General Introduction ot the international relations
INTRODUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Concept and origin of
international relations
In ancient times, Aristotle said:
“man by nature and necessity is a social animal.” A man who can live without
others beings is either a god or beast. In modern times, we can safely say that
no nation or country can live in isolation. Co existence of nations is the
order of the day. No doubt every nation is independent and sovereign;
nevertheless it counts on other nations of the world in several respects.
Cordial relations and understanding among nations have become important
phenomena of modern life.
In ancient world, international
relations were incidental, sporadic and limited in nature. Mostly they were not
global, but merely regional in character. They were actually not international
relations in the true sense of the term. They can, at best, be described as
parochial and occasional inter-state relations.
With the Renaissance and the
reformation, international relations assumed a new character. After the peace
of West- Phalia in 1648, statehood became an ideal unit of mankind. With this,
territorial sovereign and nation-state emerged as a basic political unit and an
effective actor in international relations. These sovereign states were very
much aware of their independence yet they were also conscious about the reality
of inter-dependence in the modern world. Modern international relations began
to grow in the paradoxical situation of independence and inter-dependence;
separateness and closeness; individuality and mutuality; nationalism and
internationalism. They continued to develop as a process of co-operation and
conflict.
There was manifold increase in the wants
and needs of the various countries after the industrial Revolution. There was
considerable improvement in the means of transport and communications. Trade,
transit and transactions between the nations became the order of the nineteenth
and twentieth century’s further brought the nations nearer and closer. All this
development made international relations regular, more comprehensive, more and
more global and broadens instead of regional and narrower.
The industrial and scientific
innovations had their impact on war technology and armaments. The trauma of the
First World War, together with the demand for democratic control of foreign
policy, stimulated the public urge for better understanding of foreign
relations. The issue of war and peace came to the forefront. All these
developments attracted people’s attention towards the growing importance of
international relations.
Concept
of international relations
Conceptual
seed of international relations sprouted from the city state system of the
ancient world.
Due to dynamic and flexible nature of IRs,
concept and contour of international relations is still on the anvil.
From its
initiation as an academic discipline in 1920s to the 1950s, it was understood
as an international politics that lay emphasis on the study of politics and
relations among the nation states.
National interest
(objective), conflict (condition) and, power (means) are three important
aspects relevant to international politics.
International
politics involves conflict as well as cooperation. But cooperation is feasible
only through control of conflict. International politics deals with the control
of conflict and achievement of cooperation. By and large, nature of
international politics is conflictual.
Meaning and definition of
international relations
Quincy Wright, “International politics is the art
of influencing, manipulating or controlling major groups, so as to advance the
purpose of some against the opposition of others.”
Modern views
regards international relations as the study of all kind of relations
(political and non-political, formal and informal, cooperative and conflictual)
that transcend national boundaries.
Palmer and Perkins,” it
encompasses much more than the relations among nation states and international
organizations and groups. It includes the great variety of transitional
relationships, at various levels, above and below the level of the nation
state, still the main actor in international community.”
To sum up this
emerging university discipline deals with all kinds of relations traversing
state boundaries, no matter whether they are of an economic, legal, political
or any other character, whether they are private or official relations.
|
KEY POINTS OF CONCEPT
|
STUDIES
|
|
Traditional
concept – international politics (up to 1950s)
[Quincy
Wright, Morgenthau, Schleicher etc]
|
Political
relations among states, conflictual by nature, narrow concept.
|
|
Modern
concept- international relations ( 1950s onwards)
Palmer
and Perkins, Mathiesen, Holsti, etc.
|
All
kind of relations traversing state boundaries includes all the relevant
actors, concepts and relationships, broader concept, cooperative by nature.
|
Scope
of International Relations
One
can’t settle once and for all the subject matter of a discipline, as it tends,
to vary with the passing of time and with the emergence of new conditions and
factors. Since World War I and especially after world war different scholars,
universities, academic organizations and institutions endeavored to carve out a
specific area of study for international relations. However, it cannot be
maintained conclusively the scope is fully decided because the international
situation as well as this discipline is in a state of flux. But it can be
safely said that by and large its scope and main areas of study have been
distinctly demarcated and they are as follows:
State
system:
Principle and behaviors of sovereign states
Relations
in conflict and cooperation:
conflictual and cooperative interstate relations
General
and diplomatic history:
e.g. to know present indo relations go back in their past relations,
Power: international politics is “the
concept of interest defined in terms of power” of a nation- state.
