The Study Of International Relations

The study of International Relations as a distinct discipline in the Social Sciences is indeed of a recent origin. In its development, it has basically two enduring concerns. It also has two distinct aspects; while one is broadly state in international relations, the problem of order in the absence of a analytic, the other is normative. The first is concerned with the role of the interaction of economic with military strength, the causes of conflict and the supreme authority, the relationship between power and security, the bases of cooperation. The normative deals with the question of when and to what degree is it legitimate to use force, the obligations we owe the state and those not from our state, the place of morality in international relations, the rights and wrongs of interventions. 

The real study of international relations began after the end of the First World War. It was a response to the catastrophic effects of the war that claimed about nine million lives. Thus, the concern of the discipline was focused on the factors that precipitate war and how to avoid them. One can therefore say that at this early stage, it was concerned mainly with the search for peace. It was at this period that the first University Chairs and departments were established in British universities. These were at the University College of Wales in Aberystwyth, the London School of Economics and Political Science and Oxford University. Outside the Ivory Tower Circle, the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York were also established.

The Britannica traces the origin of the field of international relations to the beginning of the 20th century in the West but mainly in the United States as it grew in power and influence. The factors which accounted for this growth were: a growing demand to find less-dangerous and more effective means of conducting relations between peoples, societies, governments, economies; a surge of writing and research inspired by the belief that and systematic observation and inquiry could dispel ignorance and serve human betterment, and the popularization of political affairs, including foreign affairs (para. 2). It further argues that:

The traditional view that foreign and military matters should remain the exclusive preserve of rulers and other elites yielded to the belief that such matters constituted an important concern and responsibility of all citizens. This increasing popularization of international relations reinforced the idea that general education should include instruction in

foreign affairs and that knowledge should be advanced in the interests of greater public control and oversight of foreign and military policy. This new perspective was articulated by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (1913-21), in his programme for relations between the Great Powers following the settlement of World War I. First of his Fourteen Points, as his programme came to be known, was a call for "open convenants of peace, openly arrived at" in place of the secret treaties that were believed to have contributed to the outbreak of the war(para. 3).

At this early stage of its development, the dominant paradigm was basically idealism. The idealists believed that man was inherently good and peace loving and as such prefers peace to war. The causes of wars cannot be located in man but in imperfect and defective institutions and structural arrangements. The best way to stop wars in human society therefore was to replace these institutions with more functional ones and also make better structural arrangements that can handle crises situations so that they would not degenerate to wars. According to Ojo & Sesay (2002), three different ideas dominated both academic discussions and policy rhetoric during this period. The first was for the establishment of supra-national institutions that can mediate international conflicts. The establishment of the League of Nations was a response to this reasoning. The second emphasized the legal control of war. This idea led to the kellog-Briand Pact of 1928 that outlawed war as an instrument of national policy except in self-defence, while the third called for the elimination of weapons of war as a means of achieving peace. This found expression in the global disarmament and arms control evident in the Washington Naval Conference of the 1920s.

It must be pointed out that at this early stages, the dominant reasoning in the discipline was "markedly and frankly Utopian" because "the passionate desire to prevent war determined the whole initial course and direction of the study" (Carr, 1946). However, it did not take long before it became clear to all that the idealist base of the study was faulty. The main reason for this realization, was the failure of the League of Nations to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War, thus this "clearly revealed the inadequacy of pure aspiration as the basis for a science of international politics and made it possible for the first time to embark on serious and critical analytical thought about international problems"

The disillusionment occasioned by the breakdown of collective security gave birth to a new school of thought in international relations. This is the 'Realist School'. The basic assumption of this School is that major interest of states is the pursuit of national power. What this meant was that "if all states

search for power, peace and stability will result through the operation of a balance of power system propelled by self-interest and lubricated by fluid alliance systems" (Ojo & Sesay 2002. The most notable among the early members of this school is Hans J. Morgenthau. His ideas are contained in his trail-brazing book titled Politics Among Nations published in 1948, Other notable realists were E.H. Carr, R. Niebuhr, G Kennan among others.

The realists according to Rourke and Boyer (2004):

Believe that the struggles between states to secure their frequently Since realists also believe that power determines which country conflicting foreign policies are the main action on the world stage. prevails, they hold that politics is aimed at increasing power, keeping . 

