Empirically, studying interpersonal interactions and their social connection dates back to the early twentieth century when some of the earliest focuses were on family relationships from a sociological point of view, while studies of international relations began a few thousand years ago. International relations are often confused with the research of global studies or global affairs, which is characterised by a broader analytical scope where the term global instead of international relations implies a comparatively less focus on the nation state as a basic unit of analysis. Global studies focus more generally on issues of global scope; specifically macro processes in ecology, anthropology, ethnography, communication, migration and the general processes of cultural and economic globalisation. The establishment of modern sovereign states, as basic political entities, dates back about five hundred years in Europe. In early Middle Ages, the European organisation of political authority was based on a vaguely hierarchical religious order of the cosmos. A specific European system that adopted the sovereign equality of states was exported to America, Africa and Asia through colonialism and the ‘standards of civilisation’. Still, the contemporary international system was finally established through decolonisation during the Cold War. Nevertheless, this is somewhat simplified. While the nation state system is considered ‘modern’, many states have not incorporated the system and are called ‘pre-modern’, a handful of states have gone beyond insisting on full sovereignty and can be considered ‘postmodern’. However, what is explicitly recognised as a theory of international relations did not develop until after the First World War. In studying international relationships, there are several theories that try to explain how states work within the international system. These can generally be divided into the three main parts realism, liberalism and constructivism. The realistic framework for international relations rests on the basic assumption that the international state system is an anarchy, without any overarching power that limits the behaviour of sovereign states. As a consequence, states are engaged in a continuous power struggle, where they try to expand their own military capacity, economic power and diplomacy in relation to other states; this is to ensure the protection of their political system, citizens and vital interests. In contrast to realism, the liberal framework emphasises that states, even if they are sovereign, do not exist in a purely anarchic system. Rather, liberal theory assumes that states are institutionally limited by the power and the interdependence of international organisations because of economic and diplomatic ties. Institutions such as the UN, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the International Court of Justice, are considered over time to have developed power and influence to shape or reshape the foreign policy of individual states. In addition, such an existence of the globalised world economy makes the ongoing military power struggle irrational, as states depend on participation in the global trading system to ensure their own survival. As such, the liberal framework emphasises cooperation between states as a fundamental part of the international system. Thereof, states are not seen as united actors, but pluralistic arenas where interest groups, non-governmental organisations and economic actors also shape the creation of foreign policy. The liberal framework is associated with the analysis of the globalised world as it emerged in the aftermath of World War II. Increased political cooperation through organisations such as the UN as economic, also cooperation through institutions, such as the WTO, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, were considered to have made the realistic analysis of power and conflict insufficient, to explain how different international systems really work. The constructivist framework is based on the elementary assumption that the international system is based on social constructions; as ideas, norms and identities. Different political actors, such as heads of state, decision-makers and leaders of international agencies or organisations, are socialised in the different roles and norm systems, which define how the international system works. The constructivist researcher or scholar, mentions, in response to realism that ‘anarchy is what, states make it’. By this, meaning that the anarchic structure that realists claim controls the state’s interaction is in fact a phenomenon that is socially constructed artificially and then reproduced by states. Constructivist theory would, for example, claim that the leaders of the United States, the European Union, Russia, China and the others are all socialised in different roles and norms, which can provide theoretical insights into how the conflict between the powers was conducted in the meantime, during the Cold war. For example, prominent American decision-makers, often referred to Russia as an ‘evil empire,’ which socialised the American people and a state apparatus to an anti-communist sentiment, which clearly defined the norms of US foreign policy. As other constructivist analyses include the discourses of European integration, with high political circles associated with ideas of Europe as a historical and cultural community and therefore sought to build institutions to integrate European nations into a single political body. Constructivism is also found in the analysis of international law, where norms of conduct such as the prohibition of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, the torture and protection of civilians and soldiers in war, are socialised in the international organisations and laid down in rules.
As I said, after analysing all the relationships, everywhere, we should make time to see how we have them at home and in our backyard.
To be continued…….
För the sake of democracy,
Have a mind of your own.
No! No! No!
Yes! Yes1
Just Play the Game
Kuldip Singh
2022-05.23.
