Approaches to International Relations

Idealism / Liberalism

We find the beginning of liberal tradition of international relations in Christianity. Christianity gave birth to completely different ideals and morals. It gave the fundamental values of moral doctrine, peace and humanity. It also suggested the existence of ideal state of human soul and therefore an ideal human society. Thus, international relations can be improved. It was the first alternative to classical tradition. The approach of early liberals was making Kingdom of God on earth.

After renaissance, individual became centre in liberalism. Liberals believe that more the freedom individuals are given by state, more the states can cooperate peacefully. Thus faith in rationality of individual is important than hierarchical concentration of religious power in Roman Catholic Church. Eventually, rationality moved from individual to state and liberals started believing that states can behave rationally.

Kant has suggested that the perpetual peace among nations can be achieved. He suggests to establish Peace Federation between states based on rational individual and republican political order. Kant was believer in good nature of human. He argued that liberation of man will advance peaceful society. Because humans are rational, they will understand it is much more profitable to cooperate than to go for conflict. Personal safety and property are more valuable assets than lives of human beings. They will also understand cost of war. Thus, in a republican state, people will vote against war.

Individuals are inherently good, but corrupted by civilization and society. International politics will be improved by spreading of freedom to all states.

Thus In beginning of liberalism, the main discussion was about nature of humans, place of morality and individual freedom.

• Liberal internationalism - starts from enlightenment and ends before WW1 | In this phase, individual was centre. The argument was, less state intervenes in life of people, less reasons for war exist.
• Liberal idealism - Emerged after 1914 | According to this doctrine, Individual freedom was not enough. We need to do something with state. Main reason of war was unjust nature of balance of power. States must be treated as equals. Peace was national self-determination.
• Liberal institutionalism - Contemporary stage | It believes in institutions of world governance as a means to provide stability to world order. Institutions provide a platform for states to communicate, discuss, negotiate etc. and reduce the chances of war.

The concept of 'Just War' as discussed by Hugo Grotius suggest three preconditions for any war to be 'just'.

• Self defence
• Protection of property
• Revenge or compensation.

He argues that beyond this, humans have no reason to go for war.

Liberal Institutionalism was one of the suggestions by Woodrow Wilson in his famous 14 points speech. He took the idea from domestic politics.

In domestic politics, anarchy is contained because of presence of state. Hence, he suggested that if we build institutions, we can create rule based order, in the words of Woodrow Wilson,

'The institutions can convert the jungle of international politics into zoo.'

• Platform for interaction and communication to develop trust.
• Peaceful settlement of disputes.
• If country takes some commitment at international level, it is not very easy to come out because of the pressure of world public opinion.
• In present times scholars like Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye support the need for building institutions.

Initially there was not much enthusiasm for building institutions, the process has been extremely slow. However, since the end of cold war there is a phenomenal rise in number of institutions, global regimes and international law. But as far as effectiveness of the experiment is concerned there is a difference of opinion.

Liberals have huge faith in the process of institution building. Realist do share such faith. They think that institutions are the extension of states and states are guided by national interest. According to them, it does not make any qualitative difference.

Game theorist Joseph Nogee has given the concept of quasi-negotiations. Nations only prefer to participate in these negotiations because they don't want to be seen as 'spoilers' but have no faith in the institutions.

One of the major weakness of the experiment is lack of representativeness, transparency and accountability in international institutions. Hence these institutions themselves suffer from the crisis of credibility. It is to be noted that despite existence of many institutions arms race among major powers is continuing.

Hedley Bull in his book ANARCHICAL SOCIETY has acknowledged the transformation that has happened in international politics over a period of time because of the growth of institutions, international law and regimes. According to him, these developments have converted anarchy into 'anarchical society'. Thus international politics is not a complete society, nor a complete anarchy but it is a sort of anarchical society.

Sociological libers school of IR focuses on society to society interaction i.e. Track two diplomacy unlike the realists or liberal institutionalist who focus on track one diplomacy.

(Track One diplomacy refers to official, government-to-government negotiations involving diplomats, heads of state, or formal representatives. It deals with treaties, conflict resolution, and official peace talks. Track Two diplomacy is informal and involves non-official actors like academics, retired officials, or civil society. It helps build trust, explore new ideas, and support official efforts without political pressure.)

They suggest that political class may have its own limitations and vested interest, hence it is better if there is an interaction between people. It is a good approach to address 'trust deficit'. Thus sociological liberalism will support policies like open borders, visa liberalization etc.

