According to the online Encyclopedia Britannica, International Relations (IR) is the study of the relations of states with each other and with international organizations and certain subnational entities (e.g., bureaucracies, political parties, and interest groups). It is related to a number of other academic disciplines, including political science, geography, history, economics, law, sociology, psychology, and philosophy.
The word “state” in the preceding paragraph reminds me that a few definitions are in order. Although we tend to use the words “state,” “nation,” and “country” as if they were synonyms, they have distinct meanings that matter if we’re going to be consulting official sources of information about all of this.
First of all, sovereignty is the bedrock of international relations. It means that countries get to control what happens inside their borders and can’t interfere in what happens inside the borders of other countries. But in reality, this concept is more complicated. In cases of genocide, for example, many countries agree that breaches of sovereignty should be allowed on humanitarian grounds. Most countries are also more comfortable agreeing that another country’s sovereignty may be challenged in such cases than they are in accepting challenges to their own sovereignty in similar situations. In addition, many countries around the globe have chosen to give up some degree of sovereignty to join international political or economic organizations like the United Nations and European Union.
A state is the key actor in international relations. A state must have a defined territory, a permanent population, a government capable of controlling its territory and conducting international relations, and external recognition. Most of us probably use the word “country” to refer to a state – mainly because in the United States, we use the word “state” to refer to a subnational unit. It’s interesting that the people who wrote our founding documents chose this word over “province” or “county,” reflecting their belief that the individual states would be the active components of government.
A nation is a group of people bound together by a shared history, culture, language, religion, or traditional homeland. The Palestinian people are the best current example of a nation that does not have a state. The United Kingdom is a state that encompasses four nations – England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
A nation-state is a political unit where the state, a centralized political organization ruling over a population within a territory, and the nation, a community based on a common identity, are congruent. The most obvious example of this in the modern world is probably Japan.
Whether the United States is a nation-state is up for debate. It is clearly a state in the terms laid out in item #2, above. But is it a nation? It does have a common history and culture (if we’re speaking broadly). All Americans recognize identifiable national icons like the flag, the 4th of July, and the Constitution. But it does not have a deeply shared underlying culture connected to language, religion, food, and all the rituals of life – birth, marriage, death, cultural holidays, and so forth. The United States may best be described as a State within which are contained many nations.
Historical Context and Evolution of the International System
The modern international system began in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). These treaties established the principles of state sovereignty and non-interference. They contributed to the early development of international law, setting precedents for state conduct and codifying norms that evolved into the complex legal frameworks governing states today. The treaties reconfigured borders, affirmed the autonomy of smaller states, and diminished the influence of the Holy Roman Empire. They also secularized international politics by decoupling state affairs from religious doctrine, paving the way for the emergence of a state-centric international system.
The 19th century was marked by European colonialism and the balance of power doctrine, which aimed to prevent any one state from becoming too dominant. The catastrophic world wars of the 20th century led to the creation of international institutions like the League of Nations and, later, the United Nations, reflecting a shift towards collective security and global governance.
Three theoretical approaches dominate thinking about international relations: realism, liberalism, and constructivism.
Realism:
Realism in international relations is a theoretical perspective that emphasizes the competitive and conflictual side of international politics. It is grounded in the premise that states are the central actors in international politics and act in their own self-interest, driven by the desire for power and security within an anarchic international system that lacks a central authority.
The roots of realism trace back to classical political philosophy, with thinkers like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, who all recognized the enduring propensity for conflict among human collectives. Modern realism emerged in response to the idealist perspective that dominated international relations following World War I. Realists argue that idealism overestimates the potential for cooperation among states and underestimates the role of power in international politics.
Realism is not a monolithic theory but encompasses various strands, including classical realism, which focuses on human nature as the source of conflict, and neorealism, which attributes conflict to the structure of the international system itself. Despite differences, realists agree on the central role of state power and the importance of national interest in shaping state behavior.
Realism remains influential in both academic and policy-making circles, providing a pragmatic framework for understanding international events and guiding foreign policy decisions. Its emphasis on power and security continues to resonate in a world where states must navigate complex geopolitical landscapes.
Henry Kissinger, a prominent figure in American foreign policy, is closely associated with the concept of realism, or realpolitik. This approach to international relations emphasizes pragmatism over ideology, focusing on practical objectives and national interests rather than moral or ethical considerations.