International
law: set of
rules that regulates IRs,
International
organizations:
Global and regional organizations have bearing on IRs
International
systems-unipolar,
bipolar, multi-polar, sub-system
Geo-politics- relations between space and
politics (Nepal and India
relations)
Conflict
management and resolution-
devise techniques and methods to manage
War
and peace –
human phenomena since ancient time
Military
strategies factors-
study of war and strategy,
Alliances
and groups-uniting
factors, degree of unity and conflict with others
Arms
control and disarmament
- NTBT, NPT, IAEA etc.
Economic
factors- NIEO,
Bretton Wood Organization, financial crisis etc.
Area
and regional studies-
to know about myriad of factors of area
Environment
and terrorism-
protecting environs and controlling terrorism
National
interest-
objectives of sovereign states
Foreign
policy- clearly stated
behavior of states
National
character-distinctive
attribute of people and social groups,
Psychological
factor- study of
social psychology of leaders or people
Globalization – free flow of goods, people,
ideas, service, investment and technology.
To sum up, emerging discipline
international relations is striving to broaden its scope in taking new contents
and contours that have tangible and intangible co-relation with the
international relations. Its study as a separate academic genre has further indicated
the growing scope of IRs both in theory and practice.
Nature
of International relations
Broader view towards international relations
initiated after 1950s has contributed to introduce the nature of international
relations as an academic discipline of social science. Practitioners and
theorists have explored the following nature of IRs:
Interdisciplinary- borrows concepts and theories
from various disciplines such as law, economics, politics and history.
Dynamic-
given the
instable nature of international situation, IRs is also flexible and dynamic
subject.
Scientific
and behavioral- applies
scientific methods and approaches
Broader
scope and subject matter-includes
vast subject matters ranging from local to global, law to politics etc.
Younger
discipline of social science-still
on the making, new contour on the canvas of academics,
Ideational
goals - peace,
prosperity and security.
Conflicting
theories-idealism
and realism, traditional and behavioral approaches etc.
Study
of cooperative and oppositional relations- conflict and cooperation are two faces of the same
coin
Given the dynamic and volatile
nature of international relations, attributes of international relations are
less static and more forward looking. More over fewer consensuses and more
contention exists in drawing the nature and nomenclature of IRs. Hence, broader
perspective is must to gain insight over these characteristic features of IRs.
Development
of International Relations
Though,
IRs as an academic discipline is of a recent origin yet relations among nations
were as old as phenomena as history. There were inter-tribal, inter-city state
and inter-kingdom relations even in the ancient age. But in ancient world,
international relations were incidental, sporadic and limited in nature. Its
study as an autonomous discipline is of comparatively recent origin. This
discipline is so new that it can be called as the youngest of all social
sciences. Hence, its genesis was in the first half of the twentieth century and
attained its adulthood in the post- Second World War period passing through
several trends and stages.
Development
of IRs can be outlined as follows:-
First
stage of IRs (up to end of First World War)
Taught by
diplomatic historians who focused on the description of past events.
Second
stage (after First World War)
Study of current
affairs and so remained partial
Third
stage (after First World War through inter-war years)
Liberalism, which,
adopted moralistic legalistic approach and renounced war. Much hope was pinned
on the international organizations (league) and international law to establish
healthy world order free of war and conflict. It was, thus, utopian.
Fourth
stage (after Second World War)
Utopian views were
under eraser due to emergence of realists in 1950s, and early 60s, for them
power is a means, as well as end in itself. International politics is nothing
but struggle for power. Every state seeks more power to use and with its help
fulfill other important national interests.
Fifth
stage (mid sixties to the seventies)
Neo-liberalism
emerged that focused on pluralism and interdependence model. Study of multiple
actors and interdependence of states or non-state actors.
Sixth
stage (late seventies to first half of eighties)
Neo-realism with
structures focused on interest which is needed to be protected. Third world and
non-western perspective towards IRs came to the forefront.
Seventh
stage (after 1985 to 1990)
Gorbachev’s “new
political thinking “ bid farewell to cold war and advocated balance of
interests, cooperation, internationalization, disarmament, defense and
de-idealizations of inter-state relations.
Eighth
stage (from early 1990s onward)
Focus on regionalism,
heyday of USA,
resurgence of democratic values and rapid globalization broadened the scope and
subject matter of IRs.
Thus, international relations is
inter disciplinary and of recent origin. It developed from liberalism to
realism, neo-liberalism to neo-realism and so on. It has created independent
statues being separated from political science, history and law. It is still on
the making.
