Chapter I.

Basic Concepts and Definitions of International Relations

1.1. The Subject Matter of International Relations

International relations, or international politics, is not merely a field of study at university but is an
integral aspect of our (increasingly international) everyday lives. We now live in a world where it is
impossible to isolate our experiences and transactions from an international dimension. Studying
international relations or politics enables students and professionals to better comprehend the
information we receive daily from newspapers, television and radio.

People not only live in villages and towns, but form part of the wider networks that constitute regions,
nations and states. As members of this world community, people have to be equally aware of both their
rights and their responsibilities – and should be capable of engaging in important debates concerning the
major issues facing the modern international community. One crucial feature of the world in which we
live is its interconnectedness – geographically, intellectually and socially – and thus we need to
understand it. Many scholars define International Relations in various forms. Among the prominent
ones, the following are worth mentioning.
International Relations: is the totality of all relations traversing (crossing) state boundaries: the
relations can be economic, political, legal, cultural, etc. through peaceful and/or non-peaceful
mechanisms. It also includes all human behavior originating on all side of state boundary and affecting
human behavior on the other side of state boundary.
International Relations: refers to a combination of studies of the foreign affairs of two or more states
which have contact with them and sufficient impact on one another's decisions to cause them to behave
as parts and parcels of the whole and of international historical relations. It also includes the study of
international society as a whole and of its institutions and processes.
International relations: is concerned with the study of the nature, conduct, and influences upon,
relations between and /or among individuals or groups operating in a particular arena within the
framework of anarchy. Anarchy means absence of world government or authority, but not within the
framework of disorder. Note that anarchy in the domestic politics vs. international politics is not defined
identically.
It is imperative to have sufficient understanding about international relations as we are living in a world
where states are coming closer to each other due to the interactions of the political, economic, social,
legal cultural dimensions or aspects. In this context, the world is becoming a "global village" where by

1|Page
many states have embarked on multiplicity of linkages between them (Bilateral) and/or among various
states (Multilateral) relations. This is the impetus or the driving force for states so as to attain their
interests as well as for making the international system operational effectively by minimizing the non-
peaceful ways of attaining their goals. Having introducing about international relations, the following
sub unit shall look at the historical evolution and development of international relations.

1.2. Evolution and Development of International Relations

As a discipline, the study of International Relations as a discipline is ancient. We have to bear in mind
that writers, centuries ago, performed analysis of the wars of Greek City states, the relations of Italian
city-states, and the ties of tribute stats to the Chinese Empire. The modern study of international
relations began in the early twentieth century as an interest of diplomatic historians and a specialty of
international lawyers.

Originally, the study of international relations (a term first used by Jeremy Bentham in 1798) or
politics was seen largely as a branch of the study of law, philosophy or history. However, following the
carnage/bloodshed of the WWI there emerged an academic undertaking to understand how “the fear of
war” was equal only to “the fear of defeat that had preceded the WWI”. Subsequently, the first
university chair of international relations was founded at the University of Wales in 1919. Given such
diverse origins and some of the definitions we have seen above, there is no a one accepted way of
defining or understanding international relations, and throughout the world many have established
individual ways of understanding international relations. Any attempt to define a field of study is bound
to be somewhat arbitrary and this is particularly true when one comes to international relations or
politics.

While American Political Science began in the 1880s, political scientists specializing in the subject of
international relations appeared in the U.S. with the advent of the First World War (1914-1918) and the
formation of the League of Nations (1919-1939). These events heightened attention on international
affairs in the English-speaking countries. WWI involved American troops in Europe for the first time,
and the League, in a bold departure from historical practice, became an institution to affront or prevent
war. New Scholarly fields come into being in response to neither of social or technical needs. Hence,
after the First World War, the desire to avoid war in the future determined the initial direction of the
international relations field.

2|Page
The terms ‘international relations’ and ‘international politics’ are often used interchangeably in
books, journals, websites and newspapers. In the last generation some have preferred to use „world‟ or
„global‟ politics where the focus of activity is not the state but some notion of a global community or
global civilization. For many laypersons (ordinary person) there is no real difference between these
words, but technically there is more than a semantic difference as terms can reflect a difference of focus
and field of study.

