1

The Discipline of International Relations

International Relations (IR) is an important academic discipline and constitutes a significant area of modern social science. It is primarily considered as the study of the relations among nation-states. But this view is oversimplified, because contemporary IR covers a very broad subject-matter. Yet, for a basic understanding this view is helpful. The complex nature of contemporary IR is analysed later in this chapter. But before going into the details of its nature and scope, a look into the history and development of the study of IR is necessary. This chapter begins with a short history of IR as an academic discipline, as well as a practice of maintaining relations among political systems, states or pre-states.

History and Evolution of International Relations (IR)

As an academic discipline, IR is not very old. Its systematic study started after the First World War, and universities in West Europe and the United States introduced separate courses on it from the 1920s. But as relations among states or pre-state political systems, the subject is very old. As the relation among nation-states, IR is believed to have developed with the Peace Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which is considered as the creator of modern nation-states in Europe. But before the birth of modern nation-states, pre-state political systems had developed in different parts of the world. Relations among these pre-state political systems could be viewed, rather incoherently, as the beginning of IR. But this history of IR is a disputed one because the nature and pattern of interactions among pre-state political systems, or for that matter among the nation-states after the Treaty of Westphalia, raise controversies. It is now generally believed that immediately after the treaty was signed, no structured pattern of IR originated. And it was not before the French Revolution in 1789 that systematic interactions among nation-states or other types of political systems had developed. If the more recent history of IR—since the Treaty of Westphalia—is so controversial, it is not difficult to imagine that pre-state IR is subject to more disputes. Some of the known pre-state political systems that existed before the treaty were: (1) Sumerian city-states like Kish, Karsa, Ur, Lagash; and oriental city-states like Jericho, that existed before 2500 BC; (2) Greek city-states and (3) large empires in the West and the East. The nature and extent of interactions among pre-state political systems differed from time to time, making it difficult to systematize the history of IR in ancient times. Occassional and contradictory references to sporadic diplomatic ties among pre-state political systems did not help either in knowing the history of pre-state IR. It is believed that the Treaty of Westphalia encouraged the rise of the independent nation-states by recognizing territorial sovereignty. The treaty also led to the institutionalization of diplomacy and armies. But immediately after Westphalia, no structured pattern of IR had developed. IR, in a modern sense, started to develop when the European nation-state system, born out of the treaty, was transplanted later in the two Americas, Africa and Asia, through the routes of colonialism.

The nation-state system that emerged after Westphalia had undergone a long process of evolution and changes to assume the present nature. During its long process of evolution, this system was influenced, strengthened and also affected by several developments: socio-political, economic and scientific. The rise of capitalism, the Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution, the American War of Independence and colonialism influenced this evolving process till the end of the nineteenth century. In more recent times, since the beginning of the twentieth century, the two world wars; the decolonization process; nationalist movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America; globalization; postmodernism and IT (Information Technology) revolution exerted tremendous influence over the nation-state system. To keep pace with the changing times, nation-states have changed in character; but their basic nature has remained the same since the Treaty of Westphalia: it is a sovereign territorial unit of people sharing some common feelings, loosely identified as nationalism.

IR as a system of interactions among nation-states has also undergone changes from time to time, yet its basic nature has remained the same—it is a system where nation-states mainly interact and make the system operative. As an academic discipline, IR is mainly concerned with the study of such interactions that have assumed multi-dimensional character since the last century. Although primarily a study of the interplay among nation-states, the subject is no more confined only to states; it also deals with other non-state actors and their important roles in international politics and economy. Today, IR is also concerned with new and emerging issues like environment, globalization, terrorism and energy. The discipline also analyses the significance of nonstate actors like international organizations, multinational corporations and non-governmental organizations. The importance of these non-state actors, along with nation-states and issues like environment, globalization, energy and terrorism, gradually came to acquire a significant place in the study of IR after the First World War. Thus, IR appeared as a structured and comprehensive academic discipline after the First World War; and as a separate branch of study, the subject was offered in European and American universities from the 1920s.

The study of IR as an academic discipline evolved further and matured significantly after the Second World War. With the process of decolonization almost complete, and the appearance of new states in Asia, Africa and Latin America, contemporary international politics assumed a new dimension after the war, a period when IR as an academic discipline progressed significantly. With the end of the Balance of Power system that had existed for three centuries, the post–Second World War international order was different; it saw the emergence of two non-European nuclear (weapon) superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, instead of the earlier five to six major non-nuclear (weapon) European powers. From the end of the Second World War (1945) to the end of the Cold War (1991), several issues gained prominence in IR. These are: strengthened existence of non-state actors as significant players in IR; energy; environment; terrorism; globalization and communication revolution. These issues helped to shape a new global order vastly different from those of the past. This new order in effect made the study of IR more dynamic, complex and broader in scope.

