Key Concepts in International Relations

National Interest

National interest refers to the set of goals or objectives that a state seeks to achieve to ensure its security and survival. It is considered the guiding principle of a country's foreign policy and includes both short-term and long-term priorities. These interests can be strategic, economic or even ideological.

According to Morgenthau, the father of realism, national interest is the prime motivation of foreign policies. National interest is a highly dynamic concept. Power is a means to secure the national interest. National interest itself can be described in terms of power.

Morgenthau has categorized national interest into two types.

1) Core national interest: Core national interest are fundamental, do not change and hence countries show continuity in foreign policy.

2) Variable national interest: Variable interest are the reasons to see continuity with change in foreign policies.

Scholars like Robinson has given following classification of national interest.

1) Primary 2) Secondary 3) Permanent 4) Variable 5) General and 6) Specific.

He has also given the ways in which countries protect their national interests. Balance of power, deterrence, diplomacy, international law and organizations, propaganda, intelligence, ideology, incentives etc.

Though national interest is a core concept, yet it is called as pseudo theory. The prime reason is that it is highly subjective concept. National interest as a concept has been criticized by Marxist scholars. The first theoretical analysis of the national interest from Marxist perspective is done by Charles Beard. In the words of Charles Beard 'If citizens have to support the government which prosecutes them, soldiers are to die for it, foreign policies have to confirm to it, what better term it can be other than national interest'.

National interest is a pseudo theory, was first declared by Raymond Aron. He called national interest pseudo because that it is vague, subjective, meaning changes according to the context. Ambiguity in the concept hinders the formulation of the acceptable theory of national interest.

Joseph Frankel - any search for the theory of national interest is useless, it is used in variety of ways for variety of purposes, there is no single meaning and content.

Burchill Scott - despite wide use of the concept, theory lacks any substance.

According to Mohammad Younus national interest is a means to promote the interest of elites. In his book published on the theory of national interest, he has shown how army in Pakistan describes its interests as 'national interest'.

Power in IR

Power is one of the central concepts in International Relations. It means the ability of an actor to influence the behaviour of others and shape outcomes in its favour. In world politics, power is used by states to protect national interest.

Traditionally, power was understood mainly in military terms. A powerful state was one that had a strong army, territory and economic resources. Realists especially see power as the basic currency of international politics because there is no world government to protect states.

However, the meaning of power has expanded in contemporary world. Today, power also includes elements like technology, culture and information. Power in international relations is not only about forcing others; it is also about persuading, influencing and setting the rules of global politics.

"Whatever may be the ultimate end, power is always the immediate end." - Hans Morgenthau

• Economic Strength : A strong economy allows for better defence, diplomacy, and development. Germany's economic prowess gives it substantial influence in the EU.
• Political Stability : Stable governance and consensus on foreign policy enhance a nation's strength. For instance, China's consistent leadership has facilitated its rise. India is also benefitting from a stable government for more than a decade.
• Leadership : Though structural realists eliminate the personality factor, yet leadership does play a role. Kautilya, one of the earliest scholars on geo-politics gave the theory of the elements of state known as 'Saptanga theory.' He calls King as 'Nabhi'. The strong King can convert even the weak elements of sovereignty into the elements of strength. We can see the changing trends in US foreign policy since Mr. Trump first assumed the office in 2017.
• Military Capability : A well-equipped and trained military deters threats and projects power. The USA's global military presence exemplifies this.
• Intelligence Capabilities : Nations with robust intelligence agencies, like the CIA (USA) or Mossad (Israel), can better navigate international challenges. The strength of countries like Russia, USA, Israel, Britain comes from the highly professional intelligence bodies.
• Technology : Technological advancements can boost military and economic power. For example, countries leading in AI and cybersecurity hold significant influence in contemporary times. To some extent, technology has reduced the importance of geography.
• Geography: It is said that 'USA is what it is, not because of who they are but because of where they are.' It's topography, presence of resources, isolated location demography etc. have been major factors behind hegemonic position of USA.
• Social Cohesion : It is easier to make foreign policy decisions if social composition is homogenous. If society is heterogenous, it becomes difficult. e.g. India could not have the sound policy towards Israel for long because of the domestic compulsions, the sentiments of minorities.