Till date, unfortunately, no universally accepted definition of international relations has been coined
because of its continuous changing nature. However, Goldstein and Pavehouse in his book
“International Relations” write, “The field of international relations concerns the relationships among
the world’s governments. But these relationships cannot be understood in isolation. They are closely
connected with other actors (such as intergovernmental org., multinational corporations, and
individuals); with other social structures (including economics, culture, and domestic politics); and with
geographical and historical influences. These elements together power the central trends in IR today-
globalization.”

The word “international relations” for the first time used in 1880. In UNESCO Nomenclature (1998) (It
is a system developed by UNESCO for classification of research papers and doctoral dissertations), No.
5901 represent international relations within political science. In practice, international relations is
studied either as a subfield of political science or as an independent discipline. The discipline of
international relations deals with the war, military alliance, diplomacy, trade, cooperation & peace.

People always confuse themselves among the terms „International Relations‟, „International Politics‟ and
„Global Politics‟. Sometimes, these term used interchangeably. According to Hans Morgenthau - "the
core of international relations is international politics". However, he says, International Relations is
much wider in scope than International Politics. Politics among nations is „struggle for power’ whereas
international relations includes political, economic and cultural relations among nations. Similarly,
Palmer and Perkins express that international politics is essentially concerned with the relations of state
system, while international relations includes all types of relationships between sovereign states.
Therefore, international relations is wider, and international politics is narrower in scope.

International relations and international politics also differ in their aim. The ultimate aim of International
Relations is the establishment of ‘International peace’ through cooperation & agreement among

3|Page
different nations promoting mutual interests. In comparison to it, International politics is ‘struggle for
power’ through conflicts, wars, political maneuvers among different nations. In context to the term,
‘Global politics’, many argue that global politics nothing except the “branding” of the study of
International Relations. Is it true, is matter of debate. Since Global Politics is cosmopolitanism of
politics, it is wider than International Relations in scope.

As a practice, reformation in the sixteenth century the notion of a unified Europe broke down
completely as the Church began to split apart. England and Sweden could free themselves from the
power of Rome. All over northern Europe, the new „Protestant‟ churches became state-run and church
lands became property of the state. In order to establish themselves securely in their new positions of
power, the kings rejected the traditional claims of all local authorities. This led to extended wars in next
to all European countries: the Thirty Years‟ War, 1618–1648, was the bloodiest and most protracted
military confrontation of the era. The Thirty Years‟ War is often called a religious conflict since
Catholic states confronted Protestants for hegemony (or dominance) over Europe.

The Treaty of Westphalia, 1648, which concluded the 30 years of warfare, has come to symbolize the
new way of organizing international politics. International politics was a matter of relations between
states and no other political units. All states were sovereign, meaning that they laid claims to the
exclusive right to rule their own territories and to act, in relation to other states, as they themselves saw
fit. All states were formally equal and they had the same rights and obligations. Taken together, the
states interacted with each other in a system in which there was no overarching power. Sovereignty and
formal equality led to the problem of anarchy.

In order to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary conflicts, the different rulers began dispatching
ambassadors to each other‟s courts. This diplomatic network provided a means of gathering
information, of spying, but also a way of keeping in touch with one another, of carrying out negotiations
and concluding deals. The practices of diplomacy soon expanded to include a number of mutually
advantageous provisions: the embassies were given extraterritorial rights and legal immunity, diplomatic
dispatches were regarded as inviolable and ambassadors had the right to worship the god of their choice.
These originally north Italian practices gradually expanded to embrace more states of Europe. Europe
certainly had a significant impact on the Americas, North and South while having far less impact on
Asia and relations with Africa that were restricted to a few trading ports. However, the European model

4|Page
of statehood and the European way of organizing international relations that eventually came to organize
all of world politics.

It was only in the nineteenth century that relations between Europe and the rest of the world were
irrevocably transformed. Since the „Industrial Revolution’, the Europeans could produce many more
things and do it far more efficiently. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, European countries
joined in this scramble for colonies, not least in Africa. Colonial possessions became a symbol of „great
power‟ status, and by the time of the First World War in 1914, most parts of the world were in
European hands. There were some exceptions to this rule – China, Japan, Siam, Persia, Ethiopia and
Nepal, among others – but even in these ostensibly independent countries the Europeans had a strong
presence.

Since the Europeans only would grant sovereignty to states that were similar to their own, the only
way to become independent was to become independent on European terms. To create such Europe-like
states was thus the project in which all non-European political leaders engaged. And thus, an
international climate of decolonization took hold; all new states had a familiar form. Whether there were
alternative, non-European, ways of organizing a state and its foreign relations was never discussed.