Although the world became unipolar after the Cold War, with the United States remaining the only superpower, the present international order has become more interdependent due to the spread of globalization, including international trade, information technology revolution, terrorism and environmental degradation. States are increasingly seeking cooperation from other states, as well as non-state actors, to adjust and compete in this world where states are largely dependent on one another. As an academic discipline, IR is also addressing these issues with more sincerity and articulation after the Cold War.

Nature and Scope of IR

Nature of IR

Is IR an independent academic discipline? The controversy that haunted modern IR for a long time since its emergence in the 1920s, revolved around its status as an independent academic discipline. Some scholars were unwilling to recognize it as a separate, autonomous academic discipline, and thought it to be largely dependent on subjects such as political science and history. The controversy that existed for more than four decades, till the 1960s, seems to have died down now with IR getting the recognition of an independent academic discipline. An autonomous academic discipline requires, mainly, a systematic body of theory, appropriate methodology, and a distinct subject matter. IR today is capable of meeting these criteria to exist and flourish as an autonomous discipline.

Without entering into this controversy (it does not exist anymore), it would be pertinent to identify the distinctive character of IR as an academic discipline. If political science is concerned with the ‘politics’, both formal and informal, of say, India, Britain, China or Australia, IR would be more concerned with the relationship between India and Britain, or China and Britain, or Australia and India, or among all of them. These relations may not be confined to political aspects only; they may cover economic, security, cultural or environmental issues. In other words, an IR scholar would not normally study the constitution or party system of any state; he would rather go for (international) relations of this particular state with others. A political scientist would be interested in the Government of India, or China, and its politics; but an IR scholar would be more interested in the foreign policies of India and China and their impact on relations between the two countries, rather than the domestic political systems in both countries.

Although this separation is not always absolute, as both the political scientist and the IR scholar may have to enter the ‘other’s area’ for the sake of a proper study, but these ‘visits’ are now more for scholarly inputs rather than helpless dependence. And such inter-disciplinary visits are prerequisites for matured academic work. Similarly, IR scholars’ areas of interest would ultimately differ from those of economists or historians, and they may follow different methodologies to study their subject. Interactions between IR and other social science disciplines have increased over the years, but the former’s ‘dependence’ on the latter has been considerably minimized, thus helping it to emerge as an autonomous discipline with a distinct set of theories, methodology and subject matter.

Theories and Methodologies

It is believed that there are four major theoretical traditions in the discipline of IR: liberalism, realism, theories based on international society approach, and theories rooted in international political economy. Recent approaches to counter earlier theories constitute the ‘post-positivist’ position in the discipline. Chapter 2 makes an elaborate analysis of the major theories in IR, based on these four theoretical traditions. However, it may be noted here that these theories have strengthened the claim of IR as an autonomous discipline. Methodologies in IR can be broadly classified into four types: traditional or classical, behavioural, positivist and postpositivist. While the traditional methodology revolved around historical, philosophical, moral or legal questions, the behavioural methodology wanted to base IR on scientific analysis. Traditional or classical methodology drew heavily from other disciplines like history, political science, philosophy and international law. It was based on knowledge and experience, rather than on hypotheses that could be tested. The behavioural method, on the other hand, wanted a systematic study of IR based on ‘scientism’, that is, use of appropriate scientific methods to study the subject. Behaviouralists wanted verifiable hypotheses and quantifiable data. They were concerned more with explanatory rather than normative approach. An example may bring out the difference between the two methodologies more clearly: classical methodology would be happy with the statement that ‘democracy leads to peace’, as this proposition is based on experience; behavioural methodology, on the other hand, would raise the question ‘does democracy lead to peace?’ and try to find an answer through verifiable data obtained from different democracies.

The positivist methodology in IR carries the legacy of behaviouralism, in more sophisticated ways. This method asserts on a precise, empirical approach based on logically related hypotheses that can be tested through scientific techniques, by using, if required, statistical or mathematical analyses. The ‘game theory’ in IR, analysed in Chapter 2, is an example of positivist methodology. The post-positivist methodology draws inspiration from the critique of behavioural and positivist approaches, and wants to assert that IR is not merely a field of techniques and meaningless scientism; it is also a vast area of knowledge without any short and specific agenda. Post-positivism is a very big umbrella that shelters several approaches like critical, postmodern, constructivist and normative approaches. One area of post-positivism, the normative approach, even wishes to revive the classical methodology in IR. More details on IR theories and methodologies would be provided in the next chapter. Methodologies in this subject are varied and constitute a fascinating area of study; and they also substantiate the claim of IR as an academic discipline.

International Relations or International Politics?