While elements provide potential, actual power depends on how effectively a nation utilizes them. Further, since countries do not disclose their real status in terms of military capabilities, it is difficult to calculate the amount of power exactly. However, countries are often categorized into following on basis of amount power they can wield.

• Superpowers : Nations with unmatched global influence (e.g., USA). Other countries even in combination cannot defeat superpower.
• Great Powers : Countries with significant regional or global roles. These countries are capable of defending their interest on their own. There are P5 members besides USA.
• Middle Powers : Nations with moderate influence, which can defend themselves in coalition with others. (e.g., India, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan).
• Small Powers : Countries with limited or no influence.

Hard power involves the use of coercive means - such as military force or economic sanctions - to influence the behaviour of other states. It relies on tangible resources like armed forces and economic strength to compel others to act. E.g. military interventions or threats, economic sanctions, trade restrictions etc.

Soft power is the ability to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction rather than coercion. Coined by political scientist Joseph Nye, it encompasses a country's culture, political values, and foreign policies that are seen as legitimate or having moral authority. E.g. Promoting cultural exports like music, films, and literature, establishing educational exchanges and scholarships etc.

Traditionally, realists give greater weightage to hard power. However liberals like Joseph Nye held that the importance of hard power has declined considerably in 21st century because of complex interdependence. One of the reason for decline of USA's hegemony is the greater reliance on hard power.

However later on Nye modified the views and accepted that soft power alone may not work. He gave the concept of Smart Power, popularized by Hillary Clinton. Joseph Nye defined Smart power as an approach 'which underscores' the necessity of strong military power, but invest heavily in institutions, partnerships and alliances.

Joseph Nye is also concerned about the rise of Sharp Power as an alternative to the Soft Power, Sharp Power represents the power of authoritarian states, the power of propaganda, which aims to attack the credibility of western liberal democracies e.g. China's policies.

John Chipman has given the concept of Fast Power. According to him, speed has become the determinant of power. According to him, what matters in 21st century is not the heft but how much a country is agile and adaptive. The rule of the present world is not the survival of the fittest rather the survival of the fastest.

The concept of polarity of power was given by structural realists like Kenneth Waltz and Mearsheimer. Polarity denotes the distribution of power across the globe.

Only one dominant power exist at global level. (e.g., post-Cold War USA). It is suggested that this is most unstable global order.

There exists a single hegemon, who will overstretch. There will be free riders that will take the advantage and there will be relative decline of power of the hegemon.

Also, when there is single superpower, the country may suffer from Megalomania. It will think that there are no limitations on its powers. Will itself start destroying the order which it has built by taking unilateral actions. Like USA undermined UNSC e.g. in case of 2nd war against Iraq in 2003. Same can be said about USA's approach towards WTO currently.

There are wo major powers on globe. (e.g., USA and USSR during the Cold War). This is seen by scholars as stable due to clear power balances. Further, it is easy to keep watch on the actions of each other. Additionally, the two superpowers will contain anarchy in their own zone of influence. Realists like Kenneth Waltz argue that bipolar systems are the most stable due to clear deterrence and balance.

Multiple influential states in global order. The situation of Europe before WWI can be characterized with this. There were multiple powers like UK, France, Germany etc. While it offers balance, it can also lead to unpredictability and conflicts. This is most unstable. Greater confusion prevails, more fingers are on the trigger button. It is difficult to keep watch and there are greater chances of even the accidental war.

India advocates for a multipolar world to ensure strategic autonomy and prevent dominance by any single power. However, in South Asia, India prefers to maintain its regional influence and is cautious about external powers, like China, gaining a foothold.

