guanxi.
Guanxi literally means “connection across barriers”. According to this idea, “the complex
pattern of global life resonate with relationality and dynamism, rather than the static and
spatial arrangement implicit in the self-other/ centre-periphery models” (Kavalski 2018). This
relational framework is in opposition to a rule-based framework. It provides a “context for
action” where goals can be achieved by “active, committed, and responsible involvement” in
global affairs (Kavalski 2018).
6.5 HOMEGROWN THEORIZING IN IR
A recent interest has emerged in the discipline of IR to use “homegrown theorizing” which is
an effort towards bringing out the “original theorizing in the periphery about the periphery”
(Aydinli and Biltekin 2018). Aydinli and Biltekin (2018) have provided a typological
framework of homegrown theorizing. They have divided homegrown theorizing into three
groups: referential, alterative and authentic. This grouping in done depending upon the point
of refence, the possibility to provide contextual transformation, and potential to conceptual
originality respectively. Aydinli and Biltekin (2018) argue that most of the existing reviews
of theorizing outside of the core rely either on “geo-cultural categorizations, such as Chinese
or Japanese international relations theory” or independent theorizing in a specific country.
These geo-cultural categorizations are inadequate in identifying the most valuable efforts to
theorize IR that originate outside the Europe or the US.
6.6 CONCLUSION
The discipline of International Relations is dominated by the West. In this regard, the
problems inherent in Eurocentrism and the alternate reading of International Relations has
been provided. Among other ideas, the alternate conceptualizations of sovereignty, order and
state indicate the possibility and desirability of looking beyond the Eurocentric
conceptualizations. There is, however, need for little caution. There are two points of
concern. First, when one tends to argue that theory needs to be context specific, it is blamed
as being nativist or local. Second, when it is argues that an alternate theory can be applicable
everywhere, it ends up facing the same challenge that existing universal and ‘grand theories’
face. It is, therefore, necessary to take into account various alternate perspectives in order to
provide a more complete picture of the domain of the international. Interventions from the
Global South suggest that it is indeed possible to imagine a more inclusive and sensitive
theorization.
99 | P a g e

1. What is the most influential contribution for establishing constructivism’s theoretical

foundation in IR.
2. Which background factors sponsor the rise of constructivism?
3. How did constructivism offer new insight into the study of international relations.
6.8 REFERENCES
• Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan (2007), “Why is there no non-Western

international relations theory? An introduction”, International Relations of the Asia-
Pacific, Volume 7, pp. 287–312.
• Aydinli, Ersel and Gonca Biltekin (2018), “Introduction: Widening the World of IR”
and “A Typology of Homegrown Theorizing”, in Ersel Aydinli and Gonca Biltekin
(eds.) Widening the World of International Relations: Homegrown Theorizing, Oxon
& New York: Routledge.
• Bajpai, Kanti (2003), “Indian Conceptions of Order and Justice: Nehruvian,
Gandhian, Hindutva and Neo-Liberal,” in Rosemary Foot, John Gaddis and Andrew
Hurrel (eds.) Order and Justice in International Relations. New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 236-261.
• Behera, Navnita Chadha (2020), “State and Sovereignty”, in Arlene B. Tickner and
Karen Smith (eds.) International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of
Difference, Oxon and New York: Routledge.
• Brown, William (2006), “Africa and international relations: a comment on IR theory,
anarchy and statehood”, Review of International Studies, 32 (1): 119-143.
• Calkivik, Asli (2020), “Foreign policy”, in Arlene B. Tickner and Karen Smith (eds.)
International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of Difference, Oxon and New
York: Routledge.
• Callahan, William A. (2008), “Chinese Visions of World Order: Post-hegemonic or a
New Hegemony?” International Studies Review, 10: 749–761.
• Cardoso, Fernando Henhrique and Enzo Faletto (1979), Dependency and
Development in Latin America (Translated by Marjory Mattinglly Urquidi), Berkeley:
University of California Press.
100 | P a g e

• Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2000), Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and

Historical Difference, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Dados, Nour and Raewyn Connell (2012), “The Global South,” Contexts, 11 (1): 12–
13.
• Davis, Alexander E., Vineet Thakur and Peter Vale (2020), The Imperial Discipline:
Race and the Founding of International Relations, London: Pluto Press, 2020.
• Doty, Roxanne (1996), Imperial Encounters: The Politics of North-South Relations,
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Dunn, Kevin (2001), “The (Blank) African State: Rethinking the Sovereign State in
International Relations Theory”, in Kevin Dunn and Timothy Shaw (eds.) Africa’s
Challenge to International Relations, Houndsmills: Palgrave.
• Frank, Andre Gunder (1966), “The Development of Underdevelopment”, Monthly
Review, 18 (4).
• Hobson, John M. (2012), The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western
International Theory, 1760-2010, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hobson, John M. (2020), “Globalization”, in Arlene B. Tickner and Karen Smith
(eds.) International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of Difference, Oxon and
New York: Routledge.
• Kavalski, Emilian (2018), “Chinese concepts and relational international politics", in
Ersel Aydinli and Gonca Biltekin (eds.) Widening the World of International
Relations: Homegrown Theorizing, Oxon & New York: Routledge.
• Martinussen, John (1997), Society, State and Market: A guide to competing theories
of development, London: Zed Books Ltd.
• Ngcoya, Mvuselelo (2009), “Ubuntu: Globalization, Accommodation, and
Contestation in South Africa,” PhD Dissertation, Washington DC: American
University.
• Niang, Amy (2018) The Post-Colonial State in Transition: Stateness and Modes of
Sovereignty, New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Sarkar, Benoy Kumar (1919), “Hindu Theory of International Relations”, American
Political Science Review 13 (3): 400–414.
101 | P a g e

• Smith, Karen (2020), “Order, ordering and disorder”, in Arlene B. Tickner and Karen
Smith (eds.) International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of Difference,
Oxon and New York: Routledge.
• So, Alvin Y. (1990), Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency
and World System Theories, London: Sage Publications.
• Zhao, Tingyang (2005), Tianxia Tixi: Shijie Zhidu Zhexue Daolun [The Tianxia
system: A Philosophy for the World Institution]. Nanjing: Jiangsu Jiaoyu Chubanshe.
102 | P a g e

Unit-III
CONCEPTS
(a) Power, (b) Sovereignty, (c) Empire, (d) International Order
Dr. Deepak Yadav
STRUCTURE

1.2 Introduction: Power
1.3 Types of Power: ‘Hard’ and ‘Soft’ Power
1.4 Introduction: Sovereignty
1.5 Challenges to the Sovereignty
1.6 Introduction: Empire
1.7 Empires and Nation States
1.8 International Order
1.9 Conclusion
1.11 References
• In this unit student can learn Power and Types of Power in International Relations.
• Sovereignty in International Relations and Challenges.
• Empire and Nation States.
• International Order.
1.2 INTRODUCTION: POWER
In the study of international relations, the concept of power has long been considered to be of
the utmost importance and entire theory of international relations has been centered on it,
particularly the realist school of thought. In order to characterize the study of international
103 | P a g e

politics, Hans Morgenthau (1979) used interests that were defined in terms of power.
According to Kenneth Waltz (1979), the main factor in deciding the make-up of an
international system was the allocation of power. Power is the unit of exchange in great-
power politics, according to John Mearsheimer (2001).
However, power is crucial for all IR theories; it is not just important for realist
academics. Power is too crucial a concept to be left to realists, as Stefano Guzzini (2005) has
highlighted. Whether explicit or implicit, the core idea of power exists in all main IR theories.
Liberals view power in terms of trade, or “soft power,” while Marxists view it in terms of
“production forces and capital,” constructivists view it in terms of “norms,” and post-
structuralists view it in terms of “discourses.” At least, this is how the standard and somewhat
stereotypical accounts of these approaches would have it. Some important definitions of
power are as follow-
Max Weber: “The Power is a special ability in a factor (person or group) due to having a
situation in social relations that can carry out its wishes, despite the presence of resistance
and independent of depending on fundamentals for this special ability.”
Lasswell: “The key to having power is being involved in the decision-making process and in
interpersonal relationships.”
Morgenthau: ‘The definition of political power emphasizes the existence of control over
interpersonal relationships between general power and the general public (another definition
from this author is that power is the ability of a person to influence another person's thoughts
and actions).”
1.3 TYPES OF POWER: ‘HARD’ AND ‘SOFT’ POWER
Hard power can be defined as the use (or threat of use) of force through the use of military or
economic resources. It is also based on observable resources, such the size of a state's
military or nuclear arsenal. However, soft power is the capacity to appeal to or persuade. It is
based on immaterial elements such as culture and ideology, in contrast to hard force.
i) Hard Power:
A more traditional understanding of power politics is hard power. Utilizing military and
economic might to influence the actions of other international actors is known as “hard
power.” Hard power, as the name implies, is the use of force to persuade other agents to
behave in a certain way. Hard power is the capacity to use “carrots and sticks” to persuade
104 | P a g e