Given the view that the essence of politics is the struggle for power, realists maintain that countries and compelled to base their foreign their leaders, if virtually policy on the existence of what realists see as a Darwinian, country- eat-country world in which power is the key to the national survival of the fittest (pp 14-15). power, or demonstrating power. With the establishment of the United Nations after the war and the peace that followed thereafter, Palmer & Perkins (2000) posit that a newborn optimism swung the pendulum back towards the Utopian approach. This was because it was felt then that the major non-fascist states would cooperate in peace as they had in war and that the U. N. would provide for a means for cooperation in averting threats to the peace and in building a better world. As events showed, these assumptions were based more on hope than on a realistic appraisal of the world scene. However with all the events that happened from the 1950's, the realists once again took over the stage. They further argued that the changing international system led to a sober realization that international relations must continue to operate under conditions of "protracted conflict" and "permanent crises". It was time for clear-headed realism.

Features of the contemporary International System art 

The International system has some well known features which actually makes it a system. These features are:

First, the key members of the international system are the states. They have remained the key actors and consequently the main unit of analysis in international relations. Presently there are about 200 states in the World today. It must be noted that these states vary in size, wealth, population, and military strength among others. However, since they all possess sovereignty they are not expected to recognize any higher legitimate authority within their own boarders. The implication of this is that, every state irrespective of its size, or wealth or military strength is not expected to dictate to another state, how to handle its internal affairs.

Secondly, the international system is more or less an anarchical political system. This is as a result of the fact that there is no overarching authority that regulates the activities of states, in fact this is the key difference between domestic politics and international politics. In domestic politics, we have the government that regulates the activities or interactions among the citizens. On the contrary, there is no such body or institution in the international system. Though we have international agencies like the United Nations, but we find out that they are neither as strong as domestic governments nor are their decisions seriously binding on their members (states) as governmental decisions are on citizens. Thus "International law is not absolutely binding on states as there is no law-enforcer or international police that is capable of enforcing states compliance" (Adesola 2004).

Thirdly, the international system is highly complex, vast and competitive. It is complex because the make-up of the state in the international system differ remarkably from one another. Also the problems or issues that bother them are also different. Often times, it is because of these differences in goals that lead to conflicts in the international system. In terms of number and spread, there is no doubt that the international system is vast, with almost 200 states in existence today. Among these states, some are very large while others are small. Some are developed others are not. Some are monolithic, others are multi-racial. Since their goals differ and each would want to accomplish its own, the system is also very competitive in nature. In fact some issues that states struggle over, are zero-sum in nature as a result of the fact that the gain of one automatically implies a loss to another. So at each point in time, states compete among themselves for the actualization of od isnoismusici 220me tuoter their various goals.

Fourth, one key feature of the international system is interdependence. This interdependence results from the fact that no state freely has all it needs, therefore it must depend on others. This situation of mutual need has made it imperative that states must engage in trade with one another. With the phenomenal development in telecommunications, which is fuelling globalization, the nature of this inter-dependence is becoming increasingly complex by the day. We thus have a world economy where what happens in one part of the globe can have very serious implications for others at the other end of the globe. 

Fifth, trying to distinguish between international issues and domestic ones, creates a problem which has become one of the features of the international system. As Obi (2006) has argued, this creates a problem in the sense that, there are no clear distinctions between what is considered domestic and what is considered international, as the domestic policies or actions of a state could have far reaching implications internationally. Two examples of this issue that easily comes to mind are the annulment of the June 12 elections by the Babangida regime and the hanging of Ken Saro Wiwa and his Ogoni kinsmen by the Abacha regime. In both cases, the international community took some far-reaching decisions in reaction, even though the issues are ones that were clearly Nigeria's domestic affairs. This has led to the development of a new concept in international relations refered to as "intermestic policies". This concept is used to explain policies that can hardly be seen as either international or domestic. Though they may be seen as falling under the domestic or internal affairs of a country, but their implications usually go beyond the confines of the home country.

Perhaps the fact of globalization has made it such that since the world is now considered a village, whatever happens in one country is seen as having happened in the village; hence it affects all members of the village.

International Relations: A Definition

Perhaps it is quite pertinent at this point to try to define international relations so as to put the reader in the right perspective to flow with the book. Well, just like many concepts and subject areas in the social sciences still do not have generally acceptable definitions, many scholars and authorities in international relations have defined it differently.

Quincy Wright (1955) defined it as the study of "the relations between powerful groups" (p.7). What this means is that relations between or among non-powerful groups that cut across international boundaries does not appear to him to be part of international relations. To Holsti (1995),"International relations may refer to all forms of interactions between the members of separate societies whether government sponsored or not" (p.15). In contrast to 90 this definition, Goldstein (2003) says international relations"concerns the en relationship among the world governments" (p.3). Thus, while Holsti sees all de interactions among groups indifferent states as forming part of international relations, Goldstein believes these interactions can only be seen as part of printer national relations, only when it involves governments.