Scholars: Given by Charles Kindleberger, developed by Robert Gilpin.

Hegemonic stability theory suggests that hegemonic world order is stable world order. It is based on the assumption that the peace requires some 'global policeman' i.e. some state which can establish rule of law by establishing the norms. It basically means establishing liberal international order.

Further, that actors (hegemon) should have willingness and capacity to ensure that other actors observe the norms. It should be in a position to punish those who destroy the liberal world order.

There are two qualities of hegemon i.e. capacity and willingness. e.g. till 2nd WW US did not have willingness though it had capacity.

Examples of hegemon: Up till 2nd WW Great Britain (Pax Britannica). After 2nd WW - USA (Pax Americana). The term Pax denotes dictated peace.

Span of hegemony: Normally hegemony continues for 100 years. After which it starts declining. Why? Hegemon overstretch, free riders take the advantage. Why countries will accept the hegemon? Hegemon provides order and security. Why hegemon would accept to become hegemon? Since hegemon dictates the rules, hegemon is going to benefit by the system. Thus hegemony denotes leadership.

Hegemonic stability theory is a realist theory which accepts the liberal international order. The realist theory of hegemony is different from the Gramscian theory. Gramscian theory looks ideology and culture as the basis of hegemony. Realist theory include military and economic power.

Balance of Power

The concept of Balance of Power (BoP) has been a cornerstone of international relations, evolving over centuries to address the shifting dynamics of global politics. David Hume calls it common sense. According to him, Balance of power will remain relevant so long common sense is relevant.

The balance of power refers to a condition where power is distributed among various states or alliances in such a way that no single entity can dominate or impose its will upon others. This equilibrium is maintained through strategies like enhancing one's own capabilities (internal balancing) or forming alliances (external balancing) to counteract potential threats. The primary aim is to prevent any one state or group from achieving hegemony.

The idea of balancing power among states can be traced back to ancient Greece and Rome, where city-states and empires sought to prevent any single entity from dominating others.

The Westphalian system, established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, serves as a foundational example of the balance of power in international relations. This system introduced the principles of state sovereignty, equality among states, and non-intervention in domestic affairs.

It sought to prevent the emergence of a hegemonic power in Europe. The equilibrium was maintained through alliances and diplomacy, ensuring that power remained distributed.

The famous historian APJ Taylor mentions 1848 to 1914 as the golden age of balance of power. European countries formally adopted the concept in 1815 in Vienna Congress which has given rise to the concert of Europe where the countries of Europe gave guarantees to ensure the balance of power so that peace is maintained. The concert of Europe gave 100 years of peace to Europe. i.e. Still 1914.

Balance of power assumes that the international system lacks a central authority, leading states to rely on self-help mechanisms. States are primary actors with ultimate authority within their territories. States continuously seek to accumulate power to secure their interests and deter adversaries.

To ensure balance of power states, employee internal, and external balancing. Internal Balancing suggests enhancing one's own military and economic capabilities. While external Balancing means forming alliances with other states, to counteract a more powerful state.

States also use following techniques to achieve balance of power - arms race, formation of buffer states, disarmament agreements, territorial adjustments, imposition of reparations post-conflict etc.

Kenneth Waltz introduced structural realism. For him, the anarchic nature of the international system compels states to balance power to ensure survival.

Woodrow Wilson c riticized BoP for perpetuating war. Instead he advocates collective security through international institutions like the League of Nations.

Pandit Nehru , described BoP as a "nervous state of peace," highlighting its inherent instability and the constant fear of conflict.

Social constructivists suggest that the balance of power theory overlooks the role played by norms and values. It overemphasise on the material structure. Here the material structure is anarchy but it is the result of norms and values that anarchy is interpreted in the specific way giving rise to power politics. As suggested by Alexander Wendt, Anarchy is what states make of it.

Balance of power, despite being recognized as the fundamental law is seen as 'murky concept'. There is a vagueness in the way balance is explained. Sometimes balance means A=B, sometimes balance denotes A-B = Remaining (similar to economic concept.). There are different ways scholars describe balance concept.