International relations ≠ International politics ≠World politics ≠Global politics

International Politics International Relations
1. Its area is confined to the study of 1. It includes political as well as nonpolitical kind of
only political relations among the relations among nations.
nation-states
2. It primarily deals with the state-to state level 2. Apart from the official relations it also includes in its
relations/official relations conducted by the scope the people to people level relations.
authorized leaders of the state.
3. Therefore, the scope of International politics is 3. But INRs has a much wider scope than that of the INP.
narrower & very much limited.
4. Mostly, the study of INP employs Descriptive 4. It uses wider versatile & Scientific methods in its study.
and Analytical Methods
5. It mainly deals with conflicting, oppositional 5. Co-operative as well as oppositional & all kinds of
or unfriendly relations between the nations. relations are included in its scope.

5|Page
1.3. Nature of International Relations
Due to increasing human-activities, the relations among various states have been changing. And due to
these continuous changes in international relations, the meaning, nature and scope of international
relations has been changing. There are many factors which affect nature of international relations such
as evolution of new nations, technological development, nuclear research, rise of multipolar world,
emergence of new order, non-state organizations, global problems, so on and so forth. Due to changing
nature of international relation, it is very difficult to explain the nature of international relations.
However, these are the following important points explaining the nature of international relations;
1. International relations has no single definition and also, unfortunately, till date, no universally
accepted definition of international relations have been coined because of its continuous changing
nature.
2. International relations operates in an anarchical system. There is no single organization to
regulate relations among states.
3. International relations is inter-disciplinary subject. In 1998, UNESCO mentioned international
relations as a sub-field of political science and economic relations, social relations and cultural relations,
etc. are part of it.
4. International relations deals with key issues which concerns public global interest. Goldstein
and Pavehouse in his book, “International Relations” write, International relations revolves around one
key problem of how to balance interests of international states with the global interest: For example –
every country has an interest in stopping global warming, a goal that can be achieved only by many
countries acting together. Yet each country also has an individual interest in burning fossil fuels to keep
its economy going. They proposed three principles in context to collective goods problem. These three
basic principles are – dominance, reciprocity, and identity. These three offer possible solutions to this
core problem of getting individuals to cooperate for common good without a central authority to make
them do so.

Dominance: The principle of dominance solves the collective goods problem by establishing a power
hierarchy in which those at the top control those below. Therefore, instead of fighting constantly to get
more scarce resources, the members of group can fight for better position in „status hierarchy‟. Then
social conflicts such as over who gets resources are resolved automatically in favor of the higher-
ranking actor. The advantage of dominance solution to the collective goods problem are that it can

6|Page
establish order and provide stability in international system whereas its disadvantages are that it leads to
oppression over small and weak countries as well as resentment within them against the countries
holding top position in hierarchy system.

Reciprocity: i.e. a tit-for-tat strategy. The principle of reciprocity solves the collective goods problem
by rewarding behavior that contributes the group and punishing behavior that pursues self-interest at the
expense of the group. Reciprocity is very easy to enforce without any central authority, making it a
robust way to get individuals to cooperate for the common good. But the reciprocity operates in both
way; positively („you scratch my back and I‟ll scratch yours‟) and negatively (“an eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth”). The disadvantage of reciprocity solution is that it can lead to downward spirals as each
side punishes what it believes to be negative acts by other. It fuels arms races as each side responds to
the other‟s buildup weapons. But it also allows arm control agreements and other step-by-step conflict-
resolution measures.

Identity: This third solution to the collective goods problem lies in the identities of participants as
members of a community. Unlike member of dominance solution and reciprocity solution, member of an
identity community care about the interests of the community enough to sacrifice their own interest to
benefit others. In international relations, identity communities play important roles in overcoming
difficult collective goods problems, including the issue of who contributes to development assistance,
world health, or UN peacekeeping missions. Other authors reflect related natures of the study of INR.
The nature of the study of INR has the following additional striking features –
1. The study of INR is centered around Nation-states: It is the nation-states which is the central
actor but other organizations and groups at the international level plays only a secondary role.
2. INR is not a well-organized discipline: It lacks a clear-cut conceptual framework and a systematic
body of theory. It is heavily dependent on better organized disciplines. But it has a distinctive
methodology, distinctive theories & a distinctive subject-matter.
3. It centers around power approach: The League of Nations & Collective security system failed to
prevent war. This has given rise to the realistic school of international politics which emphasized the
need of power politics & the inevitability of war. They argue that the optimism of peace &
tranquility through the UN is utopian.
4. Change from Bipolarity to Multi-Polarity & Realism: Many a conflicts and crisis between the
two power blocks led to the creation of a multi polar world from that of a bi-polar world in the later

7|Page
 part of the Cold War era. Later on the multi-polar world changed into a unipolar world. International
relations operate under any circumstances. What is realism to some is unrealism to others.