Recent trends in contemporary
international relations
Unpredicted
and innovative phenomena or pictures began to emerge in the canvas of
international relations along with the de-ideologization of the world in the
early 1990s. Paradigm shift in issues and events of international relations
really gave new flavor to the enthusiast of international relations. Nexus of
issues and events are now so complex and esoteric that no thinking man can grab
their hearts without properly analyzing their covert and overt nature. To cut
the matter short, one can glance the recent trends of contempory IRs as follow:
Recent economics
trend
Recent political
trend
Recent
socio-cultural trend
- Recent economic trends
Today
‘geo-eco’ has taken precedence over ‘geo-pol’. Nations are in the race to
become economic powerhouses as they know that it is the key to becoming a
global leader. Despite these facts, the world is languishing due to growing
gaps between ‘have’ and ‘have-not’, ‘know’ and ‘know not’, prosperous north and
pauper south. This current saga is really teasing the man with social heart. On
the above, backdrop, one identity following economic trends at present global
scenario:
Economic
disequilibrium-
gabs between rich and poor countries, 20:80 socio
-polarization within and between states
-
moving from inequitable to inhuman
Increasing debt
burden on LACs-
end of cold war marked gradual decline in grants for LACs.
-
Selfish
conditionality trapped poor countries in the vicious circle of debt burden,
-
Take
loan and repay interest by borrowing
Aid for trade- WTO’s Hong Kong Ministerial
Conference, 2005 Launched this initiative to build the trade related skills and infrastructures of the developing
countries
- used as sustainable
way of eradicating overreaching poverty.
Globalization and
liberalization -
expansion and intensification of linkages and flow of people, service, goods,
capital, ideas and cultures across borders.
-
Simplification
of business procedures or freeing of trade, investment and capital flows
between countries
-
Technology gap – high-income and low income
countries have this gap
Regional
integration
– enhanced economic integration
- Three
trends: growing free trade areas, enlarging economic integration and more
economic agreements,
Carbon trading – new form of commerce involving
buying and selling of environmental services
-response to Kyoto
Protocol 1997
Search for
renewable sources of energy
– looking for alternative energy sources
International trade – countries use various trade
instruments of foreign policy
Emerging concept of
sustainable development
– nature has got sufficient resources to fulfill our needs but not the greed.
-meeting the needs
of the present generation without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.
Emerging economics – BRICS : Brazil, Russia, India,
Indonesia, China and South Africa are major actors of global economy
-their economic
boost is clouding the economic hegemony (domination) of old actors,
- Recent International political trends
New political thinking of Gorbhachev
made a point of departure and 9/11 further created watershed on the pages of
international relations. Aristotelian ‘political being’ started to behave in a
surprising and unpredictable manner that gave impetus (force) to the following
political trends in international relations:
Reinventing state
sovereignty
-independence and
supremacy compromised for the sake of human rights, environment preservation,
curbing international terrorism,
-sovereignty not
only within the border but also beyond state border due to technological
advancement
Demand for
restructuring the UN
-democratizing the
anachronistic functioning of the UN, chiefly supported by P5 (veto holders)
-contextualizing
the UN in the ecology of the 21st century that is too old to the
situation of 1945.
-harmonizing the
anomalies existing in the Security Council
“War on terror” as
a pressing global issue
-unequivocal voice
against the act of terror, whatever its forms and manifestations may be.
Politically
multi-polar world
-Bi-polar world is
old phenomena, newer states are emerging as political clout (influence, cuff)
-China, Brazil,
Indonesia, Russia are playing active role in the world politics,
Surging wave of
democracy in the world
-Dictators are surrendering
before people’s free will and desire for popular ruling
-No alternative of
democracy in the world,
New diplomacy
gaining more weight age
-cultural,
economic, conference, summit, track III diplomacy are the glues of
international relations,
-public opinions
within and outside countries are gaining proper attentions from doers of
diplomacy,
-concept, actors
and focus are changed in diplomacy,
Palestinian and
atomic issues as shame for human rationality
-Debate over
Palestine – Israel issues getting entangled
-atomic clubs are
sharpening their atomic power overtly and covertly that has further aggravated
the peace and security dreams
3.