Sometimes the terms ‘international relations’ and ‘international politics’ are used interchangeably to analyse issues related to the discipline. Such overlapping creates confusion among the young readers regarding the ‘name’ or ‘title’ of the discipline. It must, therefore, be made clear at the outset that the term IR has been globally accepted and recognized as the appropriate name for the discipline, as this term is broader in scope and more comprehensive than the term international politics. The former covers a vast range of interactions among states beyond political relations, and it also covers other non-state actors and their contributions to the international order. Conversely, the latter refers only to the political events and aspects of the world, and may loosely refer to political interactions among nation-states. As stated at the beginning of this chapter, IR is primarily known as relations among states; but this view is oversimplified and inadequate. This discussion naturally leads the reader to expect a proper definition of the discipline.

Definition of IR

Like many other social science disciplines, it is not easy to define IR in a few words. Although states and their interactions constitute the primary focus of IR, the discipline is concerned with many more issues like non-state actors, international political economy, international security, international environment, globalization, terrorism, area studies and military studies. Relations among states, in a broader sense, cover many such issues, yet leave out many more to be analysed separately. For instance, in a broader sense, international political economy, international security, globalization or environment, to cite a few, are somewhat linked to interactions among states; yet these issues may go beyond the sphere of relations among states. Non-state actors may also influence these issues profoundly. Therefore, IR being viewed as interactions among states is oversimplification, though helpful for a primary understanding. A broader and more comprehensive definition of the subject would be this: International Relations as a branch of social science is concerned with relations among nations, and other issues like non-state actors, international political economy, international security, foreign policies of major powers, globalization, international terrorism, international environment and area studies. This definition indicates that the scope and subject matter of IR has become vast today, unlike earlier times when IR was mainly concerned with nation-states and their interactions.

Scope of IR

Like many other social science disciplines, IR has no definite boundary, and contemporary IR covers a very broad area of study. Creation of artificial and mandatory boundaries for the sake of making a discipline autonomous is not a necessity in any modern social science discipline, because inter-disciplinary exchanges can make all the disciplines enriched. IR also lacks specificity, and contemporary IR, particularly after the Second World War, has broadened its scope beyond limitations. From a preliminary study of government-to-government relations, the scope of IR has widened to include almost all aspects of international politics, and many areas of international political economy, international security, and environment. In 1947, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the United States identified five major areas of study in IR: (1) the nature and operation of the nation-state system; (2) factors that affect the power of a state; (3) the international position and foreign policies of the great powers; (4) the history of recent IR and (5) the building of a more stable international order. IR is now not confined only to these five areas; it has moved far and beyond.

A careful analysis of the report presented by the CFR in 1947 shows that many important issues covered by contemporary IR were not included in the report. For instance, the role and significance of non-state actors were not mentioned in its list; neither were mentioned the importance of international political economy (IPE) and environmental issues. But these issues and many others have gained prominence in IR over the years. Today, the study of IR broadly covers the following areas.

1. Nation-states and their relations: The operation of the nation-state system and relations among nation-states have always made international politics possible, and constituted the basic subject-matter of IR. These would continue to remain the primary area of study in the discipline.
2. Non-state actors: The importance of non-state actors in the study of IR has been increasing over the years. Non-state actors like the multinational corporations (MNC), international non-governmental organizations (INGO), and the inter-governmental organizations (IGO) exert considerable influence in today’s IR. So, these non-state actors are important ingredients of the study of contemporary IR.
3. International political economy (IPE): International political economy is the study of IR with the help of economic activities and analyses. With the onset of globalization from the mid-1980s, a renewed interest in IPE has developed among scholars. Along with political and security angles, the study of IR is frequently analysed today with the help of economic views.
4. International security: Security has always remained the primary concern of nation-states. The concern for security had led to war and peace in the past, and would continue to promote these in the future. A peaceful international order is always linked to the notion of international security that includes, among others factors, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and reduction of tension among states. Studies on war and peace and strategic studies in IR are also related to international security.
5. Foreign policies of important powers: Foreign policies of major and medium powers constitute important subject-matter of IR because these powers are the driving force in IR. When the balance of power system was prevalent, the study of foreign policies of major European powers was considered important. In contemporary IR, analyses of foreign policies of the United States, China, Russia, Japan and India may be useful as these states have become major actors in recent times.
6. Globalization: This primarily refers to economic activities which have serious impact on political and social spheres. With the ascendance of liberal economy over mercantilist economy since the early 1980s, the term globalization has assumed increasing popularity and usage, and become significant in the study of IR. Although globalization and IPE are closely related, these are not identical, as subsequent chapters in this book would reveal.
7. International environment: Environmental issues have now assumed greater significance in the study of IR than ever before because industrialization and technological progress have enhanced concerns for environmental safety all over the world. Environmental issues have made states across the world highly interdependent today because carbon emissions from industrial plants in one part of the world may affect other parts; or shortage of river water in a state may lead it to war with its neighbouring states. A stable and peaceful international order is dependent on environmental issues in today’s world.
8. International terrorism: Terrorist activities involving citizens of more than one country and having transnational impacts constitute international terrorism, an important area of study in IR. It is also referred to as ‘cross border’ terrorism. International peace and security are closely related to this issue.
9. Area studies: Sometimes it becomes rather difficult to study international political, security or economic issues from a broader perspective. So area studies have become popular nowadays. Under it, such issues concerning different areas of the world are taken up separately for analysis. For instance, West Asia, South Asia or Central Europe may be taken up for exclusive analysis under area studies, which has gained prominence in contemporary IR with increasing proliferation of regional organizations and free trade areas (FTA).