5. International Politics or International Relations: Many a times these two terms are used
interchangeably but in fact they have distinct meanings. The term International politics is narrower
in scope than that of the International relations. International politics is only a part of the study of
International relations.

1.4. Scope of International Relations as a Field of Study

International relations compose our largest society. Since the Age of Colonization in the eighteenth
century, international relations have encompassed the globe. The scope of international relations is not
yet well settled. It is continuously expending & becoming very complex due to many factors such as
LPG (liberalization, privatization, & globalization), advancement in technology (communication,
transportation, & media), global issues (Terrorism, poverty, global warming, etc.), so on & so forth.
Now, world has become a global village.

Michael Nicholson writes in his book “international relations a concise introduction” – that – scholars of
international relations study, peace and war; imperialism and nationalism; the wealth of some societies
and the poverty of others; nuclear weapons and the possibility of extinction; the environment and global
warming; human rights across the world; the merging of states and the splitting up of states; the
European Union; international organizations; religions and their political impact; trade and the
development of the multinational corporation; race and gender around the globe; globalization and the
information revolution. Other authors defined the Scope of INR as follows:
It is a study of the world community in transition. Different writers have defined the scope of INR
differently. Broadly speaking the relations between the states can be of three types –
1. Co-operative or friendly,
2. Oppositional or Unfriendly &
3. Indifferent or Neutral kind of relations.

Co-operative relations are non-political in character like e.g. cultural or trade relations between the
states. These do not involves any use of force. Power relationships (Oppositional relations), these
involves conflicts or struggles among groups –demands a considerable use of force or power. Indifferent
or neutral relations are co-operation of a limited/moderate nature.

8|Page
In the initial stages: INRs was treated as a study of diplomatic history. It was the study of the
contemporary foreign affairs as conditioned by the happenings of the past with a view to finding out the
short-comings of the previous Statesmen. Thus its scope was very narrow in the initial stages. Then, INL
was included within its field with a view to understand INRs.

After the establishment of League of Nations: expanded as it included the study of International
organizations and institutions. The behaviour of the Sovereign states in these international organizations
and also how far these organizations exercises its control over its member states were also included in
its study.

Its Scope after the II World War: Here, it included the study of Foreign Policies & Military Policies
of the states, the study of war and war strategies were also included. During these periods, the study of
the behaviour of leaders and groups, the study of the impact of public opinion (world as well as
domestic) were also included in its study. Because of various developments the scope of the study of
INR has expanded tremendously after the II World War.

Today: its scope includes not merely diplomatic history, International Politics, International
Organization & administration, International Law, motives of member states but also includes the whole
International community in transition.

1.5. Important Contents of the study of INR:

Some important contents which come under the study of INRs today may be listed as follows –
1. State System: Nation-states constitutes the basic units of the study of INRs. And the study of conflict
of interest among sovereign states is the main area of its study.
2. National Power: It is one of the major determinants of international politics today. It is the ability or
capacity of a nation to its goals or national objectives (interests).
3. International Law: it regulates the behavior of the states both in times of war & peace.
4. International Organizations: a forum for cooperation & conflict resolution. E.g. UNO, IMF, IBRD,
etc.
5. International Systems: Outcome of the application of systems theory in International Politics. It
developed typology of International systems such as Uni-polar, Bi-polar & Multi-polar International
systems.
6. Conflict Management & Conflict resolution:

9|Page
7. War & Peace: Its study also covers the problems of war and peace.
8. Ideologies: Rival ideologies and ideological warfare complicated International politics especially
during the cold-war era.
9. Nationalism, Colonialism & Imperialism: posing challenges to world peace endangering the cordial
relations between the nations.
10. Foreign Policy: these are the external policies of a state which defines the plans actions of a state in
its dealings with other states.
11. National Interests: These are the national goals & objectives of a nation-state.
12. Military Strategic Factors: Preparation for and protection against war and also involves security
arrangements.
13. Alliances &groupings: NATO, SEATO, CENTO, Warsaw Pact & Regional groups like Arab
World, African Countries, Non-Aligned Countries, etc.
14. Arms control & Disarmaments: Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, NPT, CTBT, SALT – I, SALT –II,
START –I, START – II etc.
15. Economic Forces: Most of the International problems are economic in nature like international trade
& commerce, foreign aid, customs and Tariffs, etc.
16. Diplomacy: It is an important instrument of foreign policy & Diplomatic history is of significance in
the study of INR.

