Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!    

International relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
"Foreign affairs" redirects here. For other uses, see Foreign affairs (disambiguation).

International relations (IR), a branch of political science, is the study of foreign affairs of and relations among states within the international system, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs). It is both an academic and public policy field, and can be either positive or normative as it both seeks to analyze as well as formulate foreign policy.

Apart from political science, IR draws upon such diverse fields as economics, history, law, philosophy, geography, sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies. It involves a diverse range of issues, from globalization and its impacts on societies and state sovereignty to ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development, terrorism, organized crime and human rights.

Contents

[edit]

International relations theory

Realism
Liberalism
Idealism
Neoconservatism
Institutionalism
Functionalism
Marxism
Critical theory
Isolationism

Main article: International relations theory

International relations theory attempts to provide a conceptual model upon which international relations can be analyzed. Each theory is reductive and essentialist to different degrees, relying on different sets of assumptions respectively. As Oli Holsti describes them, international relations theories act as a pair of colored sunglasses, allowing the wearer to see only the salient events relevant to the theory. An adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa.

The number and character of the assumptions made by an international relations theory also determine its usefulness. Realism, a parsimonious and very essentialist theory, has less explanatory power, but greater predictive power. Liberalism, which examines a very wide number of conditions, is less useful in making predictions, but can be very insightful in analyzing past events. Traditional theories may have little to say about the behavior of former colonies, but post-colonial theory may have greater insight into that specific area, where it fails in other situations.

[edit]

History


Before Westphalia, soldiers were led by contractors, private entrepreneurs who garnered pay from their won estates or from the lands they plundered. After Westphalia, soldiers were led by military bureaucrats who raised armies year-round and paid for their keep through levies and taxes. After Westphalia, diplomats and warriors began to share a kind of regulatory synergy. Both diplomat and warrior sought less "victory," and more, the achievement of a favorable peace. War, after Westphalia, as the great observer Carl von Clausewitz put it, came to be a "stronger form of diplomacy," and the battlefield an extension of the conference chamber.

Initially, International Relations as a distinct field of study was almost entirely English-centered. The first two schools to form academic divisions directly focused on the study of IR were: in 1919, the first Chair in International Politics established at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth from an endowment given by David Davies; and in the early 1920s the London School of Economics's department of International Relations, founded at the behest of Nobel Peace Prize winner Philip Noel-Baker.

See also: Diplomatic history
[edit]

Criticisms

Critics of this interpretation of history argue that it is inherently eurocentric; some non-European territories recognized states in a manner resembling the Westphalian system before 1648 whereas others had wildly different systems. Others (such as Andrew Linklater) argue that today's system is post-Westphalian due to the expansion of the political community into supranational governance through projects such as the European Union.

Barry Buzan and Richard Little find that theories modeling their conceptualizations of international society on the Westphalian system are unable to grasp both the premodern international systems and answer the most important questions about international relations today. Buzan and Little therefore define an international system as a system in which it is possible to distinguish between an "inside" and an "outside" in political realms and consider an international system to have existed since the rise of civilisation in Sumeria.

The Westphalian system sees the only official actors in International Relations as states. In today's world of internet access and increased abilities to communicate quickly and easily with people all over the globe this is becoming less true to some people. This increased access to quick communication unlimited by distance allows non-governmental entities to coordinate their efforts more efficiently and more effectively. These entities can be not for profit groups, environmental groups, local and multinational corporations, farmers, human rights groups, humanitarian aid groups, antiglobalization groups and any other group one could imagine. This increased efficiency allows for each group to carry out coordinated efforts with their or similar branches inside other states in forwarding their agendas and action plans. While each of these branches is technically acting in the civic society inside each state these coordinated efforts are affecting bilateral and multilateral international relations in significant ways.

[edit]

Mechanisms of international relations

International relations (IR) do not exist in an abstract vacuum—each state (and sometimes sub-state actor) utilizes institutions, traditions, identity, force, rhetoric, and other channels to influence the other actors in the international system. And while IR does not exist in an abstract vacuum they do take place in an anarchic system. That is to say that there is no single world entity that any state can take any other state that is empowered with final arbitration over any dispute. In simple terms there is not final "court of higher authority" that can impose its will upon the states of the world.

Should a state step out of line with international norms put forth in international law or violate the terms of a treaty there are few recourses the offended state has.

If the states have ratified a treaty the offended state may take the issue to the institution that oversees that treaty. An example of this would be trade disputes between members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which is an outgrowth of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), are handled by the WTO.

The second major mechanism is the mobilization of international shame. This simply is the act of a state letting other states know of the actions of the offending state. Once it is open knowledge that a state is acting against international norms other states may put diplomatic pressure on the offending state to come back into line with the international norms. More severe reactions would be embargos and the use of a blockade.

The ultimate mechanisms are armed conflict and war.

[edit]

Official

[edit]

Unofficial

[edit]

Covert

[edit]

Functional Concepts of International Relations

  • Hegemony, Hegemon
  • Hard power
  • Soft Power
  • Interconnectivity
  • Interdependence
  • Zero sum gain
  • Relative Gain
  • Anarchic system
  • Levels of Analysis
    • state to state
      • this level of analysis is that the state is an entity unto itself and will act as it chooses to act.
    • government to government
      • this level of analysis takes into account that internal governmental issues drive how a state relates with another state. The head of government may not be getting along with the legislative branch and therefore may act according to this schism.
    • personal level
      • this is a very complex level of analysis and borders on the fields of psychology and social psychology. This level takes into account the personalities that are in the government as individuals and the influence those individuals have or may have on the internal process of that state and therfor how that state relates with other states.
  • Geopolitics
  • Stability
  • Instability
[edit]

References

  • Edward Said (1979), Orientalism, New York: Vintage Books (see also: [1])
  • The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline?, International Studies Review, Vol 4 (2), 2002, pp 67-86
  • Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Basic Books, 1998
  • Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership, Basic Books, 2005
  • Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, Simon & Schuster, 1995
  • Henry Kissinger, Does America Need a Foreign Policy? : Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century, Simon & Schuster, 2002
  • Vendulka Kubálková and A. A. Cruickshank, Marxism and international relations, Oxford : Clarendon, 1985
  • John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, W W Norton & Co Ltd, 2004
  • Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, Brief Edition
  • Joseph Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, PublicAffairs Ltd 2004
  • Joseph Nye, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone
  • Joseph Nye, The "democracy deficit" in the global economy : enhancing the legitimacy and accountability of global institutions ; a report to the Trilateral Commission, Washington, DC [etc.] : Trilateral Commission, 2003
  • Arundhati Roy, An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire, South End Press 2004
  • Kim Richard Nossal , Patterns of World Politics, Prentice Hall PTR, February 1999
  • Christine Sylvester , Feminist international relations : an unfinished journey, Cambridge, U.K. ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2002
[edit]

See also

[edit]

Journals

[edit]

IR Schools

[edit]

Associations

[edit]

External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations"
Personal tools