The expanding scope of IR lead to the view, and also to the controversy, that the discipline is becoming increasingly unmanageable, and that it lacks a clear conceptual framework. But this view is born out of pessimism about the discipline, and is not acceptable. Today, the subject has a definite and useful theoretical framework to support research in different areas. The broad scope may actually be helpful for it, because the varied subject matter may lead to more research and analyses, as well as greater specialization within the discipline. The broad scope of political science, physics or history, for that matter, has enriched these disciplines and helped them to grow further. There is little rationale therefore to worry about the expanding scope of IR; it will help the discipline to mature into a well-defined and enriched branch of modern social science.

IR in Everyday Life

Students and the literate section of the society sometimes nurture a feeling that IR is far away not only from daily life, but also from domestic politics. They take IR as a subject of interest for governments and leaders, where an ordinary man has no role to play. They also think that it deals with issues which are ‘international’ in character, and are therefore remote from their private life, and even from national politics. But this idea is far from reality. IR is very much linked to domestic politics, as well as to our daily life. Its study not only enriches our academic knowledge and broadens our views about global affairs, it also helps us to understand daily life and domestic politics.

International security and international political economy, among other issues of IR, are closely linked to our daily life. A war, for instance, would affect our daily life profoundly. Our movements may be restricted, our freedom to turn on the lights in our houses may be curbed, and market prices may soar, affecting the normal rhythm of daily life. So, not only students of IR but every citizen would value the existence of peace in regional and international politics. Further, if the price of petroleum increases in the world market, our daily life would be affected because our kitchens would suffer as well due to the enhanced price of cooking gas. Such price hike may also become an issue in domestic politics. Moreover, the prospect of getting jobs after college education would depend on international economic and political conditions. At the time of economic recession or political turmoil, there may not be enough jobs. In an era of globalization, international economic crisis would definitely affect job prospects around the world, and normalcy in daily life.

Sometimes treaties among states may affect the life of of the common people. A bilateral treaty between two countries on sharing of the water of a certain river, for instance, may have profound impact on the daily life of the people living by the side of the river. The ‘Ganga River Water Accord’ between Bangladesh and India, signed in 1996, affected the life of many people in these two countries, besides having an impact on the relations between the two neighbours. Similarly, a multilateral trade or security treaty may also influence the life of the people living in countries that are party to the treaty. Nowadays, regional trade agreements like the SAFTA (South Asian Free Trade Agreement) or the AFTA (Asean Free Trade Agreement) influence the development of the economy of participating states. Such influence over the national economy may, in turn, affect our daily life. A bilateral or multilateral treaty may also fuel controversies in domestic politics. The Ganga River Water Accord generated controversies in domestic politics in both Bangladesh and India. The recent India–US Civil Nuclear Agreement (CNA) became a hot political issue both in Indian and American politics from 2005, when the treaty was conceived, to 2008, when the CNA was finally achieved. Not only political parties, but also ordinary citizens in the two countries got involved in the political debates generated by the agreement. All these examples provided here are indicative of the impact of IR in our daily life.

On the other hand, ordinary citizens also take part, knowingly or unknowingly, in IR. When people cast their votes in parliamentary elections, they actually take an active part in the formation of the government of their country. The government, in turn, formulates foreign policies of the country, along with domestic policies; and tries to protect national interests in world politics and maintain IR. Therefore, through the process of elections, every adult citizen everywhere takes part not only in domestic politics, but also in IR. Further, when people take part in an educational or cultural project sponsored by organizations like the UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization), they associate themselves, perhaps unknowingly, with international developmental activities. IR, as perceived in common parlance, is not a distant subject, far removed from our daily life. On the contrary, it influences the life of ordinary citizens, and in turn, also benefits from them. The discipline shares a symbiotic relationship with the ordinary person.