Hans Morgenthau has identified multiple interpretations of BoP, ranging from policy strategies to actual distributions of power. Ernst Haas outlines eight different meanings, reflecting the concept's complexity and the challenges in its application.

There are also alternative theories to the concept of BoP.

Stephen Walt proposes Balance of Threat. For him, states balance against perceived threats rather than mere power disparities, considering factors like proximity and offensive capabilities.

A.F.K. Organski has given a power transition theory which suggests that major conflicts are likely when a rising power threatens to surpass a dominant one, leading to instability during power transitions.

The concept of soft Balancing involves non-military tools - such as international institutions, economic statecraft, and diplomatic arrangements - to delay or undermine aggressive unilateral actions by dominant powers.

The concept of asymmetrical balancing addresses the challenges posed by non-state actors and the asymmetry between states and these entities, requiring new strategies beyond traditional BoP approaches.

Theoretically nuclear weapons also challenges the relevance of the need of balance of power. According to Bernard Brodie, states should try to gain nuclear deterrence rather than the balance of power.

The relevance of BoP is called into question first by the liberals/idealists like Woodrow Wilson. According to Woodrow Wilson, balance of power is prone to war. Balance of power can convert any local war between two countries into world war because countries are linked in alliances. Hence it is said that BoP gives protection against measles but create conditions for plague, a bigger epidemic.

Even Pandit Nehru was a critique of BoP, he described BoP as 'nervous state of peace'. Means there is always a fear of war as countries possess nuclear weapons.

Hence Woodrow Wilson wanted to end the reliance of countries on BoP and gave the concept of collective security. However collective security could never emerge as a viable alternative to balance of power so that states leave their alliance on power politics.

It is also suggested that the ideal conditions of operation of BoP has ceased to exist and thus, the concept is no more relevant.

Ideal Conditions for BoP

• Westphalian world order rather than anarchical society or complex interdependence.
• Balance of Power as a concept makes sense in regional situations. Politics at present has become global.
• Balance of power operates in multipolar situation, it neither operates in the state of unipolarity nor bipolarity. The world order in last few decades is defined by unipolarity.
• BoP is based on conventional warfare. The nuclear weapons and the technological warfare may cause the BoP go into irrelevance. The emergence of nuclear weapons has been a serious challenge to balance of power. Additionally, in western Europe BoP has become redundant because of emergence of 'security community' (NATO).
• In present times, the challenge to the security of states come from non-state actors. Non state actors can operate from any soil. Failed states are most fertile soils. If attack comes from non-state actors capturing a country which is friendly, it would not be easy to initiate war.

The rise of China, resurgence of Russia, and the growing influence of India suggest a shift towards a multipolar system, reinvigorating BoP considerations.

It is to be noted that non-state actors are actually the proxies, it is true that nuclear weapons, has challenged the importance of the conventional weapons but it is also true that nuclear weapons are not to be used. Hence the importance of conventional weapons will never go out of relevance. Even in the 21st century, we can observe nations exercising the game of BoP.

We can see the game of BoP going on in Asia Pacific. It is because of the game, the centre of gravity of international politics has shifted towards Asia Pacific. The rise of China has forced USA to go for Asia rebalance/Asia pivot policy. As a part of Asia pivot policy, there is a greater deployment of US marines in the region. The neighbours of China like India, Japan, Australia are going for the formation of alliances and quasi-alliances. According to the scholars, there is a high probability of conventional war between India and China as a part of USA's policy of buck passing or bait and bleed. All the major countries are acquiring conventional weapons. To quote David Hume again, "so long common sense remains relevant, Balance of Power will remain relevant."

Deterrence & Nuclear Strategy

The term deterrence comes from the Latin word De terre - which means to frighten. The basic idea is to frighten the potential adversary from attacking.