Recent international social trends
Political security alone cannot save
“succeeding generations from scourge of war” (UN charter, preamble). Human
security or social security is must to maintain sustainable peace and security
in the world. Social issues are gaining focused attention from the members of
international community. It would be rational to enlist following international
social trends as the major factors influencing international relations:
Big questions
raised by human rights
-Three generations
of human rights:
1. Civil and
political right
2. Social,
economic and cultural right
3. Collective
right
-despite
deteriorating (weakening) situation of
human rights in various countries, international jurisdiction of human rights
is gaining a concrete shape,
Renewed attention
towards environmental problems
-Climate change,
pollution, industrial wastages, emission of carbons, depleting ozone layer are
looming large as global problems and world people are paying more attention
over these phenomena,
Emergence of
religious fundamentalism
-in the name of
stopping hegemony or high-handedness of western bullies, seeds of “jihad”,
“Fatah” are sworn that has given birth to religious fanatics.
Question of gender
disparity
-maleness(
rationality, ambition, strength) is privileged over femaleness ( emotionality,
passivity, weakness) in the present world and so the world is venturing to
establish a workshop of gender equality and equity rather than talk shop of
lopsided (irregular) development,
Threat of cultural
amalgamation (mixture or combination)
-communication and
technology has not only opened the treasure trove but also opened a Pandora’s
Box i.e. threat to smaller or weaker cultural heritages of the different social
groups,
-western cultures
supported by machination are shadowing the bright aspects of eastern cultural
saga or heritage under the banner of “global culture”
Ethnic cleansing
and civilization war or conflict
-violence over
ethnic minority and conflict among different groups to protect and promote
their own ethnic or racial identity (war of identity) are shifting the nature
of conflict.
Globalization of
social problems
-ATAS, hunger,
illiteracy, epidemics, climate change are daily dominating the significant
portion of news throughout the world,
-MDGs is a
collective response to curb these social maladies but dogmatism (rigidity)
devoid of pragmatism (simplicity) doesn’t yield any fruits, here devotion or
commitment is must to translate MAGs into action,
Observing the
above three trends of contemporary international relations, one can sum up that
the dawn of twenty first century is demanding rationality mind, honesty heart and responsibility
shoulders of international community to ward off negative international trends
and enhance positive trends for the well being of this planet dwellers.
Precaution is warned not to let negative trends overcome positive ones.
Traditional and modern approaches to the study
of International Relations
Approach is a way of looking and
explaining a particular phenomenon. Approach comes first and theory is the
outcome of the study undertaken with a particular approach or viewpoint.
Generally there are two approaches to the study of IRs
Traditional
/Normative/Value laden approach
Modern
/ Empirical/ Value neutral or free approach
|
Traditional
Approach
|
Modern
Approach
|
|
Legalistic
– moralistic that emphasizes over instruments of international law and
international organization. Real political that emphasizes power, interest
and conflict.
|
Scientific
– behavioral that pursues objective analysis of international affair using
strict empirical procedures of verification.
|
|
Classical
approach chiefly derived from history, philosophy and law. ( economics and
political science )
|
Modern
approach is interdisciplinary, behavioral, comparative and scientific.
|
|
More
concerned with substance. (study of peace and war)
|
Obsessed
with rigorous use of methods and techniques. (Empirical method, inductive
reasoning, comprehensive testing of hypothesis.
|
|
Realist
theory and liberalist theory
|
Numerous
theories : system, game, communication, decision making etc.
|
|
Traditional
Approach
|
Modern
Approach
|
|
Philosophical
/ ethical theory
|
Psychological
theory
|
|
Historical
theory
|
Behavioral
theory
|
|
Institutional
theory
|
Statistic
theory
|
|
Legal
theory
|
System
theory
|
|
|
Sociological
theory
|
|
|
Marxian
theory
|
|
|
|
One can have
grater look upon the major theories of both approaches:
Ø
Idealist
Theory/ Liberalism/ Wilsonism/ Utopianism
Ø
Realist
Theory
Ø
System
Theory
Ø
Decision
Making Theory
Ø
Marxian
Theory
Idealist Theory
/liberalism/ Wilsonism/ Utopianism
Political idealists, such as Woodrow Wilson,
Butterfields and Russell, believed on the establishment of a family of nations
sans war, sans violence and sans immorality. Emerged from the ashes of the
first world war, enthusiasts of Utopianisms envisioned the future international
society based on the idea of reformed international system free from power
politics, immorality and violence. Political conflicts in the past were not for
power but between inconsistent principles and ideals.