people to comply with demands. The latter is a serious and potent existential threat, whereas
the former consists of financial inducements.
The foundation of the realism viewpoint is made up of presumptions that favour
discussions of brute force. Realists argue that a nation's ability to persuade others to act in a
way that serves their unique interests comes from its actual resources. States can only
guarantee their survival by using some kind of military deterrence. Additionally, they must
establish coercive partnerships with other people. States must adhere to the proverb “if you
desire peace, prepare for war” under an anarchic system. Given the popularity of the realist
viewpoint, it would seem logical to infer that the majority of us view hard power as the
current definition of what “power” involves.
ii) Soft Power:
According to American political scientist Joseph Nye Jr., “soft power” is a “power of
attraction through culture, political ideas, and policies rather than coercion” that military hard
power demonstrates.The ability to influence other countries by persuasion and appeal rather
than coercion or force is known as soft power. Science, art, and culture are essential to soft
power. Education diplomacy, science diplomacy, public diplomacy, and digital diplomacy are
a few of the diplomatic strategies used to develop soft power.
This is the ability to impose compulsion by threats and inducements (known as
“sticks” and “carrots”). The ability to influence others to want your desired outcomes is
known as soft power, and it is more specifically described as “the capability to obtain goals
through seduction rather than force” (Nye, 2017). The 'balance of hard and soft power' is how
Nye defines smart power (Nye, 2005). He argues that soft power is even more important in
international politics than hard force because it has less risk and more gains.
Joseph Nye argues that soft power is even more important in international politics
than hard military power. In actuality, soft power use charm and persuasion to sway
behaviour without rivalry or conflict. Soft power might be regarded as “free” in the sense that
it doesn't require large resources and has little consequences in the event of failure, whereas
using hard power today would be more expensive (both economically and politically). In
addition, he highlights the importance of style, arguing that since seduction is a crucial
element of soft power, behaviours like arrogance may work against you rather than for you.
Finally, Nye acknowledges that not all applications of soft power are positive. For example
propaganda is the tactic which goes against the basic spirit of soft power politics.
The liberal tradition of international relations has strong ties to the concept of soft
power. Soft power places a greater emphasis on the promise of collaboration and cooperation
105 | P a g e

among members over the enduring possibility of war and the influence of ideas over military
force in comparison to hard power, which is more strongly associated with the realist school
of thinking. Realist school of thought talks about nation states define their interest in terms of
power. More specifically, the three issues with war that liberal school of thought advocate
solving are pertinent to soft power.
First of all, liberal schools are adamant that democracies won't wage war on other
democracies. In a democracy, the people have the power to impose peaceful goals and
influence how the country is managed. Therefore, democracies are more likely to employ soft
power than brute force. A democratic state will continue to have soft power despite
challenges, according to Nye.
The second strategy liberals employ to address the question of war is economic
interdependence. This approach would be more in line with hard power than soft power
because it seems more like coercion than seduction when it compels nations to work together.
In that a state with abundant economic resources is likely to exert more pressure on and
change the conduct of other states that are less wealthy economically. However, Nye's
writings agree that economic resources can offer both soft and physical power. They can be
used for both attraction and coercion. Since others will be inspired by a free trade economy,
soft power will be produced. A successful liberal economy can encourage other countries to
seek to adopt it as a model.
The Third solution to the problem of war put out by liberals involves international
institutions. They promote harmonious relations by encouraging cooperation through shared
laws and standards. Neo liberalism, which views institutions as a way to mitigate the
disadvantages of anarchy, bases much of its thinking on this premise. Robert Keohane, who
concurs with this logic, asserts that once a system of networks, norms, and institutions has
been established, it will be challenging to eliminate or fundamentally rearrange. Nye asserts
this while simultaneously pointing out how difficult it is to foster cooperation among the
nation states without some incentives (Keohane and Nye, 1998).
1.4 INTRODUCTION: SOVEREIGNTY
In International Relations, sovereignty is the ultimate controlling force or authority over the
state's decision-making and the upkeep of law and order. One of the most divisive terms in
political science and International Relation, sovereignty is directly tied to the challenging
principles of state and government, independence, and democracy. The term sovereignty
which comes from the Latin word “superanus”, originally meant “ultimate power.”
106 | P a g e

The main guiding element of current inter-state relations is the doctrine of

sovereignty. It is founded on the principles of reciprocal political independence recognition,
peaceful coexistence, formal equality in inter personal relationships, and the commensurate
non-interference in the internal affairs of other States. It is sovereignty that imparts on a State
recognition by other States and allows a State the right to relate with other countries on equal
footing irrespective of size. A State's ability to establish diplomatic and commercial ties with
other States is granted by its sovereignty.
The Westphalia Peace Treaty (1648) established three fundamental elements that
make up a modern state as we know it today: territory, population, and sovereignty. The shift
from feudalism to nationalism was facilitated in 16th-century France by Jean Bodin (1530–
96), who exploited the new idea of sovereignty to increase the power of the French king over
the insurgent feudal lords. The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who held
that in every true state, one person or group of people must have the supreme and absolute
authority to declare the law, was the thinker most responsible for giving the phrase its
contemporary meaning. He claimed that to divide this authority was essentially to destroy the
unity of the state. The theories of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) and
English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) said that the state is based on a formal or
informal compact of its citizens, a social contract through which they entrust a government
with whatever powers may be required for the common good, led to the development of the
doctrine of popular sovereignty that was expressed in the American Declaration of
Independence in 1776. The French constitution of 1791, which stated that “Sovereignty is
one, indivisible, unalienable, and imprescriptibly; it belongs to the Nation; no group can
assign sovereignty to itself, nor can an individual arrogate it to himself,” added another twist
to this idea.
By examining who exercises sovereignty in the name of the people or the state in the
19th century, English jurist John Austin (1790–1859) further expanded the idea and came to
the conclusion that sovereignty is held by a country's parliament. A parliament, he contended,
is a supreme assembly that enacts laws that are binding on everyone else but that is not
binding on themselves and could be changed at will. But only a specific form of government,
like the one that ruled Great Britain in the 19th century, fulfilled this definition.
1.5 CHALLENGES TO THE SOVEREIGNTY
The idea of unrestricted, total sovereignty did not hold sway for very long, either nationally
or internationally in the era of globalizing world. The rise of democracy placed significant
restrictions on the authority of the monarchy and the ruling classes. The notion that might is
107 | P a g e

right in international affairs was constrained by the growing interdependence of states. The
widespread consensus among citizens and policymakers is that there cannot be peace without
law and that there cannot be law without some restrictions on sovereign power. Thus,
organizations like the United Nations (UN), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),
ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations),World Trade Organization (WTO), and
the European Union (EU) etc.began to combine their sovereignties to the extent necessary to
preserve peace and prosperity, and national governments as well as regional and international
organizations progressively asserted sovereignty on behalf of the peoples of the world. The
idea of divided sovereignty, which was initially developed in federal states, began to apply in
the global setting as a result.
Nation-states are facing existential threats from various sources yet they won't vanish;
instead, they'll coexist with more powerful non-sovereign entities than ever before, including
businesses, NGOs, terrorist organizations, drug cartels, regional and international
institutions, banks, and private equity firms. The strong and accelerating flow of people,
ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, cash, viruses, e-mails, and weapons within and beyond
borders will be detrimental to sovereignty. One of the cornerstones of sovereignty is being
able to control what crosses borders, yet all this traffic puts that to the test. Sovereign
governments will increasingly gauge their vulnerability to forces of globalization outside of
their control rather than to one another.
All of this carries with it the implication that sovereignty is not absolute but rather
contingent or even contractual. A state loses the advantages of sovereignty if it supports
terrorism, creates WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destructions) or commits genocide. It also
leaves itself vulnerable to invasion and occupation. Gaining popular acceptance for guiding
principles of state behaviour and a process for deciding how to respond when these guiding
principles are broken will be the diplomatic challenge. States will also willingly choose to
shed some of their sovereignty. This trend is well under way, most clearly in the trade realm.
Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World Trade Organization because, on
balance, they benefit from a rules-based international trading order, even if a particular ruling
impinges on their right to protect national industries. Global climate change is also prompting
limits on sovereignty. The Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, requires signatories to
cap greenhouse gas emissions. One can imagine an even more ambitious accord in which a
larger number of governments, including the United States, China, and India, would accept
stricter limits based on a recognition that they would be worse off if no country accepted such
restraints.
108 | P a g e