Deterrence is a psychological concept. It assumes that the actors are rational. Deterrence will work only when the adversary believes in the credibility of deterrence. Adversary needs to be communicated that if it prefers to attack or start war, the victory will come at the cost which is not worth paying. (In case victory comes). Thus preventing the adversary from taking action.

Deterrence is an old concept, traditionally used for conventional weapons. However now it has got associated with nuclear weapons. That is the reason number of times, deterrence is seen as an alternative approach to balance of power. The concept of deterrence is developed by Game theorists. Prominent scholars supporting deterrence include Bernard Brodie, Herman Kahn, Mearsheimer, Thomas Schelling.

The theory of deterrence has developed with the changing postures of the superpowers and specifically USA in context of its security. It was realized that USA's security cannot be simply dependent on conventional weapons. Conventional weapons can convert the local wars into world wars. If nuclear deterrence is developed, it can ensure that the major war is avoided. USA's security policy during cold war was based on deterrence. The only way to avoid war with USSR was to achieve 'MAD' - Mutually Assured Destruction.

MAD can be understood as nuclear balance. It is also called as the balance of terror. MAD was dependent on the capacity of a country to convince the other country that if it starts war, it is actually starting suicide.

The idea of MAD is based on developing second strike capability. It means surviving the first attack and ability to retaliate and inflict unacceptable damage (targeting civilians). MAD requires the development of nuclear triad.

(The nuclear triad refers to a country's ability to deliver nuclear weapons through three different platforms i.e. land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and aircraft-delivered bombs. This three-pronged system ensures second-strike capability meaning a country can retaliate even after being hit by a nuclear attack. It is considered vital for maintaining credible nuclear deterrence.)

Countries can have direct deterrence or extended deterrence. e.g. Japan, South Korea are under USA's extended deterrence.

Two factors raise the question mark on relevance of deterrence in contemporary period. 1) The emergence of complex interdependence. And 2) The fact that main security threat comes from non-state actors, which are relatively immune to deterrence because.

Realists scholars, however argue against irrelevance of Deterrence. According to Kenneth Waltz, nuclear weapons were factor because of which cold war remained cold.

Kenneth Waltz & Mearsheimer support 'selective proliferation', means proliferation among western countries will add to security, the reason being are that they are democracies. On the other hand, second generation nuclear state can't maintain security, safety & may not be accountable to public opinions.

Liberals however believe that nuclear weapons, needs to be eliminated. The urgency has increased because of the fear of proliferation into the hands of non-state actors.

Social constructivists scholar Nina Tannenwald suggest that nuclear taboo has come into existence. According to her, the main reason US could not use nuclear weapon against Vietnam was the development of taboo against the use of nuclear weapons. Hence it is not possible for countries to use nuclear weapons. Hence those countries which do not have nuclear weapons should not feel insecure rather should support the construction of norms which strengthen the nuclear taboo further.

Henry Kissinger also does not support reliance on nuclear deterrence because deterrence will apply only in case of rational actors. According to them, countries should find other means to reduce the security threats.

Though it is widely believed that the relevance of nuclear weapons have declined in post-cold war situation, yet major countries like USA, Russia, France continue to rely on nuclear deterrence in their security policy. USA coming out of ABM treaty (Anti-Ballistic Treaty), IMF (Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces) indicate the new arms race. The Nuclear Posture Review released by Trump administration in February 2018 clearly show that US continue to rely on nuclear weapons for its security as well as security of its allies.

A pre-emptive nuclear strike refers to a first strike attack using nuclear weapons aimed at destroying the enemy's ability to retaliate. It is based on the anticipation of an imminent attack rather than clear aggression.

This anticipatory nature makes it highly controversial, as such an act may not receive support from the international community. Moreover, the risk of faulty or incomplete intelligence raises the danger of catastrophic miscalculation. With the development of the nuclear triad, it has become even more difficult to neutralise a country's entire nuclear arsenal in a single strike, thereby reducing the effectiveness and credibility of pre-emptive doctrines.