In present times, the relevance of society centric approach has increased, because of globalization the nature of world order has changed. According to James Rosenau, we are living in a society centric world, there is a considerable decline in the capacities of the states to keep surveillance on the borders.

John Burton through his cob-web model also suggests that the world has become society centric, there is a growth of global civil society.

He has given Communication theory. Karl Deutsch has measured the amount of interaction between states. The amount of interaction can be measured by measuring the amount of international travels, visas issued, letters exchanged, phone calls made etc.

He observed more peaceful and beneficial relations where the amount of interaction is high. e.g. Among the countries of Western Europe, between Western Europe and North America. Interactions results into the formation of 'security community'. Hence Karl Deutsch proposed that the neighbouring countries should try to achieve the ideal of security community.

It is an alternative to security dilemma. Security community denotes set of persons who do not consider each other as a threat. In case the threat exists, it exists from outside the periphery of the security community. Thus they believe that there is a common threat to them. The idea of security community comes from domestic politics. Nation states can be called as security communities. The idea can be replicated at a regional level and further at broader levels.

Security community can be built by increasing the interaction or communications. Therefore this approach is called as communications approach. e.g. EU is a security community. ASEAN is also in the process of emerging as security community. Western Europe and North America is an example of trans-Atlantic security community.

Unfortunately many states in the third world countries could not transform themselves into a security community even at domestic level.

The Interdependence School in international relations believes that countries today are connected so closely - through trade, technology, and people-to-people ties - that they cannot act in isolation.

It challenges the realist view of states being completely self-reliant and always in conflict. Instead, it argues that cooperation is both possible and necessary because what happens in one country often affects others.

War becomes less likely when states are economically and socially linked, as harming others would also hurt themselves. This school sees globalisation and international institutions as key forces in promoting peace and stability through mutual dependence.

Since this school sees economic interdependence based on integration of market, it is a neo-liberal idea.

Thomas Friedman

Friedman has given 'Golden Arches' theory. According to Thomas Freedman, the two countries having McDonald chain will not go for war with each other. People will prefer to stand in que for Berger rather than border.

Thus it points towards economic interdependence. Once the stakes of the two countries develop in each other's economy, it will appear foolish to go for war.

Richard Rosecrance

Richard Rosecrance has given the concept of 'trading states'. Trading states are alternatives to militaristic states. e.g. Germany and Japan have become trading states since the end of 2nd WW. For long China also preferred to limit itself as trading state but now it is shifting towards militaristic state.

According to Rosecrance, countries should be inspired to become trading states rather than militaristic states. Even without arms, Japan and Germany hold considerable weight in world affairs. He gives the example of former USSR which went ahead with militaristic state concept, overstretched itself, ultimately resulting into the collapse. We can also give the example of USA. USA has also overstretched itself militarily and it has become one of the reason for the decline of US hegemony.

Michael Doyle is prominent scholar of this theory. He suggest that the two countries having democracy would not go for war.

Based on the ideas of Immanuel Kant, who suggested republicanism, the scholars of democratic peace theory suggest:

• Democracies form 'zone of peace'. Zone of peace is not a formal arrangement, it is just an informal region. Democracies promote pacifist culture, the culture of toleration.
• In democracies, people develop the habit to resolve the disputes through dialogue rather than force.
• There is a pressure of public opinion and it is not easy for states to overlook public opinion.
• In democracies, there is a freedom of speech and expression and hence it is possible to have the critical examination of the foreign policy decisions and a chance to correct.

Democratic peace theory is also one of the most controversial theories because

• If there is no war between any two major democracies, it can be just a coincidence.
• If there has been no major war, it is not necessary that democracy alone has been the factor.
• The biggest criticism comes as it provides basis to legitimize the actions of USA to introduce democracy at gunpoint. (Bush doctrine).
• In the eyes of countries like Russia and China, democracy promotion is an attempt of regime change and to install puppet governments.

Scholars: Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye

Complex Interdependence is also known as Cob Web model.

Unlike other liberal theories, which are prescriptive, complex interdependence is descriptive. It describes the state of relations among nations in post-cold war world order.

Post cold war relations are different from Westphalian world order. Instead of anarchical world order, we see the emergence of complex interdependence among the nations. Complex interdependence is different from simple interdependence.

At present, nations have become interdependent in a complex manner. It means that they have become interdependent but it does not mean that their conflicts have been resolved. They have become more interdependent due to forces of globalization i.e. Integration of markets, the rise of global threats (terrorism, climate change, ozone depletion etc.). And it is beyond the capacity of single state to counter the threats on their own.