Nation States will voluntarily decide to cede some of their authority. This trend is
widely established, and it is particularly obvious in the trade sector. Governments consent to
abide with the World Trade Organization's decisions because, overall, they gain from a
system of international trade that is governed by rules, even if a single decision interferes
with their ability to defend domestic businesses. There are now restrictions on sovereignty
due to global climate change. A cap on greenhouse gas emissions is mandated by the Kyoto
Protocol, which is in effect through 2012. It is possible to envision a more ambitious
agreement in which a greater number of countries, such as those of the United States, China,
and India, would consent to stronger restrictions on the grounds that no country would benefit
from the absence of such restrictions.
1.6 INTRODUCTION: EMPIRE
An empire is a type of political entity that consists of numerous nations and regions, “often
formed by conquest, and divided into a dominant centre and submissive peripheries.”(Howe,
2002). The imperial capital, often known as the metro pole, has political sway over the
outlying regions. Various populations are regulated and have different sets of rights within an
empire. According to a strict definition, an empire is a sovereign state with an emperor as its
head of state; however, not all states with a combined territory under the control of supreme
authorities are referred to as empires or ruled by emperors, and not all self-described empires
have been recognized as such by historians and contemporaries (the Central African Empire,
and some Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in early England being examples).
According to Stephen Peter Rosen, an empire is a political force that influences other
countries in order to manipulate or control their exterior behaviour and to guarantee that the
internal behaviour of the subordinate states conforms to at least certain minimal standards.
According to Rosen, the establishment and upkeep of a hierarchical interstate order in which
the empire occupies the top position and establishes and upholds the fundamental laws
without being subject to them itself is the basic function of an empire. In order to prevent the
emergence of peer competitors, it is absolutely essential to secure the monopoly on the use of
organized military force in perpetuity.(Rosen,2003). Additionally, an empire must ensure the
security and stability of the many constituent components, such as client states, and provide
some kind of “revenue” to pay for the expenses associated with maintaining the empire. The
elites of the non-imperial countries must ultimately be tied to the imperial centre.
Herfried Münkler considered how an empire treated other political entities to be the
most important factor in determining its identity. He contends that states are meant to have
reciprocal relationships with one another and to acknowledge, at least in theory, the
109 | P a g e

sovereignty of other states. Fighting conflicts occasionally with other governments does not
preclude widespread acceptance of this fundamental justification. The contrary is true of
empires; they only acknowledge their own sovereignty and accept no equals, which leads to
their propensity for unilateralism. According to Munkler, empires must meet several criteria
in order to endure. They must integrate their area under imperial control economically,
culturally, and administratively.(Munkler,2003).
There have been “brutal and comparatively peaceful, centralized and decentralized,
ancient and modern” Empires. An important distinction has been made between land empires
founded by sea power, which include territories that are extremely remote from the empire's
“home” country, such as the Carthaginian Empire and British Empire, and those created by
land power, which include only contiguous territories, like the Austro-Hungarian Empire or
the Russian Empire (Burbank.2010). The idea of an empire is linked to other ideas like
imperialism, colonialism, and globalization. Imperialism, on the other hand, refers to the
establishment and maintenance of unfair relationships between states, not necessarily the
actions of a state with an emperor or empress as its leader. Empire is a word that is frequently
used to express opposition to situations that are too powerful (Reus,2013).
1.7 EMPIRES AND NATION STATES
Empires are distinguished from nation-states by scholars. There is a hierarchy in an empire

where one group of people—typically the metro pole—has authority over other groups of
people as well as a hierarchy of privileges and status for various groups of people. Josep
Colomer made the following distinction between empires and nation-states:
i) States were far smaller than empires.
ii) Empires lacked permanent or definite borders, whereas states had them.
iii) A state possessed “supreme power over a territory and population,” whereas an
empire had a “compound of varied groups and territorial units with asymmetric links
with the centre.”
iv) While a state seeks monopoly and uniformity, empires had multi-level, overlapping
jurisdictions. (Colomer, 2017).
Although they frequently started as strong monarchy, empires began as several types of
nations. Over time, opinions on empires have evolved, ranging from widespread support to
unanimous disapproval. Empires are composed of separate, diversified, ethnically, nationally,
culturally, and religiously diverse components and they suggest that there is at least some
110 | P a g e

disparity between the rulers and the ruled. If there was no inequality, the system would be
seen as a commonwealth. Throughout history, the major world powers have often tried to
attack other countries. Imperialism is the idea that a powerful nation will rule over a different
area with the intention of using the people and resources there to benefit its own nation in any
way possible.
Imperialism is the notion that a major power will govern another country or region
with the goal of using the locals and their resources to aid the home country in any manner
feasible. Although many empires were founded through military conquest, uniting the
defeated kingdoms into a political union, imperial hegemony can also be achieved through
other means. The Roman Empire, the British Empire, and the Athens Empire all rose to
power at least in part through popular vote. After breaking away from the Portuguese Empire
in 1822, the Empire of Brazil proclaimed itself to be an empire. While maintaining an
overseas empire, France changed its name twice, going from the French Republic to the
French Empire (Burbank and Cooper, 2010).
A territorial empire can be founded and maintained through direct conquest and
control by force, or a coercive, hegemonic empire can be established and maintained through
indirect conquest and control by power. The former strategy restricts further growth by
integrating armed forces into existing garrisons, but it also provides more direct political
control and higher tribute. The latter strategy offers less indirect control and tribute but makes
military forces available for future growth. Territorial empires, like the Byzantine and
Macedonian empires, typically cover a large region. The term has occasionally been used to
refer to maritime republics or thalassocracies (such as the Athenian and British empires) with
looser organizational systems and more dispersed domains, frequently made up of numerous
islands and other types of possessions that required the establishment and upkeep of a robust
navy. Electing the emperor with the support of the member countries through the Imperial
election helped empires like the Holy Roman Empire unite.
1.8 INTERNATIONAL ORDER
An international order, according to Michael Barnett, consists of “patterns of relating and

acting” that are generated from and upheld by laws, institutions, conventions, and rules.
International agreements include both a social and a material aspect. Political orders cannot
function without legitimacy, which is the widespread belief that a course of action is
desirable, correct, or acceptable. An international order, according to George Lawson, is
“regularized transaction practices among discrete political units that acknowledge each other
as independent.” An international order, according to John Mearsheimer, is “an organized
111 | P a g e