Security Dilemma

The security dilemma in international relations refers to a situation where actions taken by one state to increase its security - such as building up military forces or forming alliances - are perceived as threatening by other states. In response, those other states may also strengthen their own security, which in turn makes the first state feel less secure.

This creates a cycle of mistrust and arms buildup, even if none of the states involved actually desire conflict. The dilemma arises because states cannot be sure of others' intentions, especially in an anarchic international system where there is no central authority to guarantee safety. It shows how efforts to ensure peace and security can ironically lead to tension, rivalry, or even war.

Security dilemma is one of the core concept of realism, which is based on the Westphalian world order. The concept of security dilemma has been developed by following scholars.

• John Herz has used the Hobbesian theory of state of nature to develop security dilemma, a vicious cycle of insecurity which makes power politics a permanent feature.
• Robert Jervis has developed 'offence defence theory' to explain severity of security dilemma.
• Social constructivists believe that security dilemma is because anarchy is interpreted in a specific way. They suggest that communications can address security dilemma.
• George Sorenson has given the concept of insecurity dilemma. Insecurity dilemma suggests that in 21st century, nations suffer from internal security threats. Reasons - rise of ethnic movements, non-state actors, failed states, civil wars.
• Prof. Amitabh Acharya also believe that security dilemma may not be a relevant concept for third world states.

Transnational Actors

Transnational actors (TNA) in international relations are entities that operate across national borders and influence world politics without being sovereign states. These actors are not confined to the authority or interests of any single nation. It includes multinational corporations (MNCs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), terrorist groups, international media, religious networks, and transnational advocacy networks.

These actors often play crucial roles in areas such as global trade, human rights, environmental activism, and security, sometimes cooperating with states and at other times challenging their authority.

Do transnational actors have role in international politics?

It remains a matter of debate.

Realism is a state centric view. For them even terrorist organizations are proxies of states.

Liberals, Marxists, Feminists do recognize the role but there is a difference of opinion. Liberals see the positive role of TNAs like MNCs, NGOs in bringing development. Marxists look at MNCs as exploiters and perpetuation of capitalism. Feminists also consider MNCs as exploiters.

Why there is a role of non-state actors? Globalization have given rise to the growth of society centric word. There is also a growth of interdependence.

Which models recognize the role of non-state actors? Cobweb model, Complex interdependence, 3D chess board model.

As said above, realists do not recognize their role independent of states. Liberals appreciate their role but consider it as a relatively recent phenomenon.

Marxists criticize realist approach. When realists do not recognize MNCs as actors, they are actually diverting our attentions from the activities of MNCs. Similarly liberals promote false consciousness. MNCs have resulted into the continuation of drain of wealth, development of underdevelopment. MNCs did not adopt sustainable development approach. Sometimes MNCs carry forward the interest of their states and sometimes states carry forward the interest of their MNCs.

MNCs have contributed towards the failure of democracies by sabotage, they have toppled the democratically elected governments in Latin America, Middle East and installed puppet regimes. Now even developing countries like India and China are having their own MNCs, which may not follow sustainable path in Africa and Latin American countries, resulting into huge resentment. MNCs are extremely powerful force, the budget of some of the MNCs is bigger than the GDP of many smaller countries. Marxists trace the role of MNCs since 17th century. East India Company can be seen as an example, which established its own empire.

Realists do not give importance, liberals recognize them as positive agents. Even UN charter recognize the role of NGOs as consultative bodies attached to ECOSOC. (Art 72 of UN charter). Like MNCs even the annual budget of some of the transnational NGOs is many time bigger than the GDP of many smaller countries.

According to Marxists, even their role is not new. Along with East India Company came Christian missionaries. The role of missionaries was to build the soft power. NGOs and MNCs work in close nexus. MNCs channelize the corporate responsibility fund to these NGOs.

Along with MNCs, NGOs have been accused of attempting regime change.