Hence the conditions force the countries to cooperate. Complex interdependence can be explained as a situation where 'one is forced to love, whom, one would otherwise prefer love to hate'. The relations among all countries US and Russia, Russia and China, India and USA can be termed as complex interdependence.

Complex interdependence model suggests

• There is no hierarchy of issues among countries.
• Security has become multidimensional.
• There is a considerable decline in the use of hard power.

The complex interdependence puts a question mark on the way structural realists explain the state of international politics.

Realism (Classical & Neo)

Realism is considered as hegemonic (dominant) theory in international relations. Because it supposedly provides the explanation for the state of war, which is the regular condition of life in international system.

" 'Right' as world goes is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides

The origin of classical theory of realism is witnessed in the works of Thucydides. He not only described history but also analysed it. In ancient Greece, Athens attacked Sparta for fear of its rise. Thucydides has suggested that the main reason for war is fear because we never know intentions of our partner. Thus limited room is available to statesman. They can only respond by increasing their strength. Other state perceives it as offensive and gives rise to arms race. He has given the concept of 'Thucydides trap' which states that the beginning of the war was driven by the fear associated with a shift in balance of power.

Rise of Roman empire around 1st century AD brought concept of Pax Romana (Universal state civilisation). Thus there were no more competing states. Another superpower was Chinese empire and it never interacted with Roman kingdom. Thus there was no space for balance of power.

The development was also coupled with spreading of Christianity. It preached the values of Christian Universalism. A new interpretation which suggested history culminating in kingdom of heaven. Thus realism went at backstage of discussion in International Relations.

We witness the revival in Realism in works of Machiavelli and Hobbes. In his book, THE PRINCE, Machiavelli suggests that the only responsibility of prince is to protect his power and his subordinates. There is strait division between internal and international. There is no need of prince to win the favour of those who are not his subjects. And a Responsible ruler should not follow Christian ethics.

Machiavelli writes that the war and not peace is a normal condition in world affairs. Every solution, victory or compromise is only preparation of another war. The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.

Thomas Hobbes deals with dilemma between internal order and international anarchy. According to him, internal order is source of international anarchy.

"In all times kings, and persons of sovereign authority, because of their independence, are in continued jealousies, and in the state and posture of gladiators, having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another. That their forts, garrisons, and guns upon the frontiers of their kingdoms, and continual spies upon their neighbours, which is a posture of war."

The main reason for rivalry and competition among states is their independence. And the second reason is their jealousness. States are just instruments in hands of rulers which are applied for the purpose of war.

Hobbes also suggest how it is not possible to establish world government. He calls state as Leviathan (a mythical beast in Bible, wielding highest strength). He suggests that the Leviathans (states) will always fight. It is impossible to establish Leviathan over Leviathan (International government). States will never give up their sovereignty. Further, people will also not agree to world government because of their concern for security.

An Intense, 'Thirty Years War' ended with Treaty of Westphalia. It is considered as the biggest achievement of international diplomacy so far and the main foundation of present international law.

The three essential principles of Westphalian treaty are

• Whose realm, his religion. Religion must be exclusive internal affair. Fighting for religion, fighting for values & not material interest was forbidden by this treaty.
• Every king is emperor in his own kingdom. All nations are equal and independent.
• No one can be stronger than others. (Balance of Power). When one nation tried to become dominant in Europe, others should combine their efforts and resist. e.g. Napoleonic wars, WW1, WW2.

War has always been the driver of science of International Relations from ancient to modern times. From Peloponnesian war emerged the theory of Thucydides trap. The 'thirty years war' gave us the scholars like Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius. It also gave us Westphalian treaty and its three principles i.e. non-interference, sovereignty and balance of power.

On the same line, World War 1 led to the establishment of International Relations as a separate discipline. Scholars of political science started questioning 'why' the pre-world war order collapsed? The approach before World War was criticised for being utopian, and scholars like Morgenthau revived the doctrine of realism.

Kautilya: According to him, the state of relations between states is like jungle where strength of lion prevails. Every neighbouring state is an enemy. The king must be Vijigishu (hungry to acquire power).

Sun Tzu: The author of THE ART OF WAR. He has given various types of wars and strategies including guerrilla warfare.