However, asif realizing the mistake of his definition, he added that: Sometimes international relations is portrayed as a distinct and abstract ritual conducted by a small group of people such as Presidents, 

Generals, and diplomats. This picture is not an accurate one. Although leaders do play a major role in international affairs, many other people participate as well. College students and other citizens participate in international relations every time they vote in an election or -work on a political campaign, every time they buy a product or service traded on world markets and every time they watch the news. The choices we make in our daily lives ultimately affect the world we live in.

International relations is defined by McClelland in Britannica (nd) as "the study of the relations of states with each other and with international organizations and certain subnational entities (e.g.,bureaucracies, political parties and interest groups)" (para. 1). In the light of the above, we adopt the definition by Hoffman (1960) that "the discipline of international relations is concerned with the factors and the activities which affect the external policies and power of the basic units into which the world is divided" (p.6). It is also concerned with "all the exchanges, transactions, contacts, flows of information and the attending and resulting behavioural responses between and among separated organized societies"(p.6).

The Study of International Relations go Though for centuries now, scholars have been involved in cross- cultural or cross-national studies, there was really no erious attempts to carry out these studies in a very scientific or systematic manner. According to Ojo & Sesay (2002), most of the writings at this earlier times were centered on diplomatic history and international law. The approach was basically static and legalistic and was concerned mainly with a blow-by-blow account of events between and among states. The emphasis was on describing with as much detail and accuracy as possible, the particulars of specific incidents in history, neither was an attempt made to theorize nor was there a quest for policy goals.

The effects of the First World War changed all this. Real study of international relations started immediately after the war as much more people became interested in understanding the causes of wars and also how to prevent future occurrences. This concern led to the establishment of Chairs and Departments at the University College of Wales in Aberystwyth in 1922 and at the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1923. Also at that same period, The Royal Institute of International Affairs in London and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York were also set up. The study of International Relations as a distinct course of study has indeed taken off.

At this earlier stage, the dominant ideology was idealism. The idealists believed that man was naturally good and that war was quite preventable. 

They felt that the best thing to do was that the world should come together to establish a super-national institution that would mediate in terms of crises This reasoning found expression in the establishment of the League of Nations. The League's subsequent failure to prevent the outbreak of the

Second World War brought about a high wave of pessimism that eroded the foundation of idealism.

This pessimism coupled with "the emergence of the super powers, the development of nuclear weapons and the inception of the Cold War, facilitated the growth of political Realism" (Ojo & Sesay 2002, p.7). The major breakthrough for realism came with Hans J Morgenthau's work titled Politics Among Nations published in 1948. This was followed by many others like R Niebuhr, George Kennan, Henry Kissenger and Kenneth Waltz among others The realists took as their starting point:

States' pursuit of power, the centrality of military strength within that power, and the enduring inevitability of conflict in a world of multiple sovereignty. While not denying entirely a role for morality, law and diplomacy, realists laid greatest stress on armed might as an instrument of maintaining peace. They believed that the central mechanism for regulating conflict was the balance of power, through which undue strength of one state would be compensated for by increased strength or expended alliance on the part of others: this was something inherent in the system but also capable of conscious promotion (Halliday 1991, p. 11).

A new variant of realism is known as the neorealist school of thought. Neorealists according to Rourke and Boyer (2004):

Focus on the anarchic nature of the world system based on competition among sovereign states, while classic realists stress human nature as the factor that shapes world politics. As one neorealist puts it, the international system based on sovereign actors (states), which answer to no higher authority is "anarchic, with no overarching authority providing security and order". The result of such a self-help system is that "each state must rely on its own resources to survive and flourish "But because "there is no authoritative impartial method of settling these disputes- i.e. no world government-states are their own judges, juries and hangmen, and often resort to force to achieve their security interests". What unites both realists and neorealists is that they doubt whether there is any escape from conflict. 

Realism became dominant and at a point was almost the sole

approach in the study of international relations. The reason for this according to Halliday (1994) was that:

It possessed a powerful and comprehensive explanation of international relations and conflict. It accorded with common sense the terms in which international affairs were discussed in much public debate. It had received a powerful, apparently incontrovertible affirmation from the events of the 1930s and their consequences (p.11).