1.6. The Domestic Politics vs. the International Politics: Comparisons

Similarly, there are legal, political and social differences between domestic and international politics.
Domestic law is generally obeyed, and if not, the police and courts enforce sanctions. International law
rests on competing legal systems, and there is no common enforcement. Domestically a government has
a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In international politics, no one has a monopoly of force, and
therefore international politics has often been interpreted as the realm of self-help. It is also accepted that
some states are stronger than others.
Domestic and international politics also differ in their underlying sense of community – in
international politics, divided peoples do not share the same loyalties – people disagree about what
seems just and legitimate; order and justice.
It is not necessary to suggest that people engaged in political activity never agree or that open and
flagrant disagreement is necessary before an issue becomes political: what is important is that it should

10 | P a g e
be recognized that conflict or disagreement lies at the heart of politics. To be political, the disagreement
has to be about public issues.
Recent experience has taught us that the matters that were once purely domestic and of no great
relevance internationally can feature very prominently on the international political agenda. Outbreaks
of avian flu and Ebola Virus all exemplify how domestic incidents can become international and can
lead to foreign policy changes and commitments.

The „international‟ is hence structurally differentiated from the „domestic‟ in that where the former,
according to this ‘realist’ perspective, is defined as ‘anarchical’, the latter is hierarchical. State
sovereignty comes to be the defining element in the study of international relations, even where other
perspectives challenge the primacy of the state. To sum up:
Domestic International
• Laws generally agreed and obeyed • Competing legal systems
• Sanctions • No common enforcement
• Monopoly of force • No monopoly of force (each state judge and jury in own
• A sense of community • Diverse communities
• Hierarchical •Anarchical
Today, international relations could be used to describe a range of interactions between people,
groups, firms, associations, parties, nations or states or between these and (non) governmental
international organizations. These interactions usually take place between entities that exist in different
parts of the world – in different territories, nations or states. To the layperson interactions such as
going on holiday abroad, sending international mail, or buying or selling goods abroad may seem
personal and private, and of no particular international concern. Other interactions such as choosing an
Olympics host or awarding a film Oscar are very public, but may appear to be lacking any significant
international political agenda. However, any such activities could have direct or indirect implications
for political relations between groups, states or international organizations.
More obviously, events such as international conflict, international conferences on global
warming and international crime play a fundamental part in the study of international relations. If our
lives can be so profoundly influenced by such events, and the responses of states and people are so
essential to international affairs, then it is incumbent on us to increase our understanding of such events.

11 | P a g e
As John Donne said in 1624:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a
clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a
manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am
involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

All individuals either in big state or small share basic human needs for air, food, drink and shelter and
have hopes to ultimately realize their personal growth and fulfill their potential. It is also clear that there
is an infinite variety of languages, cultures, religions, philosophies, states and governments. Although
diverse, people are also inescapably interdependent.

Human Needs
Individuals:
 share needs
 of infinite varieties
 while interdependent
The study of contemporary international relations encompasses much more than war and conflict,
but preserving life, justice and sustainability remains a key ingredient. Participation in international
relations or politics is inescapable. No individual, people, nation or state can exist in splendid isolation
or be master of its own fate; but none, no matter how powerful in military, diplomatic or economic
circles, even a giant superpower, can compel everyone to do its bidding. None can maintain or enhance
their rate of social or economic progress or keep people alive without the contributions of foreigners or
foreign states. Every people, nation or state is a minority in a world that is anarchic, that is, there is an
absence of a common sovereign over them. There is politics among entities that have no ruler and in the
absence of any ruler. That world is pluralistic and diverse. Each state is a minority among humankind.
No matter how large or small, every state or nation in the world must take account of „foreigners‟.