• It is state-centric view of international politics.
• According to them, international politics is in the state of anarchy.
• In the absence of world government, security of the states depend on self-help.
• Survival is the most important goal of nation states.
• In the state of anarchy, the only way for survival is through self-help by increasing power.
• Nations suffer from security dilemma. According to the realist, power is a zero-sum game. When one country increases power, the other is bound to feel insecure and enters into the struggle for power.
• Statism - focus on state as a centre of world politics. Realism neglects importance of other actors, and considers them mere proxy for state.
• Survival - survival as the key national interest of states. It is the only purpose which drives actions of states.
• Self Help - self-help as the best option (perhaps the only option) available for the state in the international system.

We can consider realism as a meta ideology. Though all realists share basic assumptions, yet there are different schools in realism.

Morgenthau was the first person to give systematic view of realism in international politics in his book Politics Among Nations, first published in 1948. Morgenthau is influenced by Machiavelli.

Morgenthau was fearful of American foreign policy makers developing some idealistic trends because of the establishment of US hegemony, it is often seen that once a person becomes victorious, he develops the feeling of pity towards the vanquished. Hence Morgenthau has written the six principles of realism to warn American foreign policy makers. He called these principles as 'scientific principles'.

1] Human Nature: He claims his theory is scientific as it is based on the scientific analysis of human nature. Like all politics, international politics is also based on human nature. According to him, man is animus dominandi, power seeking animal. Since states are run by humans, states are also power seeking.

2] National Interest: Like all actions of human beings are guided by self-interest, nations are guided by national interest. Survival is the fundamental national interest. Survival is the prime motivation of foreign policies. The only way to secure the fundamental national interest is through power. In the words of Morgenthau, 'whatever may be the ultimate end, power is always the immediate end of foreign policies'. Morgenthau suggests that in international politics, power is both - the means as well as end. It is called as the dual nature of power.

3] On the nature of national interest: Though national interest remains the permanent motivation, yet the national interest is highly dynamic. It keeps on changing because the world order keeps on changing. Hence countries have to consistently revise their national interests.

4] Role of ethics: Like Machiavelli, Morgenthau does not see the role of ethics in international politics. According to him, universal moral principles cannot be applied to the conduct of states. According to him, pragmatics is ethics of politics. Pragmatic means being 'politically correct'. It means we need not to look at what is right in all situations but what is right in given situation.

5] Role of ideology: He does not see any significance of ideology in international politics. Ideologies are the masks to hide real intentions. He even suggest that nation should not bring its ideas, ideologies, norms and values in its relations with other states.

6] On nature of international politics: Like Machiavelli, Morgenthau also suggests that international politics is neither ethics nor law nor even economics. International politics is autonomous, it has its own rules. Like Machiavelli, he also believes that international politics is not an inspiring field, but that is how it is.

Morgenthau does not see any role of international organizations, international law, he only believes that balance power, diplomacy, deterrence is the way to protect national interest. He classified countries on the basis of foreign policy into 3 types.

1] Status quoist. e.g. USA. - Those who are benefited by present system and would like to maintain the system.

2] Revisionists e.g. China. Those who want to change the system.

3] Imperialists e.g. Germany under Hitler. (When you seek to expand your territory.)

For Morgenthau, "whatever may be the ultimate end, power is always the immediate end of foreign policies."

It is said that theory of international politics is a dialogue between Morgenthau's supporters and Morgenthau's critics. Morgenthau's critics not only come from other schools but from within realism.

Scholar like Kenneth Waltz criticised Morgenthau for not being scientific. Liberals criticised Morgenthau for taking the pessimistic view of human nature. Scholars like Benno Wasserman does not find Morgenthau's description of human nature, scientific.

Stanley Hoffman suggest that Morgenthau suffer from 'Power monism'. (You are focusing only on one factor i.e. power. Like Marx talks about economic factor.) One of the major critics of Morgenthau are feminists. Ann J Tickner has reformulated the six principles of Morgenthau from feminists point of view.

There is no difference as far as basic assumptions about international politics. The difference is in methodology. Though Morgenthau claims his theory as scientific, yet his theory is not regarded as scientific. Scientific theory cannot be built on the analysis of human nature. There cannot be any scientific understanding of human nature itself. Human nature is unpredictable. Same person may not behave in a similar manner under similar circumstances twice.

Hence Kenneth Waltz has changed the methodology. From Actor level analysis (Unit level analysis) to Structure level analysis. Hence neorealism is rightly called as structural realism. Though it is also called scientific realism.

There has been a question mark on the status of realism as scientific theory. Hence Kenneth Waltz aimed to establish principles of realism on scientific basis. Since no scientific theory can be based on human nature so he shifts the analysis from nature to structure. (Structure denotes the fundamental architecture of a system).

