The Theoretical Framework of International Relations - Case Study Example

 As we live in an increasingly globalized world, the debates over the prospects of co-operation between and among the states have intensified in an unprecedented way. Within the theoretical framework of international relations, such debates are nurtured by both liberal and realist perspectives. Although liberalism and realism shares many concepts and theoretical tools pertaining to international relations, the picture of the world we can derive from their analysis is radically different. For a concrete analysis of the contemporary world order and the conduct of foreign policies by states, it is necessary to identify the emerging tendencies towards greater co-operation between and among the states. The very fact that a new world order has emerged following the collapse of Soviet Union in particular and the Communist Bloc in general demands a shift in our focus of attention while analysing the interactions of the states. The very nature of nation-states itself has profoundly changed. The mutations on sovereignty of nation-states, which are caused by neoliberal globalisation, are unprecedented and apparently irreversible. New institutions have emerged at the international level and they exert greater influence over the policy formulations even by the nation-states that are marginally integrated to the world market. Tradionally, the international system has been indeed seen as a world of sovereign states. States have the monopoly of power within a given territory and claim to represent the interests of the subjects of its rule. A state is primary unit at the international level. Constitutional independence is a defining character of a legitimate state. All states are considered equal in front of the international law. As opposed to the theoretical situation, we can see that the interactions between and among the states at the international level do involves relations of power. Many theorists of international politics have observed that powerful states are able to incorporate their desired ends to the international laws and mobilise what they want from the other states that have lesser resources. The very conception of political is different for realism and liberalism. The political is conceived as the means to certain ideals in liberal theory such as democracy and liberty. Antagonistically, realism sees politics as characterised by conflict. Realism is also known as political realism. Classical realism, neorealism and neoclassical realism are the major varieties of realist thinking. On the other hand, liberal internationalism traces its roots to Aristotelian conception of politics as fundamentally a co-operative activity where accepted ideals of a political community have primacy over the immediate self-interests of the individuals and all could share the benefits. Aristotle saw that ‘political activity involves collective choices, forms of co-operation where the outcome is binding on all’ (Bromley et al., 2004, p.100). Realists but hold a pessimistic view of politics that we are not consciously choosing our set of actions in response to a given condition, rather acting in a realm of fate since our actions are necessitated by the intrinsic peculiarities of a situation. Certainly, realists are banking upon the premise of Thomas Hobbes in their critique of liberal internationalism. For Hobbes, the creation of political authority itself is a form of co-ordination. Co-ordination implies that everyone is able to pursue independent choices on a situation that is favourable for the benefits of all. It denotes that people could have convergent interests and one’s well-being is not a threat to another. What Hobbes conviction was that ‘[t]he establishment of a sovereign power would bring peace and security to social life by creating a political authority that could both impose a uniform judgement as to what is required for self-preservation and establish an effective monopoly over coercive power’ (Bromley et al., 2004, p.105). As a man lived in the times of much turbulence caused by religious wars and revolts, Hobbes could not subscribe the idea that people could live peacefully based on the perception of some imaginary ideals that would benefit all. Hobbes believed that we live in a ‘state of nature’ where ‘war of every man against every man’ would prevail unless there is an established sovereign state, a Leviathan. Hobbes elucidation of the concept ‘state of nature’ points to a state of statelessness where no established mechanisms are available to the people to guarantee the protection of their lives. Here, one’s right to live could be breached by anyone at will. In other words, it is nothing but a condition of anarchy. Anarchy is characterised by the lack of legitimate political authority and lesser degrees of political specialisation and institutionalisation. Most importantly, there is no monopoly of a state actor over the use of coercive means that is necessary to enforce collective decisions in an anarchic order. As a remedy to this, Hobbes suggests that not only a sovereign power could be established by means of co-ordination but also the sovereign could further enhance the levels and degrees of co-ordination to ensure mutual benefits. It is important to note that Weberian understanding of state as a ‘compulsory political organisation, operating in a given territory, that successfully upholds a claim to a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order’ too follows the same course of argument’ (Bromley et al., 2004, p.156). The influential neorealist, Kenneth Waltz’s neorealist model of international politics seeks to examine the difference between domestic and international politics in terms of the different modes of their organisation while synthesising the ideas of both Weber and Hobbes. At the domestic level, there is centralised force that is legitimate too, nothing so is present at the international level. The overriding fact is that no world state exists so that the realm of international politics is more an anarchy than an established order. The international recognises no hierarchy of powers while domestically state is the supreme actor. The urge for self-preservation is the highest value not only for the individuals but for the states as well. Therefore, the overriding priority of states at the international level is security while it is hierarchy at the domestic level. States can seek independence and efficiency through specialisation with sophisticated division of labour among the corresponding political and other bodies at the domestic level. On the contrary, doing this at the international level would lead to dependency on other states, that is not desirable, if not possible. Waltz forcefully argues that interdependence make a state’s position vulnerable with reference to other states. Hence, states must constantly try to secure arms and other essential things needed for its survival without relying on others. It makes all states functionally alike in terms of survival and maximisation of benefits although their capabilities are different. Thus, constraints to cooperation prevail. Consequently, permanent alliances or friendships are not simply possible. Therefore, each state has to maintain or enhance its relative power vis-à-vis other states for the fact that gains are almost always relative. In brief, each state has to look after itself. (Bromley et al., 2004, p.110-116). Waltz’s model has been criticised by theorists of different traditions as state- centric. It means that Waltz’s analysis lopsidedly privileges the role of state in political affairs. Furthermore, the rigorous compartmentalisation of concepts such as hierarchy and anarchy is without vigour since every system contains elements of both. One another prominent criticism is that Walt’s argument that international institutions sans legitimacy does not reflect the post second world war reality. In addition, it is not difficult to see that international institutions enjoy considerable power to enforce collective decisions when it is necessary