Kissinger served as National Security Advisor and later as Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford. During his tenure, he applied realpolitik principles to various global issues, prioritizing the economic and military power of the United States. His policies often involved transactional diplomacy and power politics, aiming to enhance U.S. influence and stability in the international arena.
Realpolitik under Kissinger's guidance led to significant foreign policy decisions, such as the opening of diplomatic relations with China and détente with the Soviet Union. However, this approach also attracted criticism for supporting authoritarian regimes and overlooking human rights abuses in the pursuit of strategic interests.
Liberalism:
Liberalism challenges realism by emphasizing the potential for cooperation and peace. It argues that, through international organizations, economic interdependence, and democratic governance, states can work together to achieve common goals. The European Union's integration and the proliferation of international treaties and norms are often cited as evidence of liberalism's principles at work.
In the United States, several individuals have been associated with liberalism in international relations. These figures often advocate for policies that emphasize democracy, human rights, economic interdependence, and the importance of international institutions. Some notable individuals include:
Woodrow Wilson: The 28th President of the United States, known for his efforts to establish the League of Nations and his "Fourteen Points" speech that outlined principles for peace after World War I.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: The 32nd President, whose leadership during World War II helped to shape the post-war liberal order and the creation of the United Nations.
Barack Obama: The 44th President, recognized for his support of multilateral diplomacy and international cooperation on various global issues.
Hillary Clinton: As Secretary of State, she promoted a liberal internationalist agenda, focusing on human rights and global partnerships.
Constructivism:
I have a hard time understanding this theory. I’ll be working on it as I go through this series. Here’s what I’ve been able to figure out so far, consulting a number of sources.
Constructivism introduces the idea that the international system is socially constructed, meaning that state actions are influenced by historical, social, and cultural contexts. It’s not as simple as “realism” or “idealism” suggest. It proposes that the identities and interests of states are not fixed but are formed through interaction and discourse. The end of apartheid in South Africa and the subsequent reformation of its foreign policy is an example of constructivist ideas in action.
Constructivists argue that international norms, culture, and human consciousness play a critical role in international politics. They study how these factors influence state actions and contribute to the formation of the international system’s structure. For instance, the changing norms around human rights and environmental protection have influenced state behaviors and led to the creation of new international institutions and agreements.
Unlike realism and liberalism, which focus on material factors like power and economic interests, constructivism explores the less tangible dynamic of how states’ perceptions and actions are shaped by their interactions with other actors in the international arena. It also examines how these interactions can lead to changes in international norms and values over time. For instance, the same nuclear weapon might hold different meanings for different countries, not because of its physical properties but because of the social context and the norms surrounding it
In practice, constructivism can be seen in the evolution of diplomatic practices, the development of international law, and the emergence of new global issues that require collective action. It provides a framework for understanding the dynamic and evolving nature of international relations in the modern world.
In the 21st century, constructivism has been illustrated through various examples:
Norm Development: The proliferation of human rights norms and their influence on international policies and state behavior.
Identity: The evolving European identity and its impact on the European Union’s foreign policy.
Ideational Power: The role of international organizations in shaping global environmental agendas through ideational power rather than coercive power.
The "War on Terror" is a prime example of constructivism in international relations, as it showcases how ideational factors such as narrative, identity, norms, and framing play a crucial role in shaping policies and actions. Constructivism suggests that these social constructs are central to understanding international relations, beyond just material capabilities.
In the context of the "War on Terror," the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks was not just a reaction to a physical threat but also a response shaped by the American identity, narratives of freedom and security, and the norms of international engagement. The decision to launch a global "War on Terror" involved a complex interplay of these ideational factors, which influenced the U.S. foreign policy and its institutionalization. This approach provides insights into the emergence of the "War on Terror" and highlights the importance of ideational factors in the U.S. context, offering a deeper understanding of the motivations and implications of this significant period in U.S. foreign policy.
The grounding in vocabulary and theoretical approaches prepares any student of international relations for the in-depth analysis necessary to understand what’s going on in the world today.
Excellent!!!
Great article! Would love your thoughts on my analysis of the current state of the world system
https://open.substack.com/pub/matthewharris/p/the-future-of-the-world-system?r=298d1j&utm_medium=ios