networks of international institutions that assist regulate the interactions between the member
nations.” A political order is described as “the governing arrangements among a set of states,
including its core rules, values, and institutions” by John Ikenberry in After Victory (2001).
Realist views are well-known for betting on coercion and pointing to hegemony and
the balance of power as the primary forces behind order. The English School and
institutionalism acknowledge a mix of compulsion and consent. As their name implies,
institutionalists believe that governments can create institutions that lead to equilibrium.
These institutions are voluntary agreements made by sensible actors. In other words, it is
assumed that actors have the freedom to accept or reject the contracts and social structures.
But after they've signed the agreement, its provisions are binding on them. However,
contracts need safeguards to guarantee adherence. To that end, states establish organizations
with a range of responsibilities in an effort to promote compliance and foster long-term
collaboration. Institutions frequently use information to encourage cooperation, while
occasionally they also use coercive measures. A similar blend of consent and force is offered
by the English School, which maintains that nations with similar security concerns will create
an international community governed by institutions and laws like sovereignty, diplomacy,
the balance of power, and even war.
Since the late 1940s, a system of rules-based, structured interactions based on political
liberalism, economic liberalism, and liberal internationalism has been known as the liberal
international order. It is more specifically defined by human equality (freedom, rule of law,
and human rights), open markets, security cooperation, promoting liberal democracies, and
monetary cooperation and involves international cooperation through multilateral institutions
(like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund). After
World War II, the order was founded, with the United States playing a major role.
Scholars have disagreed about the liberal international order's (LIO) nature and very
existence. Free trade expansion, increased capital mobility, the spread of democracy, the
advancement of human rights, and collective defense of the West against the Soviet Union
have all been attributed to the LIO. Unprecedented cooperation between the nations of North
America, Western Europe, and Japan was made possible by the LIO. Over time, the LIO
promoted the expansion of economic liberalism around the world and supported the
consolidation of democracy in nations that had previously been fascist or communist. The
1940s, often beginning in 1945, have frequently been cited as the LIO's historical genesis.
John Mearsheimer disagrees with this theory and claims that the LIO didn't exist before the
Cold War ended.
The outcome of the Versailles Peace Conference after World War I was the most
112 | P a g e

well-known global order strategy of the twentieth century. A League of Nations that would
be accessible to all nations and capable of enforcing peace was proposed as the solution to
world peace by President Woodrow Wilson, whose 14 Points outlined what he believed to be
the causes of the war and what he saw as the steps necessary to prevent such a war from
occurring again. A council made up of representatives of the five great powers—France,
England, Italy, Japan, and the United States—added by representatives of four other countries
existed at the highest level of the organization, which was egalitarian at the General
Assembly level where each member state had one vote. Wilson's attempts to establish a
global order were thwarted by the national interests of the various parties involved, the U.S.
Senate's unwillingness to approve the United States' membership in the League, and the
League's rejection to admit Germany and Russia. As a result, three of the most powerful
nations in the world were not included in the League of Nations' planned orderly global
network.
The post-World War II efforts to establish international order were conducted in an
effort to avoid the issues that came with the post-World War I settlement. To preserve the
unity of the nations that had won the war, the UN was formally constituted in October 1945.
Similar to the League of Nations, the United Nations had two houses: the General Assembly,
where each member country had one vote, and the Security Council, which had six
members—five elected by the General Assembly and five permanent members. From the
UN's initial 51 members to more than 160 in 2003, membership rose quickly. Some believed
that the UN would pave the way for a global government that would uphold world order, but
a number of factors conspired to prevent this, chief among them the split of the world into the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact, two sizable political
blocs. In turn, these two powerful military and political blocs not only engaged in open
conflict, but also fought for the support of the so-called Third World countries in Asia and
Africa. The conflict between the two major power blocs played a significant role in shaping
the world order in the decades following World War II.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 signaled the end of the world's separation into two
sizable blocs and sparked a lot of debate over what some referred to as a “New World Order.”
Politically speaking, this meant that Western liberal, capitalist democracies had won;
practically speaking, it meant that America was now unchallenged as the world's leading
power. The fall of the Berlin Wall, according to Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and
the Last Man (1992), marked the “end point of mankind's intellectual evolution,” with liberal
democracy surviving the toughest test it has ever faced. This theory implied, among other
things, that a stable, orderly world of nation-states along European lines would emerge when
all countries of the world accepted the liberal democratic and capitalistic way of life. Of
113 | P a g e

course, in actuality, none of this has taken place. Samuel Huntington has stated that conflict
in the twenty-first century will not be between nation-states but rather between cultural blocs
with various ideas of the international order, in contrast to the peaceful international system
that Fukuyama envisaged.
A number of developments pertinent to the emergence of a peaceful global order are
seen around the turn of the twenty-first century. The first of these is the United States'
undisputed position in international affairs. President George W. Bush stated that America
must uphold a world order free of terrorism and is prepared to act alone if necessary. The
United States was being referred to by its critics as an “empire,” with all the connotations that
term has with it. At some level, the European Union's growth is a reaction to American
hegemony, uniting the various European nations into one bloc that may have a substantial
impact on the global order.
There is also a growing focus on humanity as a global society bound by norms of
humanitarian conduct that are both universally relevant and enforceable. In some instances,
troops from member states operating under the UN flag implement UN rulings. However, in
other instances, parts of this development work independently from the UN. One example of
such effort to impose universal standards outside of the UN framework is the founding of an
International Criminal Court at The Hague in 1998. This court follows in the footsteps of the
war crimes tribunals held at Nuremberg and Tokyo at the close of World War II, dealing
instead with specific military and civilian leaders whose actions breached international
standards.
A legal and institutional framework that encompasses all people is currently being
pushed for as a way to ensure adherence to moral norms of conduct. This framework will
likely be somewhat hierarchical and will reflect the reality of political power. Although the
United Nations and the international legal system exist, the United States' authority and
leadership position are constrained. Furthermore, as UN texts on human rights have been
released, the sovereignty of states, a cornerstone of international law since the seventeenth
century, has been compromised. In these texts, the UN is tasked with standing up for the
rights of people when their governments violate those rights. Humanitarian intervention is
even permitted under UN auspices to shield people from their own governments.
1.9 CONCLUSION
In the last of this chapter we have seen if these diverse components of global governance will
come together to establish a formal, long-lasting framework that guarantees freedom and
114 | P a g e

order for all people. To summarize the debate we can conclude that current international
order is uni-polar with USA as its leader but rapid rise of China as a global power and
regional groupings like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), SCO (Shanghai
Cooperation Organization) etc. have shown that world is moving towards multipolar
international order in 21st Century.
1. Critically analyze the concept of Power in International Relations.

2. Define the concept of sovereignty and discus the contemporary challenges being
faced by it.
3. What do you understand by Empire? Are the Empires still relevant in 21st Century?
4. Define the idea of International Order. What type of International Order are we living
in the post-Cold War era?
1.11 REFERENCES
1. Howe, Stephan (2002), Empire: Avery Short Introduction, London, Oxford

University Press.
2. Reus-Smit, Christian (2013), “Individual Rights and Making of International
System” London, Cambridge University Press.
3. Burbank, Jane and Cooper Frederick (2010)” Empires in World History: Power
and Politics of Difference” Prinston, Prinston University Press.
4. Colomer, Joseph M. (2017), “Empire vs. States” London, Oxford University Press.
5. Rosen, Stephen Peter, “An Empire If You Can Keep It” in The National Interest,
Vol.71, No., Spring, 2003.
6. Munkler, Herfried, (2003) “ Das Prinzip Empire” Munich, DVA Press
7. Barnett, Michael (2021), “ International Progress, International Order and the
Liberal International Order” in The Chinese Journal of International
Politics,Vol.14, No.4.
8. Mearsheimer, John, J (2019), “Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal
International Order” in International Security, Vol. 43, No.4.
115 | P a g e

9. Nye, Joseph S. (2005), “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics” New
York, Public Affairs Press.
10. Nye, Joseph (2011), “The Future of Power” New York, Public Affairs Press.
11. Nye Joseph S. Jr. (2017), “Will the Liberal Order Survive? The History of an Idea,
Foreign Affairs, January.
12. Krasner, Stephen (1999), “Sovereignty: Disorganized Hypocrisy”, Princeton,
Princeton University Press.
13. Nye, Joseph S. (1990), “Soft Power” in Foreign Policy, No. 80, Twentieth
Anniversary (Autumn).
116 | P a g e

Unit-IV
EXPLORING THE FUTURE TRAJECTORIES
(a) Global IR, (b) A Relational Turn
Hema Kumari
STRUCTURE
1.1 Learning Objective

1.2 Introduction
1.3 Traditional Theories and how it Marginalizes the South
1.4 Dimensions of Global South
1.5 Global IR Agenda
1.6 Doing Global IR
1.7 Debates in Global IR
1.7.1 Pre-debate – American Social Science
1.7.2 The Conceptual-Normative Strand: Western-Centrism in IR
1.7.3 The Empirical Strand: Practicing IR beyond the West
1.8 Problematizing Global IR
1.9 Doing Relational Studies for the Global IR
1.10 Conclusion
1.12 References
• To learn what is global IR, why it is important to do global IR, and How to global IR?
• To learn that there is no one way of understanding IR and to be able to question the
universal idea of western understanding of IR.
117 | P a g e