Basic
tenets/ Assumptions
v
Human
nature is basically good and altruistic.
v
Human
instinct for welfare makes progress possible.
v
Bad
human behaviors are product of evil institutions and structure.
v
Wars
are sins.
v
War
can be eliminated with the institutional arrangement.
v
Just
international order eliminates war.
Thus, idealists believed on
moralist, optimism and internationalism.
Suggestions
of idealists
International
problems can be solved using following measures:
v
Members
of world society need to follow moral principles in their international
behavior.
v
Create
supranational institutions to replace the competitive and war-prone system of
territorial states. They aspire for instituting world government or word
federation.
v
Legal
control of war or adherence to international law is suggested.
v
Eliminate
weapons. Global disarmament and arms control is must for peace and security.
v
Advocate
for democratic states and against totalitarian states.
v
Restructure
international monetary system and criminate barriers of international trade.
Criticism
Idealists are
partially correct and for from reality
v
Nations
seldom follow moral principles strictly, nor do they staunchly adhere to
international law.
v
Eliminating
totalitarianism and instituting world federation is far cry.
v
Excessively
value laden tenets lack ground reality.
However, no social
science exists without a normative aspect significance of idealism can be
justified on the ground that it was reincarnated in the late 80s in the form of
neo-liberalism and reflectivism.
Realist
Theory
Realists regard power politics as
the be all and end all of international relations. Hans J.Morganthau coherently
elucidated this theory in the post war period. Making a point of departure from
a platonic doctrine, it revolves around security and power factors. Statesmen
think and act only in terms of national interest. For them, struggle for power
is a permanent phenomenon.
Basic
Tenets/ Assumptions
v
Humanity
is by nature sinful and wicked.
v
Men
have instinctive lust for power(will to power)
v
None
can eradicate lust for power.
v
International
politics is a struggle for power, a war of all against all.
v
Primary
obligation of state is to promote national self-interest,
v
Each
state never trusts others.
v
Balance
of power brings peace and order in the world.
E.g.
USA and USSR rivalry, proliferation of nuclear weapons etc.
Six principle of
Morganthau’s Realism
Objective
laws of human nature
Interest
in terms of power
Interests
are dynamic
Universal
moral principles inapplicable
Moral
aspiration of nations
Autonomy
of political sphere
v
Objective laws of human nature – Man is a mixture of good and
bad.
v
Interest in terms of power - Main function of a state and
its salesmen is to protect national interests with the help of power.
v
Interests are dynamic – Content and manner of the use
of power are they determined by political and cultural circumstances.
v
Universal moral principles inapplicable – states sacrifice the abstract
or moral laws for the state of national interest.
v
Moral aspiration of nations - Moral laws that govern the
universe do not apply to state.
v
Autonomy of political sphere – Other realism is subordinate to
political science.
Critical
evaluation
Due to anomalies
and ambiguities, this theory is also partially right
Power
is not the only motivation
Leads
to continuous war
Wrong
concept of human nature
Ignores
non-political relations among states
One-sided
theory
Politics
not autonomous
Raise
new questions
Lacks
methodology
Full
of contradictions
Power
is not the only motivation – humans
have also drive for participation and cooperation
v
Leads to continuous war – Since behaves over “struggle
for power”.
v
Wrong concept of human nature – Pessimistic view
v
Ignores non-political relations
among states
v
One sided theory – “Power monism”.
v
Politics not autonomous – Rather interdisciplinary
v
Raise new questions- Does arms encourage security
v
Lacks Methodology – Normative, dexsiptive,
subjective
v
Full of contradictions – believe on peace through
diplomacy but peace is a far cry it states doesn’t compromise their greed for
power.
Though, it is
partial theory, it has interpreted the outcome of the world war second who had
given serious fold to idealist theory. This theory was revived in the early
eighties in the name of neo-realism.
System
Theory
This theory assumes that
international relations operates through system that may have base on
geography, economics, politics and any other issues. David Easton and Gabriel
Almond Propounded this theory in the sphere of national politics whereas
Morton Kaplan and McClelland in the
field of international politics. It includes general system theory and
the concept of international systems, sub-systems and subordinate state system,
past and present. It advocates the use of systematic research to explore
various systems in term of issue areas. Invention of system theory is one of
the bright achievements of the behavioral sciences today.
Assumptions
v
There
exists an international system at the global level.
v
Global
system initiated after Second World War is suffering from great heterogeneity.
v
International
system is a pattern of relations between the basic units of world politics.
v
Kaplan
opinions that there are two actors on international scene; national actors
(China, U.S.A. etc) and supra-national actors (NATO, EU, UN etc.)
v
This
theory analyzes international behavior of a state from an empirical
investigation of political facts, classified and arranged in appropriate
categories.