1.7. The Complexities of International Relations

• War
• Economics
• Socio-economics
• Development
• Environment

12 | P a g e
International relations, therefore, is too important to be ignored but also too complex to be understood at
a glance. Individuals can be the victim or victors of events but studying international relations helps
each one of us to understand events and perhaps to make a difference. This, however, requires
competence as well as compassion. Some come to study international relations because of an interest in
world events, but gradually they come to recognize that to understand their own state or region, to
understand particular events and issues they have to move beyond a journalistic notion of current events.
There is a need to analyze current events, to examine the why, where, what and when, but also to
understand the factors that led to a particular outcome and the nature of the consequences. Studying
international relations provides the necessary tools to analyse events, and to gain a deeper
comprehension of some of problems that policy-makers confront and to understand the reasoning
behind their actions.

Scholars and practitioners in international relations use concepts and theories to make their study more
manageable. This is one example of how social scientists frequently find themselves in disagreement
about the soundness of „facts‟, concepts or theories. Such disputes have historically led to major
philosophical disputes about the fundamental nature of international relations: the Hobbesian versus the
Lockeian state of nature in the seventeenth century, and the Realist versus Utopian debate of the first
part of the twentieth century.
Hobbes, writing in 1651, interpreted the state of society to be: „continual fear and danger of violent
death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short‟. His stands are surely pessimistic.
Hobbes also noted that:
Yet in all times, Kings and Persons of Sovereign authority, because of their Independency, are in
continual jealousies, and in the state and posture of Gladiators; having their weapons pointing,
and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their Forts, Garrisons, and Guns upon the Frontiers of
their Kingdoms; and continual Spyes upon their neighbors; which is a posture of War.
This is not, of course, an accurate reflection of contemporary international relations, but the concepts
articulated by Hobbes still reverberate in many modern fundamental assumptions about the nature of the
system and of human beings.
Locke took a more optimistic view and suggested that sociability was the strongest bond between men –
men were equal, sociable and free; but they were not licentious because they were governed by the laws
of nature. He was clear that nature did not arm man against man, and that some degree of society was

13 | P a g e
possible even in the state preceding government per se. Three and a half centuries later the differing
perceptions and assumptions concerning human nature that influenced Hobbes and Locke are still able
to divide approaches to the study of the nature of international relations. International relations, even
foreign relations, involve the study of the interactions that take place between seemingly disparate
societies or entities, and the factors that affect those interactions.

The prevalence of „sub-national actors‟ (SNA) and „non-central governments‟ (NCG) must also be
acknowledged on the international stage. For instance, when Governor of California, Arnold
Schwarzenegger, embarked on a campaign to produce an international alliance to combat global
warming, against the wishes of his fellow Republicans in the Senate and White House, he did so not as a
representative of the United States but as a „sub-national actor‟. Similarly, multinational corporations
(MNCs) – often with headquarters in one state and operational capability in a range of others –
contribute significantly to international relations. Additionally there are other trans-governmental
organizations where the relations between players are not controlled by the central foreign policy of the
state – such as the exchange rate of a state‟s currency being determined by the money markets.

Clearly there has been a blurring of boundaries between domestic politics and international politics.
Indeed, some have talked about states being penetrated or permeated by outside agencies – as outsiders
gain entry to gain influence, information, infiltrate a domestic society, or even partake in decisions in
another society. Indeed, some Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) have phoned and negotiated with
cabinet ministers, members of administrations, and even presidents and prime ministers. Despite the
obvious challenges posed to states in the modern world there also remains a strong culture in national
individualism, wherein states and such persons who identify their nationality via the state, wish to
proclaim and practice their separate cultures and different languages. In fact, rather than vanishing,
nationalism and the demand for separate states have increased. However, despite all the challenges and
many new theories of international politics/relations the state remains, for many, the primary actor in
international politics.

These ideas and debates demonstrate that although the term „international relations‟ has for centuries
inferred a particular concern with relations between nations, it does not have to remain so confined.
Thus, contrary to the narrow traditionalist realist view of international relations and foreign

14 | P a g e
policy/relations, which focuses on the physical security and protection of the territory of the state and its
people, one need to look wider?

The traditional view implicit in much international relations literature follows the assumption of Bodin
that social and political order and legality are the highest values of a society and that in every given
territory sovereignty must be united in one clear, secular authority to establish and maintain order.
Following this, the Treaties of Westphalia established that sovereign rulers are the sole creators and
executors of the law. Thus, only those holding authority on behalf of states could have political relations
with each other. Increasingly, however, there is a diminishing salience of territorial issues and a
„domestication‟ of international politics coinciding with a growing awareness that people, nations and
states are entering an era when foreign policy and national security will increasingly revolve around
commercial interests and economic diplomacy.