as in the instances of just war. The deepest criticism of Waltz is that his analogy between the nature of individuals and states is not at all sustainable an deprived of solid theoretical grounding. Fundamental differences do exist between domestic and international politics. One is not simply the replication of another although there are many continuities and mutual influences. Realists of all hues in general are of the view that conflict is an essential and necessary feature of international politics. For them, states are inherently power hungry and it is fatal for them to be so, if not inevitable. However, attributes of co-ordination and consent are not typically absent at the realm of international relations especially when the world moves on to greater connectivity and interdependence. Regional integrations and formation of free trade blocs also show us the increasing degree of effective co-operation at the international level. National interest is not something given once and for all. What is pursued as national interest at the international level is often a product of domestic politics. Many a factors, both direct and indirect, influence the foreign policy decisions. The particular history of the state certainly plays a vital role. Even the micro characteristics of a national society that give it distinctiveness have also their own stake in shaping the national interest. The certain construction of national interest is mediated through a dominant political discourse that is in fact strongly related to the nature of the political system existing in a particular country. In brief, concrete public policy bears the mark of a specific coalition of interests (Bromley et al., 2004, p.103). Political discourses are the intellectual mechanisms through which communication of interests by individuals and groups takes place. Political discourses share collective values and common goals. Political authority refers to a body that legitimates ‘the acts and commands exercised in its name’ and able to enforce its will on the subjects (Bromley et al,. 2004, p.103). Politics within political communities and politics between political communities are not mutually exclusive. The reality that there is no overarching authority to regulate the politics between the states creates a power vacuum at the international arena. Anarchy poses no obstacles to co-operation in this world (Bromley et al., 2004, p.284). In the concrete case of India and also from the immediate issue liberalization, Sudipta Kaviraj contemplates that ‘in order to analyse the formation of india’s national interest we need to look at the collective values and identities found in Indian society, formulated and expressed in its political discourse, and see how these served to shape the articulation of interests’ (Bromley et al., 2004, p.170). What Kaviraj tries to show is that the so-called domestic matters such as economic liberalisation can have profound influence in changing the international relations of a country as it happened in the case of India following its entry to the global market. The interests of groups and individuals in a given country can drive it into policy reformulation at the international level. The concerns of identity are also matters a lot in the international affairs since identity marks the identification of individuals or groups with a ‘socially defined community’ (Bromley et al., 2004, p.156). Arguably, security dilemma is one of the principal factors in defining the interactions in the international system of states. It is a product of the difficulty to ‘distinguish between offensive and defensive military capabilities, the forces that make one state feel secure are seen by others states as threatening and vice versa’ (Bromley et al., 2004, p.108). States do possess their means of coercion that could be directed at other states at their will. In addition, the sovereignty of states is recognized not only internally but also externally by other states. Sovereignty is also not finite, it is always in the making. Obviously, it is relational and constituted by a ‘basket of attributes’. Such an understanding thoroughly shakes the foundations of Waltz’s elucidation of the concept sovereignty. The very fact our world is increasingly turning into multi level governance that essentially enhances the co-operation between and among the states too questions the central tenets of realist understanding of international politics. From the realist perspective, states are seen as unitary, rational actors with the sole purpose of maximisation of security and chances of survival. Liberal internationalism, even in its early elucidations by theorists such as Woodrow Wilson and Norman Angel, believes that states mutually gain from genuine co-operation. War as a means to meet the desired and perceived ends is not only destructive but also futile. Liberal internationalism sees co-operation a norm, not a condition although it sounds idealist. Importantly, its logical premise is grounded upon the notion of human rights and thereby seeks legitimacy from international law. Here, the emphasis is on the positive and enabling role of international institutions and the other non-state actors. From within the liberal tradition, regime theory shows the possibility for realising international cooperation through adequate institutional mechanisms especially in a world that is characterised by ever-increasing trade relations and interdependence. What matters is not security but collective security since it is the only possibility. The pursuit of relative gains may generate conflict. However, states in the long run cannot restrain themselves from seeking absolute gains by means of institutionalised co-operation. Besides, security is not inherently a zero-sum game. States are not only obsessed with security but also with the welfare and social security of the people. In other words, security needs to be broadly defined to include human development, collective security, environment protection and so on. Human nature is not constant or one dimensional to be always selfish. The idea of permanence of conflict is biased. To conclude, the present international system is characterised by the emergence of multilevel governance that increasingly blurs the distinction between international politics and domestic politics. Rather, there never existed a concrete dichotomy between international politics and domestic politics since both are intertwined and often overlap each other. ‘[T]o define co-operation as involving equal obligations for all states’ is not a right thing to do. Co-operation is not a monolithic concept. It is a process substantiated by the mechanisms of international trade and enhanced flows of people and commodities. Sovereignty is not absolute or finite. The coalitions of regional forces and their direct interaction with global economic and political forces do effectively curtail the singular claim of national states over sovereignty. Interdependence and interconnectivity are the basic features of globalization that encapsulates almost all the countries. The present world order makes co-operation not simply a norm but a concrete possibility. Moreover, the opposite of co-operation is not defection, as realists would argue. The interactions between and among the states are multilayered and multidimensional, not a binary of aggression or interdependence. After all, the ‘invisible hand’ of the globalised market mitigates the effects anarchy at international system of states by systematically reducing the gap between global and local, thereby neutralising the so-called aggressiveness of the state. The new institutions that are emerging both locally and globally intensify and further interdependence. Finally, it is possible to state that the commons and their collective organisations are forcing the states to pursue absolute gains through co-operation and changes in the strategies over both preferences and outcomes. Work Cited Bromley et al., (2004). Making the International: Economic Interdependence and Political Order. (ed.). London: Pluto Press Read More