Kenneth Waltz is known as Detente Realist. Detente was a phase during cold war, during which there was relaxation of tensions between superpowers. Hence liberal scholars like Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye challenged the status of realism as the scientific theory of international politics. Hence Kenneth Waltz aimed to establish the scientific nature of realism and to prove that realism is 'timeless wisdom'. In 1979 we see the re-emergence of cold war, same year Kenneth Waltz book THE THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS was published.

Unlike Morgenthau who goes for unit level analysis Kenneth Waltz goes for structure level analysis.

Kenneth Waltz explained the structure of international politics as anarchical. Anarchy denotes the absence of world government.

Impact of anarchy - Kenneth Waltz shows the comparison between the structure of international politics and the structure of domestic politics. The structure of international politics is anarchical whereas domestic politics is hierarchical. In domestic sphere, state exists. Hence individuals need not to possess arms for their protection. However, in international sphere states have no option but to acquire arms. Thus the structure of international politics creates the situation of security dilemma and as a consequence international politics becomes the struggle for power.

Kenneth Waltz also makes the difference between domestic and international politics in terms of functional differentiation - functional differentiation exists in domestic sphere among the three branches of government i.e. executive, judiciary and legislature. However, there is no functional difference exists in international politics. All states have to perform similar functions.

Capabilities - According to Kenneth Waltz, states in international politics may not differ in terms of functions which they perform but they differ in terms of capabilities. Capabilities denote the amount of power.

Thus on the basis of structure of international politics, Kenneth Waltz establish that the structure of international politics gives no freedom to the actors. It means whosoever is a foreign policy maker is compelled to go for power politics. The structure constrains the choices of the actors. Hence from his perspective it will not make any difference whether Pandit Nehru is shaping the foreign policy or Indira Gandhi. (Elimination of personality factor.) It also gives explanation as to why foreign policies reflect continuity despite change in governments.

Mearsheimer is also a structural realist. Like Kenneth Waltz, he also shifts analysis from actors to structures. A post-cold war realist. His book THE TRAGEDY OF GREAT POWER POLITICS was published in 2001.

Context of the work of Mearsheimer

The end of cold war has shown the remarkable growth in cooperation. There has been phenomenal increase in the number of international institutions, regional organizations, global conventions. One of the biggest achievement was formation of WTO in 1995. The end of cold war led to the emergence of globalization denoting growth of interdependence. Thus it was advocated that realist politics has no more relevance and international politics will now be conducted on the lines suggested by liberals. It means nations need not to be concerned about arms race, they can pursue the politics of cooperation.

Thus, there was a question mark on the status of realism as 'timeless wisdom'.

In above context Mearsheimer re-establishes the relevance of realism. What is the focus of his work? He focused on the future of US-China relations. What was his observation? He warned against the fantasies of American scholars emphasising on US-China cooperation. He prescribed USA 1) China is a challenge to US hegemony. 2) It would be foolish on the part of USA to support the rise of China. 3) It would be foolish of USA to accept the discourse of 'peaceful rise'.

Mearsheimer suggested that the objective of China is to increase its power not for its security but for its dominance. According to Mearsheimer, states are 'pow er maximisers' rather than security maximisers. He suggested that the sooner USA takes steps to contain China, better it is. The reason is the gap between the powers of US and China is disappearing fast. Never ever in the history the rise of any country in context of all dimensions of power has been so fast like that of China.

Mearsheimer has suggested following policies/options

Direct action: There can be two methods

• War - War may be effective but extremely costly
• Blackmailing - Blackmailing may be cost effective but may not work.

Indirect actions:

1) Buck-passing: It means shifting the burden to some other country. e.g. India. India is the ideal 'swing state' from the perspective of US administration.

2) Bait and Bleed: Support one country and let the two countries bleed. It has been the traditional policy of USA to support the weaker country. e.g. Supporting Pakistan against India, India against China, Saudi Arabia against Iran.

3) Bloodletting: Suppose two countries are fighting, then ensure that they continue to fight and thus weaken themselves. e.g. USA supplied arms to both the countries during Iran and Iraq war so that no one develops the capacity to emerge as a regional power.

Though both are structural realists, yet there is a difference between the two. Kenneth Waltz is defensive realist, Mearsheimer is offensive realist. The basic difference is with their advocacy of the amount of power country should acquire.

Views of Kenneth Waltz

• There is no need to go for endless search for power.
• Nation should acquire power which is sufficient for its defence.
• Kenneth Waltz supports 'security maximization' rather than 'power maximization'.
• According to him, unnecessary amount of power is counter-productive. When nation goes for unending search for power beyond what is needed for its security, it forces other countries to form 'counter coalitions' and thus balance the hegemon.