International Relations as an Expanding Field

The arena of international relations and politics seems to be continually expanding. To appreciate this,
one needs to reflect on the multiplication of independent states. In 1800 there were no international
organizations, but now there is one for almost every activity – both governmental and non-
governmental. When the United Nations Charter was signed in October 1945, 51 states signed it. In the
first decade of twenty-first century the UN grew between 189 and 192 member states. There has also
been the continuing growth of governmental and international services. Of particular importance is that
national and international decisions and choices cover a much broader range of subjects. Both are
increasingly concerned with organized labour, citizens‟ welfare and human rights, living standards,
literacy and health. Secondly, there is the increased complexity of society and the economy. There are
now increased organizational demands in terms of meeting the ordinary everyday needs of citizens.
Interdependence implies that people, businesses and organizations rely on each other (and their rivals) in
different places for ideas, goods and services. International relations and politics is necessary for all
states, but political power is not centralized and unequal. That is why power, coercion and bargaining
still hold sway. It is so because of the following reasons.

• Number of states
• Amount of services and choices
• Complexity of international system

15 | P a g e
1.8. Sub-Fields of IR
The scope of the field of IR may also be defined by the subfields it encompasses. Traditionally, the
study of IR has focused on questions of war and peace, today it has become a subfield of IR known as
international security studies. Similarly, the international political economy (IPE), a second main
subfield of IR, concerns trade and financial relations among nations and focuses on how nations have
cooperated politically to create and maintain institutions that regulate the flow of international economic
and financial transaction. Likewise, these are the following subfields of international relations:
Study of State Systems Study of Policy- Making
Study of Ideologies Study of International organizations and
Study of relations among states institutions
Study of Nationalism, colonialism and Study of the issue of Human Rights
imperialism Study of Geopolitics
Study of national Interests Study of the role of Economic Factors
Study of National Character Study of war and Peace
Study of national Power Study of Demographic Factors
Study of Disarmament Study of Conflict Management and Conflict
Study of foreign policy Resolution
Study of the issues related to environment Study of special Areas
Protection Study of the problem of terrorism.
Study of international Law
1.9. Importance of the Study of INR:
Its study is useful both to the individual and society. Purpose of its study is to understand the
international society as it is & not as it should be. Its study is of great significance in the present day
problem ridden & interdependent world.
1. For human survival and progress: It promotes human survival & progress by solving international
conflicts amicably. By cultivating the lessons of goodwill & co-operation between nations. By
promoting world peace & world government.
2. To avoid wars: Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. Wars are highly
destructive, instead of solving problems it causes hundred and one problems which has no solution at all.
Through an international agency like UNO can be used to avoid wars and to promote world peace.

16 | P a g e
3. To understand the defects of nationalism: Extreme nationalism caused a number of wars. World
peace and world government becomes difficult due to this nationalism. The study of INRs helps
mankind to devise some solutions to these problems to make this world a better planet to live in.
4. To study the basic motivations of the nation states in the world politics: The study of international
relations enables us to understand and analyze the basic motivations and objectives of any state in world
affairs and the techniques which it adopts for the attainment of these objectives. Most of the states in
reality take any decisions or action based on their national interest.
5. To achieve International co-operation: Today no state can lead an isolated life. Without
international co-operation problems of international society like that of Global Terrorism cannot be
solved. International co-operation is necessary to promote Internationalism & world Government and
also world peace.
6. To know the significance of Internationalism: Its study helps us to understand that international co-
existence is more important than National sovereignty, so as to achieve the welfare of all nations in the
international society. In fact, internationalism creates a feeling of oneness among the people of all
nations in the world.
7. To understand the significance of Collective Security & Disarmament: These are the methods for
achieving world peace, forming part of the study of INR. Any state which violates international peace
should be silenced by the collective action of all the states. Collective Security is based on the principle
of “Each for all and All for each.” Disarmament is the reduction or elimination of certain or all
armaments for the purpose of ending armament race.
8. To understand world of public opinion: No statesman or leader can ignore world public opinion in
their dealings with other states
9. Goal of attaining a better world: It is an intellectual discipline which will make the people more
intelligent, more vigilant, more co-operative and tolerant. Its study will make everyone of us a better
citizen and pave the way for a better world & a peaceful one. “The better the world is understood by the
better people in it, better for the world will it be.” -UNESCO Report. Human civilization on earth can be
saved by its study alone.

17 | P a g e