Stages of IR Dev

Stages of IR Development

Introduction
 Aristotle “man by nature and necessity is a social
animal”
 Today’s globalized world–generally no one – no
country/state can live in isolation
 “co-existence of nations is the order of the day”
 In one way or another one country is dependent on the
other (despite being a sovereign country).
 Having a relationship with another state is a pragmatic
approach & significance today.
Background
 During the Industrial Rev – demand for trade, transportation,
interaction between states increased.
 Demand - war  war technologies & armaments
 WW1  made people to understand IR > clear
 WAR & PEACE  main agenda
 However, there was no regular systematic course of IR prior to

the WW1
 Malhorta  “there was no teaching of the subject as such and

very little conscious study"
Stages of Development of IR Study
 New discipline in social sciences
 After WW2  new development
 Kenneth Thompson – view IR in 4 stages

1st stage (AD – WW1)
 IR was perceived as an important tool  for
diplomats
 More of history perspectives compared than

politics
 Main objective  view the incidents that happened

– no analysis nor prediction
 Historical view without any evidences

2nd Stage (after WW1)
 Study of current affairs – was emphasized
 Research  not comprehensive
 Was focusing more on the events that was happening &

disregard the history
 Stage 1 & 2 => was one sided

3rd Stage (WW1-WW2)
 More of moralistic/legalistic approach of IR
 Main objectives:
 - to end the war
 - create a peaceful world
 - free from any conflicts
 Focus  establishing LON  international law/an

international organization as peace provider/guarantor
 This phase focused more on ideal objectives and not see

the reality that was happening in the international system
4th Stage (after WW2)
 The WW2  crushed the hope of the people on international

organization as => “Instrument of peace”
 Study of IR was focused more on scientific approach  causes

of war & how to avert it
 Focus during this stage was on

State behaviour – forces & influences
Foreign policy
Techniques to deal with IR
Resolution of i/n conflicts
Crisis management
 During 1950-1960  realist  dominant

… (cont) Stage 4
 Thiis stage focused more on how the world/ behavior - “ought to be”
 POWER – viewed as a mean

“International Politics is nothing but struggle for power”
 Every state seeks for more power to use it & to have more
 During this stage there was a new approach towards IR

 Technology advancement
 Formation of new states
 New universal values
 Nuclear technology and development
 Multilateral enterprise
Tahap Lima (pertengahan 60-70an)
5th Stage (mid 0f 60s – 70s)
 Known as ‘post realist’ paradigm
 Widely use of ‘behavioural approach’ in IR study

  making generalizations on international phenomena
  undertaking quantitative research on international law
and study
 Emergence of non-state actors – international

organization, institutions, multilateral org & cooperation –
were the main case studies
 H/e, due to the CW quantitative approach did not get a good
respond
 The gab between developed and under developed countries -

widen - conflict between the North & South countries – demanded
for a New I/n Economic Order
 This phase also witnessed the emergence of new concepts such

as détente, neo-imperialism, dependency, political economy, and
interdependence, BOP, arms race, arms control etc.
 This era is also known as the ‘Post Behavioural’

6th stage (end of 70s-80s)
 The SU invaded Afghanistan

 Issues like ecology, environment, poverty emerged
 Area studies – was the focus in many US & Britain universities
 Western perspectives were challenged by Third world
countries
 Third world countries – Marxist Leninist theory
 ‘IR strongly favours capitalist countries’
7th Stage (1990s)
Mikhail Grobachev as SU President

IR entered a new phase
 Gorbachev => new political thinking for the world
 balance of interest compared to bop

 co-operation rather than confrontation
 internationalization rather than nationalization
 disarmament and not armament
 détente
 Brought new impact on the study of IR
  The end of the CW

  SU & China relations – better footing
  Regional issues emerged
  Timor Leste independence
  United Germany
8th stage – Post Cold War
 Left power vacuum in the region

 SU lost its status as ‘superpower’
 15 republics of the SU – self determination, ethnic conflicts
 Russia – faced with economic & financial collapse,
inflation, corruption, war and military weakness
 Iraq invaded/occupied Kuwait – led to the Gulf War
 US -> superpower  unipolar system
 Uncertainty in the global system – NO clear and present
danger
IR as a field of study
 IR is a practical discipline
 Theoretical debates in the field of IR are
fundamental, but unresolved
 IR is about international politics – the decisions of
governments about foreign actors, history, sociology,
and other disciplines.
 Political relations – covers diplomacy, war, trade,
alliances, cultural exchange, etc
 Issue based – global trade, environment, refugees,
conflicts etc.
IR…(cont)
 Traditional IR study – war & peace (1950s -60s)
 IPE – second main subfield of IR
 Actors of IR – state, non state
 Level of analysis – individual, domestic, interstate,
global
Conclusion
 IR went thru various stages of development
  Each stage of IR development has its
own uniqueness
  As a whole, IR is explored from various
discipline such as economic, security, politics,

history, technology, environment etc.
  “IR is a inter-disciplinary & of recent origin. Always
on the move. Though it is neither well-organized nor fully

scientific nor having complete conceptual framework,
Class Activity - Discussion
 1. ‘The History of the Peloponnesian’ by Thucydides.
Explain the main findings of this writings.
 2.Pick a current area in which interesting international
event s are taking place. Explain the event from any four
level of analysis.
 3. The CW is long over, but its influences linger. Can you
think of 3 examples in which the CW experience continues
to shape the foreign policies of today’s states.
 4. What do you expect will be the character of the 21st
century? Peaceful? War prone? Chaotic?
 Why? Explain.

Stages of IR Dev

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stages of IR Dev

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

Stages of IR Dev

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stages of IR Development

 Demand - war  war technologies & armaments

 WW1  made people to understand IR > clear

 WAR & PEACE  main agenda

 However, there was no regular systematic course of IR prior to

 Malhorta  “there was no teaching of the subject as such and

 After WW2  new development

 Kenneth Thompson – view IR in 4 stages

 More of history perspectives compared than

 Main objective  view the incidents that happened

 Historical view without any evidences

 Research  not comprehensive

 Was focusing more on the events that was happening &

 Stage 1 & 2 => was one sided

 Focus  establishing LON  international law/an

 This phase focused more on ideal objectives and not see

 The WW2  crushed the hope of the people on international

 Study of IR was focused more on scientific approach  causes

 Focus during this stage was on

 During 1950-1960  realist  dominant

 POWER – viewed as a mean

 During this stage there was a new approach towards IR

 Widely use of ‘behavioural approach’ in IR study

 Emergence of non-state actors – international

 The gab between developed and under developed countries -

 This phase also witnessed the emergence of new concepts such

 This era is also known as the ‘Post Behavioural’

 The SU invaded Afghanistan

Mikhail Grobachev as SU President

 Gorbachev => new political thinking for the world

 balance of interest compared to bop

 internationalization rather than nationalization

 disarmament and not armament

  The end of the CW

 Left power vacuum in the region

discipline such as economic, security, politics,

on the move. Though it is neither well-organized nor fully

You might also like