Mearsheimer's View

• No amount of power is enough.
• In this context, Mearsheimer comes closer to Morgenthau. For both the scholars power is an end in itself.
• According to Mearsheimer USA should aspire for hegemony rather than balance.
• USA should not allow any country to gain balance of power vis-a-vis USA.
• The only guarantee of security is hegemony.
• According to Mearsheimer, nations are not security maximisers, they are power maximisers.
• China is acquiring power not for its security but for establishing its domination.
• Mearsheimer believes that nations are offensive rather than defensive.
• He also believes that 'offence is the best defence.'
• He suggests that the history shows that the countries which have taken offensive actions have generally won the war rather than those who have defensive approach. Hence USA should go for offensive rather than defensive approach towards China.
• Mearsheimer does not support Kenneth Waltz view that nations will form counter-coalitions in case country wants to become hegemon. He suggests that in such situations nations may prefer 'Bandwagoning'.
• Domestic politics is not taken into consideration at all. Neorealists argue that the structure of international system does not give any scope for domestic politics.
• System level explanation cannot help explain issues like foreign policy decision making (if realism is held true, there is little scope for decision making or even deliberation), political culture etc.
• Realists focus too much on security issues. This focus limits analytical instruments to explain only economic relations.
• The role of non-state actors is undermined.
• The end of cold war and structural reconfiguration of international system has brought strong conceptual challenge to neorealist theory.
• The relevant points can be added to / from the criticism of Classical realism.

The basic difference between structural realist and neo-classical realism is that the neo-classical realism even include actor level analysis along with structure level analysis. For neo classical realists,

It is true that the structures of international politics constrains the choices and hence foreign policies show continuity. Yet we cannot ignore the role of actors or personality factors in shaping foreign policy. Actors do make a difference. e.g. There is bound to be a difference if Nehru is shaping the foreign policy or Indira Gandhi.

Hence if foreign policies reflect continuity, they also reflect change.

Marxist Approach

It would be inappropriate if we use the term 'Marxist school of international politics'. Because Marx considered politics as a part of superstructure hence it is preferable to use the term 'Marxist school of international political economy'.

There is no explicit contribution of Karl Marx toward the theory of international politics as he focused his attention in the domestic sphere. Yet we see some relevant ideas in Marx.

• Marx did focused on expansionist nature of capitalism. In the words of Marx 'Search for profits take bourgeoise to settle everywhere and nestle everywhere'.
• Marx did not believe in nationalism and called for proletarian internationalism. (They are in favour of globalization but not capitalist globalization.)
• In Marxism, it was Lenin who developed the theory of international politics. He has given the analysis of imperialism. From Lenin emerges the instrumentalist school, also known as dependency school. The prominent concepts of dependency school are (1) unequal exchange, (2) uneven development, (3) development of underdevelopment, (4) core and periphery states.

* [Do not confuse World System theory by Immanuel Wallerstein with System Approach by Morton Kaplan. The Systems Approach by Kaplan is covered later in the topic.]

World system theory is a grand sociological theory. World system theory is analysis of the working of capitalism at global level. It is influenced by Lenin's ideas. It provides criticism of globalization from Marxist point of view. It gives critique of political modernization theory.

Political modernization theorists suggested that the path for poverty alleviation of the developing countries is greater integration with international economy.

In contrast, dependency school scholars suggested that closer the country is integrated with international economy, poorer it will be. e.g. The reason for poverty in Africa and Latin American countries is linked to the working of MNCs in these countries. Hence they suggested 'national autonomous development'.

Wallerstein's theory is descriptive as well as prescriptive. It describes the structure of international politics in the form of world system. And prescriptive because, it suggests to shift towards socialism. According to Wallerstein, we have only two choices either socialism or barbarianism. According to Wallerstein, capitalism has become a world system. It means expanded throughout the globe.

Expansion of capitalism has linked the countries of the world with each other. He categorizes the countries into three groups. 1) Core 2) Peripheries and 3) Semi-peripheries.

According to Wallerstein, we have seen two types of world systems.

1) Up till 17th century - The nature of world system was political. It was centralized (Roman empire). Peripheries used to pay the tribute to the centre which was redistributed to the peripheries by centre.

2) Since 17th century - The world system has become economic. It has become decentralized. The distribution of goods is being done through the markets. In 17th century, it was led by Holland (Netherlands). In 19th century by Britain and since 20th century by USA.