1.2 INTRODUCTION
International relations (IR) is the study of the interaction between nation-states and non-
governmental organizations in a wide spectrum of fields such as politics, economics, war, and
security. The disciple talks about war and peace and has a broad purpose in contemporary
society. IR as a disciple supposedly began in West the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. The
present IR is majorly representative of the West. The West dominates the norms and theories
of IR, The field of IR gave little attention to the rest which is the non-western world. The
non-western world was the colonized world, the passive- subjects, the recipients of what the
superior west has taught them. The non-western even after having rich cultural and
civilizational interactions doesn’t yet is an active collaborator to the discipline. The theories
of IR (Realism and Liberalism) were born out of western history, culture, and economic
system. Thus, ill fit for explaining the phenomenon in the global south.
The Global IR is the answer to the dominance of the West in the discipline; it bridges
the gap, and challenges the traditional IR’s neglect and marginalization of the voices and
experiences of the non-western world, or the Global South (Acharya 2017). It claims for
pedagogic change in IR and inclusion of the voices of the global south. The purpose of global
IR is to the broadening of the discipline, and transforms it to capture the relations of states
and societies in the global south. Stanley Hoffman says that traditional IR can be described as
American Social Science. Global IR challenges this notion and seeks to find the voices of
hitherto unrecognized thus making IR a truly inclusive discipline, knowing it’s multiple and
diverse foundations. “Global IR” transcends the divide between the West and the Rest and
looks beyond the Westphalia form. (Acharya 2014). It does not seek to displace the current
IR theoretical foundation but a call for the inclusion of the non-western perspective (Acharya
2017). Amitav Acharya (2014) says that the underdevelopment of the non-western IR is not
only because of the western intellectual neo-colonialism but much responsibility also lies
with scarce resources, political interference and the lack of Freedom of expression have also
inhibited IR as global.
Peter Katzenstein (2014) observes that rather than World War I and II, the main event
of the twentieth century may well have been decolonization but not many texts in IR deal
with the realities of colonization and decolonization (Acharya 2014). Acharya (2014) says
that to accomplish the true meaning of the global in IR, there needs to be a postcolonial
perceptive too. He asks three questions in terms of the marginalization of the global.
• The traditional theories of IR talk about Cold War as a “long peace”. But ignore the
conflicts outside Europe where millions of lives were lost.
118 | P a g e

• The traditional IR has also ignored the colonial wars in assessing war and peace in the
international system. Accommodating these aspects of conflict would challenge the
pacific nature of western liberal democracies.
• The traditional IR thinking has been shaped by Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and
Kant, but not Ashoka, Kautilya, Sun Tzu, Ibn Khaldun, Jawaharlal Nehru, Raul
Prebisch, Franz Fanon, and many others.
The IR is filled with examples of ethnocentrism and marginalization. IR’s dominant narrative
fails to fit the global distribution of its subjects. Learning centres, publications, and
discussions of IR are located in the West and thus pose a challenge for an all-inclusive IR.
1.3 TRADITIONAL THEORIES AND HOW IT MARGINALIZES

THE SOUTH
In 1966, Wight addressed the question of ‘why is there no international Theory’ (Buzan
2007). The non-western theories remain scattered, unsystematic, and invisible. The
contemporary meaning of good life today in the realm of international relations is the
parameters of democratic peace, interdependence, and integration, and institutionalized
orderliness is found mostly in the West and survival remains in the non-western realm
(Goldgeier and McFaul, 1992).
Acharya and Buzan (2007) say that West hegemony is also because of Gramscian
hegemony and ethnocentrism and the politics of exclusion. ‘Theory is always for someone
and some purpose’ as said by Robert cox (1981) specifies the parochialism in IR. The IR
theory analyses the western world events to curate theory till now. There have been efforts
from feminists, Marxists, and critical theorists but they hardly reached a stage to give a non-
western perspective. One of the major reasons for western dominance in IR is a resource and
the hegemonic status in publications and institutions of IR in the west (Acharya 2017). The
developing world IR academics and government have major concerns in policy-oriented
research rather than theoretical work. The western theories Western IRT has discovered the
right path to understanding IR and the global south lacks the confidence to take on western
theories (Acharya and Buzan 2007).
Western IR has unconsciously formed gramcsian hegemony in the minds of others
(Acharya 2017). The non-western theories are hidden due to the intended or unintended
barriers to entry to the Western discourses. Acharya claims that there is a lack of
receptiveness for non-western theories.
The textbook claims that IR began in the UK in 1999 with the first department and
119 | P a g e

professorship in international politics created in Aberystwyth, Wales but in practice, it started

after World War two which marked the rise of the powerful sovereign European nation-state
(Acharya 2017). The IR is seeing a rise of Pluralism but the parochialism of the West is
major because of two reasons, Positivism, and euro-centrism.
In International Theory: positivism and beyond (1966) it was concluded that IR is
dominated by positivism (Smith 1966). Positivism is committed to scientific, methods of
empirical observations and conducting operations.
It believes in the differentiation of facts and values (Eun 2016). The former theories
have majorly focused on material capabilities, economic interest, institutions, and state
identities which are quantifiable, observable, and had generality. Thus producing scientific
knowledge claims (ibid.). Positivism not only shapes theories but also defines what counts as
valid evidence and knowledge (Kurki 2022). In short, the intellectual monoculture is marked
by the hegemony of positivism.
Apart from positivism, Ethnocentrism is also one of the forms of exclusion in IR
theory. It is also one of the primary challenges for the emancipatory project, with which the
field has yet to fully come to terms (Acharya 1997). The priests of realism and liberalism are
the gatekeepers of IR theory. Vital concepts like national security are biased in favour of the
west. The idea does fit the non-western world. Thus, a lot is ignored or lost when these
theories are applied to the rest.
1.4 DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL IR
The project of global IR is imagined by scholars as non- western theories and some call for a
more radical form that is post western theories. Acharya (2014) says that Global IR is not the
complete renaming of the discipline and The IR till now can preserve as a heritage site.
Global IR is not a Theory but an aspiration for the greater inclusive and diverse disciple.
Acharya (2014, 2017) has talked about six dimensions of Global IR.
1. Global IR calls for a fresh understanding of universalism or universality. The
dominant meaning of the same is monistic Universalism which means “applying to
all.” Robert Cox says that the Enlightenment meaning of Universal is the same for all
time and space and thus we have a homogenous reality. The universal theories and
methods of I.R. marginalize the alternatives (Acharya 2011). We can see the world of
IR as a broad, overhanging canopy with numerous foundations thanks to pluralistic
universalism. This pluralistic universalism is one of the vital aims of the Global IR
2. Global IR should see history through a truly global lens and not just the cold War
120 | P a g e

and the first and second world wars. But this call for inclusion should not just be done
as an area study or case study reapplying the western norms. Rather Global I.R claims
to develop concepts in non-western contexts which can be applied not only locally but
globally too.
3. Global IR should subsume the existing IR knowledge rather than supplant it.
Theories like post-colonialism and feminism have been at the forefront to recognize
events, issues, agents, and interactions outside the West and to draw theoretical
insights from them to enrich the study of IR. Like constructivism opened up space for
culture and identity. Global IR challenges realism to look beyond the national interest
and distribution of power. It challenges Liberalism to question the American
Hegemony and look for contextualization and regionalism.
4. Global IR gives centre stage to regions, provides the acknowledgment of regional
diversity and agency. Regionalism today is less state-centric and encompasses an
ever-widening and dynamic. For example, regional organizations like the European
Union EU, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASEAN, and the African
Union AU complement the organizations like United Nations (UN) in peacekeeping
and humanitarian operations. The study of regions is not just about how regions self-
organize their economic, political, and cultural space but how they relate to the world
order with their peculiar knowledge. Regional studies open the gate for close
integration between disciplinary approaches and area studies. . Also, putting a regional
emphasis is essential to creating a strong connection between disciplinary perspectives
and area studies.
5. Global IR must abstain from cultural exceptionalism and parochialism.
Exceptionalism is the propensity to portray one's society, state, or civilization's traits as
uniform, singular, and superior to those of others (Acharya 2001). Exceptionalism
often justifies the domination of powerful states over the fragile state like American
exceptionalism. Thus, Global IR claims for a wide development of different national
and regional schools of IR with more identity-based knowledge for border
understanding.
6. Finally, Global IR takes a broad conception of multiple forms of agency. Agencies
in International relations are seen as the standard of civilization. They were majorly in
compliance with the European power and ignored the south. The project offers a
broader view of agencies beyond military power and wealth. The agency is not a
privilege of the powerful; rather, it can take the form of a weapon used by the weak to
bolster the international system.
121 | P a g e