Kaplan’s
Six Models
International system, according to
Kaplan, a pioneer of system theory, can be divided into six models on the basis
of functions and stability.
1.
Balance
of power system
2.
Loose
bipolar system
3.
Tight
bi-polar system
4.
Universal
system
5.
Hierarchical
system
6.
Unit
Veto system
i.
If
many actors influence international relations, if is difficult to strike a
perfect balance of power position and a loose bipolar system develops.
ii.
Universal
system grows if universal actor like UN plays greater role in a loose bipolar
system.
iii.
In
hierarchical system grows if universal actor plays great role and the
international community becomes like a world state.
iv.
Unit
veto system develops when each actors possesses destructive weapon.
v.
In
a loose bipolar system, a few nations possess such destructive weapons, whereas
in tight bipolar system, only two nations possess such destructive weapons and
immense economic power. The non-aligned nation becomes irrelevant in this
condition.
Examination of all
variables will ensure us to formulate predictable laws of the particular
system. Systems may operate under larger systems or they may also have their
own subsystems.
Post-cold
war international system
Deideologization
has ushered a new international system. Professor Robert and Harkavy deduce
seven distinct images, models or paradigms regarding the emerging international
system.
1.
The
three-Bloc Geo-economics Model
2.
Revitalized
Balance of power Model
3.
Clash
of civilization Model
4.
The
Uni-polar world: US as the sole super power.
5.
Zone
of Peace or Turmoil
6.
The
Global Village
7.
Incipient
Bipolar System
The
three-Bloc Geo-economics Model
·
Japan-led
pacific rim region including Korea, East Asia and China
·
US-led
western hemisphere block
·
German-centered
European block
Revitalized
Balance of Power Model
Four
Powers are likely to define the emerging pattern of the 21st
century.
US, China, Russia
and Europe.
Clash
of civilization Model
Seven
or eight civilization of the world and their faille lines result into clash.
The
Uni-polar World
US,
as, the sole super power.
Zone
of peace or Turmoil
·
Zone
of Peace, wealth and democracy: Western Europe, US, Canada, Japan
·
Zone
of Peace, turmoil, War and development: Asia, Africa, Latin America.
The
Global Village
Coming age will be
one in every aspect.
Incipient
Bipolar System
Hopes of Global
Villages may come under eraser.
·
China-Russia
against US-Europe
·
All
Asia against US-Europe-Russian.
Critical
Evaluation
1.
Kaplan’s
theory is inoperative and impracticable.
2.
Non-aligned
nations existed even in the bipolar system.
3.
Inadequate
theory as it ignores forces and factors that determine the behavior of states.
4.
New
models are neither exclusive nor full proof. So models are far from reality.
Decision
Making Theory
This
theory developed especially in the sphere of foreign policy making. It examines
international politics through the analysis of the complex determinants of
state behavior. The action of decision makers can be described in terms of
three basic determinants: sphere of competence, communication and information
and motivation. It seeks to examine/ determine why decision is made at all and
why a particular decision is made rather than some other.
All
the elements such as internal setting, external setting and decision making
process came into consideration of decision makers while making decision.
Critical
Evaluation
1.
This
Theory is correct only for foreign policy formulation.
2.
It
only analyzes the post hoc major decisions rather than succeeding decisions.
3.
It
is value free and so can’t determine which decision is right or wrong.
4.
Causes
may force the decision makers to decide in a particular way which he is
unwilling.
Marxian
Theory
Scattered views of Marx on
international politics and subsequent attempts by his followers towards theorization
have been grouped together to be known as Marxian or Marxist Theory of IRs
Basic
tenets
1.
Economic
factors play decisive role in International relations
2.
Class
instead of nation states is the basic unit in international relations
3.
Capitalism
culminates into imperialism.
4.
Capitalist
nations clash into each other to sharpen their power.
5.
Proletariat
internationalism would lead towards world revolution.
6.
International
disequilibrium establishes world socialism.
7.
There
will be a classless and stateless society.
Critical
Evaluation
1.
Economic
facts are over emphasized.
2.
Utopian
in the sense that it expects classless and stateless society.
3.
Proletariat
international is a far cry.
4.
Suffers
from subjectivity and inconsistency.
Comments
Post a Comment