Wallerstein described world system as 'multicultural territorial division of labour' in which production and exchange of the basic goods and raw materials necessary for day to day life takes place.

He has explained the world system and its features as following

Every world system has three dimensions.

• Spatial dimension
• Temporal dimension and
• Cultural dimension

A] Spatial Dimension

The spatial dimension has been explained through core, peripheries and semi-peripheries.

Features of core countries: Concentration of power, Political power, Economic power, Ideological power, Technological power e.g. USA, China, Western Europe etc.

Peripheries: They continue to be under neo-colonialism. Drain of wealth is continuing. The ruling class is the instrument of the capitalist of core countries e.g. African Countries, Latin America

Semi Peripheries: This represents the set of developing countries which have got some benefits in the world system. e.g. Asian Tigers, BRICS countries. They get benefited because 1) They had some amount of law and order. 2) Some amount of industrial base. 3) Some amount of skilled and semi-skilled labour.

However the semi-peripheries have not benefitted the other countries of periphery. In one way, they have become the allies of core countries. It is because of these countries that it has not been possible to achieve socialist revolution on a global scale. They have also harmed the interest of the working classes in the core countries. They have only benefitted the capitalist of core countries.

They have weakened the power of working classes in the core countries as they provide cheap labour to the capitalists. It is one of the reasons for unemployment in core countries.

Since there is poor regulation and law and order, it was possible for the capitalists of core countries to shift outdated technologies from core to semi-peripheries. Thus they have offset the achievements of civil society, especially environmental movements in the western countries.

According to Immanuel Wallerstein, semi-peripheries have become the new elites exploiting the countries of periphery.

B] Temporal Dimension

Every system has its lifespan. Present world system originated in 17th century and is now moving towards its end. He has given the three features of capitalism in terms of temporal dimension.

• Cyclical rhythms - capitalism sees cycles of boom and burst.
• Secular trends - It reflects contradictions within capitalism. e.g. Decrease in wages for the sake of profits decrease the purchasing power and results into the slowdown of economy.
• Crisis - Cyclical rhythms and secular trends ultimately lead to the collapse of the system.

C] Cultural dimension

The cultural dimension plays a subtle but important role in maintaining the global capitalist system. The cultural norms, ideologies, and education systems are shaped by the core to legitimise its dominance. The spread of Western values - like consumerism, individualism, and liberal democracy - is not neutral but serves to sustain the capitalist world economy. Thus, culture becomes a tool of hegemonic control and dependency, reinforcing the existing global hierarchy.

According to critics, this model is also 'monocausal'. An example of economic determinism. Overemphasis on economic factors behind the happening of any phenomenon. International politics is too complex to be explained only through a single factor.

Post colonial scholars consider even this approach as Eurocentric i.e. based on the experience of the western countries.

Gramscian school explanations (as given ahead) can also be used to criticize Wallerstein's theory.

Scholar: Robert Cox - SOCIAL FORCES, STATE AND WORLD ORDERS BEYOND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY. Article Published in 1981.

According to Gramscian tradition, it is not enough to explain international politics by understanding the material structure alone. We have to understand how cultural and ideological factors also play the role. e.g. In order to explain US hegemony, we have to see not just the economic and military power of USA but also the ideological power it utilizes. The liberal international economic order is meant to benefit USA. However USA has been able to convince the international community that it is in the benefit of all. When all approve liberal international economic order, it further benefits US and builds its hegemony.

Robert Cox became famous with his statement - 'Theory is always for someone and for some purpose.' He has analysed the realist and liberal theories to find out that ultimately these theories are written from the perspective of which classes. Both the theories ultimately benefit the capitalist class.

Scholar: Andrew Linklater

Critical school/ Frankfurt school is concerned about 'emancipation of masses'. Andrew Linklater suggests that world can be emancipated from wars only when we make territorial boundaries irrelevant. He also suggests the strengthening of grassroot democracy. People should be empowered enough to put pressure on the ruling class to take responsible actions.

He suggests to strengthen moral boundaries across nations. It denotes transnational civil society networks.

Functionalism & Neo-functionalism

Functionalism emphasises cooperation through shared interests in practical areas like trade, health, or communication, rather than focusing on political or military issues. It argues that by solving technical and economic problems together, states can build habits of collaboration that gradually lead to greater integration and peace. Functionalists believe that international institutions and organisations play a key role in this process by creating interdependence among states, reducing the likelihood of conflict. The idea is that cooperation in one area will "spill over" into others, fostering broader international harmony. Functionalism is also known as 'peace by pieces'.