For instance, Jawaharlal Nehru of India was the first to advocate for a ban on nuclear testing.
Within the framework of the Organization of African Unity, which was eventually succeeded
by the African Union in 2000, African nations created both legal and informal regulations to
retain their postcolonial borders in the 1960s. African political figures like Nelson Mandela,
diplomats like Francis Deng, a Sudanese, and Mohamed Sahnoun, an Algerian, as well as the
former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, all played a significant part in the development of
the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) rule.
Amartya Sen of India and Mahbub ul Haq of Pakistan took on the traditional Western
model of development, which emphasizes national economic strength and GDP growth rates
(GDP). They proposed a more expansive and alternative concept of human development,
which emphasizes improving people's potential through primary education and health.
Utilizing this more expansive agency paradigm, global IR prioritizes the voices and agency of
the South, as well as the South's perspectives on the global order and the shifting dynamics of
North-South interactions.
1.5 GLOBAL IR AGENDA
The core of the 2015 ISA in New Orleans convention decided on what should be the Global
IR agenda in terms of what should the global IR look for. Acharya (2007. 2001) has forces
them base on the dimensions of the Global IR. These are broad umbrella, open to
contestation, interpretation, elaboration, and extension (Acharya 2014). These themes are.
1. Examine fresh trends, hypotheses, and techniques from global histories.
2. Examine how the distribution of power and ideas has changed after more than 200
years of Western supremacy.
3. Examine regional worlds in all of their diversity and connectivity.
4. Work on topics and techniques that demand a thorough and substantive fusion of
disciplinary and area studies knowledge.
5. Consider the exchange of concepts and standards at the international and local levels.
6. Look into the idea of reciprocal learning across civilizations, which have more
historical support than the idea of a "clash of civilizations."
By these dimensions Acharya calls for the globalization of IR itself. He says that he wants the
conversation going on for the Global IR. K.M. Fierke and Vivienne Jabri (2019) say that
Global IR wish to do provincialization of the Eurocentric discipline. They propound that
global conversations is way to do Global IR and this is a process.
122 | P a g e

1.6 DOING GLOBAL IR
Acharya and Buzan have tried to do non-western IR through Asian IR in an attempt to do

Global IR. They claim that Asia has we have some contributors who almost fit the Western
criteria. They identify four major types of work that could be done and call it a soft theory.
The first is theorist focused where we can find the parallels of Thucydides, Hobbes,
Machiavelli, and Kant in the Asian classical tradition too like Sun Tzu, Confucius, and
Kautilya, have literature religious, political, and military figures (Acharya and Buzan 2007).
Many scholars have tried to recover the non-western narratives of the state, sovereignty,
world, order, and justice.
Karnad (2000) talks about the ‘East Asian Miracle’ in the 1980s and early 1990s
where the thought and ideas of Confucius were cited as Asian values as an alternative to
western liberal values.
Benoy Kumar Sarkar (1919) talk about sovereignty and balance of power concerning
Kautilya, who was also known as one of the world’s first realist. Sarkar suggests the same by
analyzing the mandala's doctrine. (Sarkar 1919). The essence of sovereignty is also found in
the Vedic texts where Aiterya Brahman tells that monarchy should be highest and should be
extending the natural boundaries (ibid).
While analyzing the Indian experiment of sovereignty, Navnita Chadda Behra (2020)
cites Kaviraj (2010). Kaviraj analyses manusmriti, Arthshastra, and the Mahabharata where
the danda and dharma were discussed and how the monarch practices sovereignty through
danda under the rule of law that dharma (Behera 2020).
The second way of doing Asian IR would be by reading and understating the foreign
policies of various political leaders. The first and foremost of that leader is Gandhi a pioneer
of colonial resistance. Gandhi put forward the idea of satyagraha or nonviolence which was
similar to western passive resistance (Acharya and Buzan 2007). The other leader Jawaharlal
Nehru is recognized not just as a thinker but also as a political strategist. His views were
influential in shaping the early foreign policy beliefs and methods of several of Asia’s fellow
nationalists (ibid). He also engaged with realist writings as in his famous book The Discovery
of India, where he the view of Nicholas Spykman’s position that ‘values of justice, fairness,
and tolerance’ could be pursued till they are interfering with the power objective’. The idea of
Walter Lippmann about post world war order to be only revving around the alliances was alas
questioned by Nehru. The major step that Nehru took to do a non-western way of IR was the
Non-Alignment Movement in the 1950s. Aung san suu kyi of Burma also represented a
123 | P a g e

liberal internationalist vision of international relations emphasizing interdependence and

multilateralism opposite to the military rule of Burma. (San 1946). Acharya and Buzan
thought that these studies have been done through an area specialist way and not by IR
scholars. The third way of doing non-western IR is that many Asian IR scholars have applied
the western theory to local contexts and assessed the relevance. Examples include Takashi
Inoguchi in Japan, Yongjin Zhang from China, AP Rana and Kanti Bajpai from India, Chung
in-Moon from Korea, Muthiah Alagappa from Malaysia (working in the USA), and Yongjin
Zhang from China (working in New Zealand) (Acharya and Buzan 2007).
For example, Muthiah Alagappa believes that we can test many theories on the Asian
ground but to contumacy ethnocentric bias’ (Alagappa 1998) but this will only make the
Western theories relevant. Although the global IR scholars don’t take a strong take on if this
is wrong or right. Amartya Sen in his book Argumentative India also talks about the roots of
democracy in India. He discusses how democracy was part of Indian practice and is not just
about the election but about civil discourse and the availability of different viewpoints and a
willingness to listen to them. Sen uses the argument of the Bhagwat Gita between Lord
Krishna and Arjuna here in the talk about the morality of war (Acharya 2011).
Another form of non-western IR is the dependency theory by Andre Gunder Frank
(1966) who developed the idea of why the third world can never follow the path of the west
because of the difference in the experience. Frank formulated the metropolis satellite model
to explain how the surplus is appropriated by the metropolis (Frank 1966). Similarly, Samir
Amin (1976) propounded the theory of center and periphery on similar lines but they only
explained the exploitation of the third world rather than adding the third world context to IR
(Buzan 2007). Similarly, a post-colonial knowledge only question the colonized marginalized
but does not add to the knowledge (ibid).
The global IR project call for a world safe for diversity leaving behind
marginalization, exclusion, and arrogance. Global IR should be vibrant, innovative, and
inclusive (Acharya and Buzan 2007). Acharya (2011) believes that the power structure
should be uncovered to understand the global heritage.
1.7 DEBATES AND CHALLENGES OF THE GLOBAL IR
To aspire to make IR global, we need to take it to the classrooms. We need to under the
epistemological dimensions of epitomic violence inherent in traditional IR. Textbooks of the
IR only talk about grad paradigms like realism liberalism, Marxism, and constructivism as
core curriculum. Students see IR with a western lens only. (Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar and
124 | P a g e