As the years passed on, Scholars started finding faults in the realist doctrine. Thus, according to Ojo & Sesay (2002), it raised many empirical questions than it could answer and also lacks a methodology for resolving competing claims as well as criteria for determining which data would count as significant information and which rules would be followed in interpreting data. Consequent upon these, a new school of thought emerged. This is referred to as behavioural ism. Today, there are many theories struggling for space in the study of international relations. However it is fashionable to group them under idealism and realism.

International Politics, International Relations and Foreign Policy

There is often this tendency to get confused about the usage of international politics, international relations and foreign policy. The confusion arises from the fact that in some instances, and texts they are used interchangeably, especially international politics and international relations. So the question that arises is whether they are the same and as such should correctly be used interchangeably. If however they are not the same, this gives rise to another question, which is what actually is the difference (differences) between and among them. Writingon the differences between foreign policy and international politics, Holsti (1995) states that:

the distinction between the two may be more academic than real, but it is rightly the difference between the objectives and actions (decisions and policies) of a state or states and the interactions between two or more states. The student who analyzes the actions of a state towards another and the conditions-usually domestic- under which these actions are formulated is concerned essentially with foreign policy: the person who conceives of those actions as only one aspect of a pattern of actions by one state and reactions or responses by others is looking at international politics, or the processes of interactions between two or more states (p.18).

On the other hand, he says that:

As distinct from international politics, and foreign policy, the term international relations may refer to all forms of interaction between members of separate societies, whether government-sponsored or not. The study of international relations includes the analysis of foreign policies or political processes between states; however, with its interests in all facets of relations between distinct societies, it would include as well studies of international trade unions, the international Red Cross, tourism, international trade, transportation, communication, and the development of international values and ethics.

Simply put, a study falls under the purview of international relations, when it encompasses all manner of interactions between and among states. be it political, social, cultural etc. The implication of what we are saying is that international relations is broader in scope than international politics, while international politics is also broader than foreign policy.A student of international politics restricts his study to interactions between states only when they involve governments in a way that is political. According to Holsti (1995) interactions among states (International relations) becomes international politics only "where they impinge upon official government objectives or where they are employed by governments as instruments of inducement to achieve military or political objectives".

Core Principles of International Relations

International relations according to Goldstein and Pevehouse (2009) revolves around one key problem, which is "how can a group-which as two or more nations- serve its collective interests when doing so requires to forgo their individual interests" (p.4). Using the example of global warming, where it is in the interest of all to stop global warming yet, it is still in the interest of each to continue burning fossil fuel in order to keep their individual economies going, it becomes clear that certain goals can only be achieved with the collective sacrifice of all. In this instance, it becomes a case of shared interests versus conflicting interests among members of a group which can be refered to as the "collective goods problem". The problem becomes more pronounced when it is realized that there is no central or overarching authority that can enforce compliance. This brings us to the core principles of international relations which are dominance, reciprocity and identity.

Dominance This principle to Goldstein and Pevehouse (2009): Solves the collective goods problem by establishing a power hierarchy in which those at the top control those below- a bit like a government but without an actual government. Instead of fighting constantly over who gets scarce resources, the members of a group can fight occasionally over positions in the "status hierarchy". Then social conflicts such as over who gets resources are resolved automatically in favour of the higher-ranking actor elycons. 

While it must be emphasized that it is not strength alone that determines who remains the dominant actor, it is necessary but also include being adept in forming and maintaining alliances among the core members of a group as dominance is a complex issue and should not be restricted to brute force. The advantages of the dominance solution to the collective goods problem is that just as a government forces its citizens to contribute to the common good like payment of taxes, it can also force the members to contribute to the common good of all. Secondly, it also minimizes open conflict within the group. On the other hand, to maintain stability usually is at the cost of constant oppression of, and resentment by the lower-ranking members. Also since ones position in the status hierarchy determines to a very great extent who gets what, conflicts over this hierarchy adversely affects the group's stability.

"solves Reciprocity. This principle to Goldstein and Pevehouse (2009), the collective goods problem by rewarding behaviour that contributes to the group and punishing behaviour that pursues self-interest at the expense of interest at the expense the group". raildu 80 inled

Identity. To Goldstein and Pevehouse (2009): Although the dominance and reciprocity principles act on the idea of achieving individual self-interest (by taking what you can, or by mutually beneficial arrangements), the identity principle does not rely on self-interest. On the contrary, members of an identity community care about the interest of others in the community enough to sacrifice their own interests to benefit others. The roots of this principle lie in the family, the extended family, and the kinship group. But this potential does not appear limited to the close family but rather can be generalized to any identity community that one feels a part of.