Functionalism is one of the most successful and practical alternative to Realism.

One of the best example of functionalist approach is European Union. In fact the experiment of EU is the basis of the theory of functionalism. The theory of functionalism has evolved from functionalism to neo-functionalism based on experiences of EU.

Approach of functionalism involves following steps

• Compartmentalization of issues.
• Segregation of issues into the issues of low politics and high politics.
• First give initiative into the hands of non-political class like technicians, scientists, artists, athletes etc.
• Cooperation in low political issues will teach the benefits of cooperation to the political class.
• Cooperation in one area will have spillover effect in other areas. It will create conditions for cooperation in other areas.
• It will create functional interlinkages. i.e. It will increase interdependence.
• Interdependence will increase to such an extent that it would appear foolish if countries will decide to go for war.

This experiment has been done successfully in European Union.

The ideas of functionalism come from the views of:

• Richard Cobden who suggests to 'keep the politicians out.'
• GDH Cole who has given the concept of functional sovereignty.
• The theory of functionalism has been also supported David Mitrany.

One of the challenge in functionalism is that it is a long term process. It requires huge patience and the political will.

It may happen that the process of integration gets stagnated. In this situation, neo functionalist Ernst Haas suggest that we cannot keep the political class completely away. Integration process cannot proceed without political class, acting with strong will and determination.

It is suggested that functionalism could also offer a viable pathway for improving Indo-Pakistan. There is already a shared cultural history, and relations can be further encouraged by cooperation in areas such as sports, health, trade etc. This way, both nations could gradually build trust and reduce hostility.

It is suggested that Pakistan will be better off if it unconditionally handles hands away the occupied Kashmir region to India. It will unleash the immense benefits of cooperation and improve its economic condition.

However, the deep politicization of bilateral issues has made even basic cooperation difficult. In Pakistan, the dominance of the military-civil elite nexus, which benefits from a perpetually destabilized environment, obstructs consistent engagement. This, in turn, makes it hard for the Indian government to adopt a softer approach without facing domestic backlash, further stalling any functionalist progress.

There are also vested interests of great powers like USA and China, which further complicate the situation.

Systems Theory

Behavioural movement in political science also impacted the field of international politics. It has also led to the second great debate in international relations i.e. between traditionalists and positivists.

Systems approach in international politics is based on the systems approach of David Easton. It is also influenced by the general systems theory. General systems theory suggest the utilization of the concepts of different disciplines. Systems approach in international relations is based on the fundamental concepts of the system approach in general. However systems approach (in IR) is often criticized that it does not include even the fundamental features of systems approach.

'Systems approach is a huge misstep in right direction' - Stanley Hoffman

Kaplan wanted to give 'grand theory' of international relations. A theory as universal as Newton's law of gravity. The theory which is capable of explaining past, present and future of international politics. Hence he developed different models (total 10) to explain the past, present and future of international politics.

Morton Kaplan, in his System Theory of International Politics , proposed six primary models. He later extended his analysis to include additional types, giving a set of 10 system models . These models describe different ways in which the international system can be organised and maintained.

Core Six Models

1] Balance of Power System : Multiple independent actors (states) seek to preserve equilibrium through shifting alliances. War is used as a tool to restore balance.

2] Loose Bipolar System: Two major powers dominate, but other states retain some independence. There is some flexibility in alliances and limited cooperation.

3] Tight Bipolar System : Two blocs are led by two superpowers, and all other states align strictly with one or the other. Conflicts are controlled through rigid bloc discipline.

4] Universal International System : All major actors agree to follow common rules and institutions, possibly under a world government or global governance system.

5] Hierarchical International System : One dominant actor (hegemon) controls or leads the rest. The system remains stable as long as the hegemon provides order.

6] Unit Veto System : Every major actor has the capability to destroy the system (e.g., through nuclear weapons). As a result, war becomes irrational, and peace is maintained through mutual deterrence.

According to Stanley Hoffman, 'systems approach is a huge misstep in right direction.' It is a strange parlour game, it does not capture even the basic stuff of international politics.

The models do not have analytical of explanatory importance. Some models are hypothetical, some models are outdated and the current international politics does not resemble any of the model.

The purpose of the discipline of international politics is to find ways to establish peace. This model has no such relevance.

Model does not fulfil even the basic requirements of systems theory. It neither explain the environment, not structures, functions, input output processes. It does not show the role of domestic variables in international politics.