others 2022) suggests bringing the global IR debate into the classroom to sensitize students.
The global IR debate address (geo–epistemological) the blondeness of knowledge and its
production in the particular context of time and space that is west and epitomic violence (the
act of imposing western values on non-western).
These are the different Strands of the global IR debate.
1.7.1 Pre-debate – American Social Science.
The IR was called American social science by Stanley Hoffman; he explained that the
discipline materialized in the US after the Second World War driven by positivism and realist
theories. Turton claims that indeed majorly IR journals and editorial boards have US people
but in terms of context, it’s not US-centred (Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar 2022). Thus, we
see that we see American hegemony as we only analyse IR at the nation-state level. In this
perspective, to do Global IR we should identify factors that shape IR, and find out case
studies on Western alternatives to U.S. IR. The methodology for this should be critical
analysis, and empirical case studies based on the sociology of science. Hoffmann (1977),
Waver (1998), Friedrichs (2004), Kristensen (2015), Turton (2015) are a few scholars to
attempt this.
1.7.2 The Conceptual-Normative Strand: Western-Centrism in IR
We need more alternative concepts to uncover the Western dominance that are more sensitive
to social and political realities in the global South/East. While the authors of this strand
concur that an alternative IR is necessary,
These new alternatives sometimes fail to impact mainstream discourse as we have an
epistemological and ontological way of what this a theory. Consequently, Rather than
identifying alternative theories, the scholars have focussed on gatekeeping practices. The
overall dominance of the “Westphalia narrative” in IR places actors other than states (for
example indigenous peoples) or forms of international (non-)cooperation other than
intergovernmental institutions (e.g. transnational interaction among civil society actors) in
inferior places by announcing these as epiphenomena of international relations (Wiebke
Wemheuer-Vogelaar 2022).
The IR language is English, and the brain drain and socialization effects brought
about by researchers from outside the West seeking degrees in the West are also expressed in
English (Tickner 2013). These practices ratite the core and periphery at the intellectual level
too. The central aim of this strand should be what Western-centric about IR is and how to
overcome these biases and suggest alternative conceptualizations of the international. There
should be a critical deconstruction of the IR concepts. Inayatullah (2004), Bilgin (2008),
125 | P a g e

Tickner (2003), Tickner (2013), Hobson (2009, 2012), Chen (2012), Acharya (2014, 2016)
have tried to do this.
1.7.3 The empirical strand: practicing IR beyond the West
This strand focuses on how the IR is done beyond the west through various Case studies
partially paired with quantitative data analyses, including citation analysis. Aydinli and
Mathews (2000), Huang (2007), and Acharya and Buzan (2007) were some who attempted it.
Currently, the largest empirical endeavour on IR’s geo-epistemological dimensions is the
Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) project at the College of William&
Mary in the United States. TRIP has been analysing theoretical, methodological, and
epistemological diversity in IR journals since 2013 including journals from China, Japan, and
Latin America (Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar 2022).
These different debates around Global IR can help students of IR break the western
hegemonic socialization to understand IR. Thus, it will be a more inclusive and reflective
practice.
1.8 PROBLEMATIZING GLOBAL IR
IR has been criticized for taking a particular (Western) experience as the basis for framing
theories with assertion to universal validation. The Global IR has taken up the project for
including the different experiences, histories, and agencies (Witt 2020). Amitav Acharya,
with Global IR, wants to change ‘the way that we study, publish, and discuss IR’ with a ‘new
agenda for international studies’ (ibid). Felix Anderl and Antonio Witt (2020) claim that the
global IR right recognizes the western exclusionary practices but it has failed to problematize
the concept of global into it.
Anderl and Witt also talk about the precursors of Global IR namely non-western
studies, post western and postcolonial. The Non- western I.R was critical of the Eurocentrism
of the IR. They created home-grown theories to widen the world of International relations.
The post-western claimed that generalized concepts can be developed from anywhere in the
world and not just from the west. It explored the epistemological and local outlooks from
different parts of the world. The Post-colonial highlighted the violence within the
international structure thus exposing the power relations. They talk about how Global IR had
only partially utilized these critiques.
Acharya has also pointed out that one issue with doing global IR is that of “neo
marginalization” in IR scholarship. Neo marginalization occurs when attempts to diversity
result in further marginalization of the rest. For instance, the Feminist discourse highlights
126 | P a g e

the blunt patriarchy in the IR but it did go beyond the western understanding and again
marginalized the worn of the rest.
Anderl and Witt further explain that Global IR is commenting a big mistake when
they don’t question the long-established globalism. Globalism is a holistic or universal entity.
The global IR claims for Plural Universalism and despite calls for plurality and difference,
the Global IR still wants to be measured in singular proven universal validity. Thus,
excluding those who don’t want for in one entity? Global IR fails to provide a profound
criticism of the hitherto dominant forms of imagining and doing IR. Acharya idealizes the
one global canon as pluralistic Universalism seeks common ground. Andrel and Witt thus say
that there is a need to look beyond the historical meaning of global, the global is not only an
empirical and analytical value but has an ideological dimension as well. For example, the
global Justice movement repents the aspirations of the privileged world or eastern
philosophers like John Rawls. The global IR should problematize the globalism in it and do
reflex approaches to change what we study, publish, and discuss IR.
1.9 DOING RELATIONAL STUDIES FOR THE GLOBAL IR
A relational Turn
Global IR claims to make IR a plural discipline but the way of knowing/being/seeing/doing
things in IR within Global IR also claims a sense of globalism or universality without
questioning the ontology of the western IR. Contemporary IR looks at the discipline as a
‘one-world-world’ without looking at the pluriverse of time and space (Trownsell et. E 2022).
The conventional IR is producing ontological Parochialism thus the exclusion, domination,
and erasure of infinite possibilities. The theoretical orientations of IR like security, war,
peace, globalization, and state, and international organizations rest upon the assumptions of
the other. The ontological commitments of separations and fixed entities of autonomy are
rooted in IR. Epistemological and ontological pluralism can be done by Relational IR. It
moves beyond separate and fixed worlds and does not necessarily look for western validation
and universality. The relational form of IR shakes the orientations of how we know IR. The
relational forms are a breakthrough of the conventional ontology, epistemology, and methods
in not only how we know IR but also science, knowledge, and nature or society. Relational
IR is a claim for ontological decentring. This new generation of IR is less Eurocentric and
less uniformly scientific (Kurki 2022). Milja Kurki claims that we need a relational
revolution not only in social science but also in science. She tries to do this with relations
cosmology and comes up with three key interests:-
Pluriversality – This idea represents that the world doesn’t contain many voices in a single
127 | P a g e

world rather we can have multiple worlds and there is no metanarrative of IR.
Re-relating – While recognizing different worlds, the loosening of objectivity needs to be
there. This requires re-relating the world not from above but relational sensibility.
Human/non-human IR – The relational perspective calls for attentiveness towards the
human and no human to understand the complexity and to look beyond dichotomies.
In other words, Relational IR works in shifting the ontological commitments that we
take for granted and gets us beyond the re-production of patterns to forging new pathways for
doing IR and engaging difference and sameness differently (TAMARA A. TROWNSELL et.
el 2021). The contributions highlight the pluriversal character of self and other and dynamics
by drawing on distinct registers emerging out of longstanding non-Western cosmological
tradition. The core of this effort is a dedication to incorporating various relational approaches
to IR from various geo-cultural traditions to broaden the scope of potential conceptual
prospects and logics and to create a more complex set of instruments for more skilfully
interacting with complexity.
This allows us to move beyond anthropocentric understandings of how the world
works (TAMARA A. TROWNSELL et. El. 2021). Amaya Querejazu (2021) says that reality
exists in a binary system. Inayatullah and Balney (as cited in TAMARA A. TROWNSELL et
al 2021) claims that IR is also based on this logic and it reproduces the logic of elf and other
thus producing various subjectivities. This aspect of modern understanding has totalized
rationality. Racial and social discrimination are examples of this self/other binary. Relational
IR moves beyond the fixed identities to create a syncretic and hybrid world, it moves beyond
the binary and further produces multiple meanings pointing out that there is no problem of
difference.
Jarrad Reddekop (2021) in an attempt to relational study talks about an Amazonian
Quicha word runa which if translated means human but from the Quicha point of view it
means someone like us, a relative and it includes non-humans too. The western understanding
only sees the human as an individualist rational being without any relation to what precedes
thus omitting diverse understating. Following the notion of Runa, we that there are
possibilities to cut across the dominant ontologies.
Giorgio Shani (2021) also talks about how Sikhs in India are a dynamic relational
concept and their experiences cannot be understood through British regions categories that
were imposed on them. In the reading of the Sikhs in India, Shani claims that the ideas of
Universality, sovereignty, and secularism cannot be expanded in the global south. Kyoto
school in japan has been doing philosophical inquiry in otology influenced by Buddhism
(TAMARA A. TROWNSELL et al 2021). The school claims that relations theories can
128 | P a g e

provide another reading of the world. They promote the fluid and flexible language. Rather
than accepting binaries, relational studies should power relations of dichotomy are formed.
Behra (2021) claims that both the post-positivist theory and positivist theory are grounded in
Europe. She claims that teaching IR in south Asia has challenges because Indian history is
drastically different from European history. She does not make students fathom history as it
is but let them question why it is and makes students aware that the thinking vassals are not
singular but plural. Shani and Behra (2019) attempts to provincialize the secular cosmology
of traditional IR in which through the dharma where they the question the secular judeo-
christen basis and linear basis of the western theories and thus IR.
Tamara A. Trownsell et al. (2021) claim that the differences are the reason for civil
strife, war, racism, xenophobia, inequality, and other forms of violence and marginalization
which makes ontological flexibility vital. Becoming more flexible means adding to our
“methodological” toolbox for understanding and engaging the “Other,” not diminishing it.
1.10 CONCLUSION
The conventional IR is Eurocentric and dominant themes like state and sovereignty are based
on the experiences of the global north where there is no space for the rest. The rest is just the
experimental ground for the IR theories of intellectual neo-colonialism. Global IR bridges the
gap between Western and no western theories. It tries to make IR discipline beyond the west
by uncovering various non-western prospects like how Behera (2021) tries to understand IR
through dharma. The Global IR was criticized for just following the western legacy to claim
universalization and not question what we know and how we know it. The relational studies
in this sense claim not for a global theory but a pressure of multiple worlds where the
dominant ontologies and methods are challenged by different ranges of notions from different
parts of the world. This is still a new project in IR. The IR textbooks still explain IR with the
two world wars and based on international organizations. The changes are required at all
levels of how publishing, how we research and teach IR.
Multiple Choice questions

1. What event is thought to have sparked the conventional IR?
a. Westphalia of 1648.
b. Second World War
c. First World War
129 | P a g e

d. Decolonization
2. Who is known as the Indian Machiavelli?
a. Kautilya
b. Nehru
c. Gandhi
d. Ashoka
3. The main reason for the parochialism of the west in the traditional IR?
a. Ethnocentrism
b. Positivism
c. The dominance of Publication houses in the west in the English language
d. All the above
4. Who said ‘Theory is always for someone and some purpose’?
a. E.H Carr
b. Robert Cox
c. Hans Morgenthau
d. A.B. Tickner
5. Who is seen as the torch bearer of the Global IR?
a. Barry Buzan
b. Amitav Acharya
c. Tickner
d. Giorgio Shani
6. How does Global IR bridge the gap between western and non-western IR?
a. By creating Pluralistic universalism
b. bringing out the Non-western perspective in the limelight
c. By challenging realism and liberalism
d. all the above
7. How does relational IR challenges parochialism in the traditional IR?
a. Epistemological pluralism
b. Ontological pluralism
c. existence of different worlds beyond space and time
d. all the above
130 | P a g e

1.12 REFERENCES
• Acharya, Amitav. “Dialogue and Disacovery: in search of international relations

theories beyond the West.” Millennium: Journal of international studies (SAGE) 39,
no. 3 (2011): 619-637.
• Acharya, Amitav. “ETHNOCENTRISM AND EMANCIPATORY IR Theory.” 1997.
• Acharya, Amitav. “Global International Relations.” In International Relations Theory,
by Milja Kurki, and Milja Kurki Tim Dunne. Oxford University Press, 2017.
• Acharya, Amitav. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New
Agenda for International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly (International
Studies Association ), no. 83 (2014): 647–659.
• Acharya, Amitav. “Human Security: East versus West.” International Journal (Sage
Publications, Ltd.) 56, no. 3 (2001): 442-460.
• Alagappa, Muthiah. Asian Security Practice: Material and Ideational Influences.
Stanford University Press, 1998.
• Behera, Giorgio Shani and Navnita Chadha. “Provincialising International Relations
through areading of dharma.” Review of International Studies 48, no. 5 (2022): 837–
856.
• Behera, Navnita Chadha. “State and sovereignty: Worlds of Difference.” In
International Relations from the Global South, by Karen Smith Arlene B. Tickner.
Routledge, 2020.
• Buzan, Amitav Acharya and Barry. “Why is there no non-Westerninternational
relations theory?An introduction.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific (Oxford
University Press) 7, no. 3 (2007): 287–312.
• Cox, Robert. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International
Relations Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 1981.
• Eun, YS. “Where does IR stand in Terms of Diversity ?” In Pluralism and
Engagement in the Disicipline of the International Relations, by Pluralism and
Engagement in the Discipline of International Relations. Singapore: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2016.
• Frank, Andre Gunder. “The Development of Underdevelopment.” Monthly Review,
1966.
131 | P a g e

• Jabri, K.M. Fierke and Vivenne. “Global conversations: Relationality, embodiment

and power in the move towards a Global IR.” Global Constitutionalism 8, no. 3
(2019): 506 - 535.
• Kurki, Milja. “Relational revolution and relationality in IR: New conversations.”
Review of International Studies 48, no. 5 (2022): 821–836.
• McFau, James M. Goldgeier and Michael. “A Tale of Two Worlds: Core and
Periphery in the Post-Cold War Era.” International Organization (MIT Press) 46, no.
2 (1992): 467-491.
• San, Aung. Burma's challenge. 1946.
• Sarkar, Benoy Kumar. “Hindu Theory of International Relations.” The American
Political Science Review (American Political Science Association) 13, no. 3 (1919):
400-414.
• Smith, Steve. “Positivism and beyond.” In International Theory: Positivism and
Beyond, by Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski Steve Smith. Cambridge , 1966.
• TAMARA A. TROWNSELL, ARLENE B. TICKNER, AMAYA QUEREJAZU,
JARRAD REDDEKOP, GIORGIO SHANI, KOSUKE SHIMIZU, NAVNITA
CHADHA BEHERA, and ANAHITA ARIAN. “Forum: Differing about
Difference:Relational IR from around the World.” International Studies Perspectives,
2021: 25–64.
• Tickner, A.B. “Core, periphery and (neo)imperialist International Relations.”
European Journal of International Relations, 2013: 627–646.
• Trownsell, David L. Blaney And Tamara A. “Recrafting International Relations by
Worlding Multiply.” Uluslararasi Iliskiler, 2022: 45-62.
• Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar, Ingo Peters, Laura Kemmer,Alina Kleinn, Luisa Linke-
Behrens and Sabine Mokry1. “The global IR debate in the classroom.” 2022.
• Witt, Felix Anderl and Antonia. “Problematising the Global IR.” Millenium: Journal
of International Studies (Sage), 2020: 1-26.
132 | P a g e

978-81-19169-23-8
9 788119 169238

Unit 1-4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 1-4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 1-4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Distance and Continuing Education

B.A. (Hons.) Political Science

© Department of Distance and Continuing Education

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

• All units have been written afresh except unit-II.

• Corrections/Modifications/Suggestions proposed by Statutory Body, DU/Stakeholder/s in the Self

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Sl. No. Title Writer Pg.

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.1 Learning Objectives

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1.3 WHAT IS IR AND ITS CONTESTED ORIGINS?

Let us start with the definition of the International Relations (IR)

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

International Relations is a struggle for power among nations, writes Hans J.

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

relationship; and politics related to international security; international political economy

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.3.4 Three Levels of Analysis

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.4 READING THE BIG BANGS

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.5 BRINGING IN DE-COLONIAL ACCOUNTS

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

scholars to work empathetically.

1.6 UNDERSTANDING THE GENEALOGY OF IR DISCIPLINE

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.9 PRACTICE QUESTIONS

1. Write a short essay on the evaluation of International Relations (IR) as an academic

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

➢ Chatterjee, Aneek (2019), International Relations Today: Concepts and Applications,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.1 Learning Objectives

1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.3 MEANING AND DEFINITION OF IR

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.5 SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.6 NEED FOR THE STUDY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS:

1.7 THREE LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

administration or the states as a united entity.

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.8 HISTORY OF EMERGENCE OF INTERNATIONAL STATE

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,