There was role of terrorist organizations in the first world war which started with the assassination of the Prince of Austria by Serbian extremists. Since the creation of Israel and failure of Arab nations in direct war, there has been the growth of terrorist organizations attempting proxy war. PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) was initially a terrorist organization.

Initially middle east was affected by these asymmetrical actors but now it has become a global phenomenon. Sponsoring terrorism is a part of foreign policy of many countries. Noam Chomsky calls USA as the first terrorist state in the world.

John Lewis Gaddis predicted the bigger role of asymmetrical actors in post-cold war world order as he suggested that USA has killed the Python (USSR) but has given rise to numerous poisonous snakes. He describes post-cold war security scenario more challenging for USA, because security threat has become diffused and thus difficult to control.

Collective Security

Collective security is the principle that an attack on one member of the international community is considered an attack on all, and all members agree to act collectively to respond to aggression. It is based on the idea of cooperative action for peace rather than balance of power or military alliances. The goal is to maintain international order and deter wars through joint commitment.

For example, when North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, the United Nations Security Council authorised a collective military response. Led by the USA but under the UN flag, 16 countries contributed troops to repel the aggression. This is considered the clearest example of collective security in action.

Collective security is an alternative to BoP. It is a liberal approach to security.

Both balance of power and collective security are the methods of management of power. Both the concepts are based on the view that Greater power is antidote to power. In both the concepts, sovereignty of the states is treated as sacred and war is seen as a means to ensure the sovereignty. We can say, collective security as 'institutionalized form of 'balance of power'.

Balance of power acts in the state of anarchy whereas collective security can come into existence only when some international organization exists. It is operated through international organization like League of Nations or United Nations.

Balance of power is an Ad-hoc concept whereas collective security is an institutionalized concept. There is an uncertainty in balance of power but there is a theoretical certainty in collective security. e.g. When Napoleon was destroying the Westphalian world order, Balance of power as a principle did not emerge automatically, it took long time for countries to check the rise of Napoleon. Hence there is uncertainty as to whether Balance of Power will emerge or will not emerge.

Balance of Power may be more relevant for great powers but collective security is highly useful for smaller and poor countries. They can get escape from Arms Race or the necessity to form alliances.

Collective security is conducive for peace because it reduces arms race. Collective security as a concept continues to be seen as too idealistic. Neither under League of Nations nor under United Nations it could be operationalized successfully. It has not been successful in ending the arms race. Lack of faith in collective security led the countries go for acquiring nuclear weapons.

Collective defence is a security arrangement where a group of countries agree that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, and they pledge to defend each other in case of aggression. NATO is a clearest example of collective defence. NATO's Article 5 states that an armed attack against one or more members shall be considered an attack against them all. This was invoked for the first time after the 9/11 attacks on the USA , leading NATO members to support the US.

Thus, the concept of collective defence is similar to collective security but more limited in scope, usually restricted to members of a formal military alliance. Collective security is universal, enemy is not predefined. Any country can approach UN. Collective defence is regional, it is meant only for the members and enemy is known in Advance.

India always opposed collective defence pacts but India always supported collective security. For India, collective defence pacts undermines the faith in collective security.

Whereas for USA, there is no contradiction because collective defence is practical way to operationalize collective security. It does not contradict UN charter, which allows countries right of self-defence.

The idea of collective security could not be operationalized under League of Nations (LoN). Following reasons can be attributed for it

• USA and Russia were not part of it.
• Britain and France had no faith in LoN.
• USA led countries followed the policy of appeasement of fascist powers as they considered communism as a bigger threat.
• Collective security was a new concept and there were flaws in the way it was conceptualized. In League of Nations, all countries had veto powers. It was practically not possible to get consensus of all countries.
• Collective security as such is based on false assumptions. It assumes as if international peace is the aim of the states. It forgets that national interest is the aim of states. Just because one state committed aggression, on the other state, it does not mean that all countries will commit their forces or forget their long term interest.

UN Charter does make some improvement in the procedure of operationalization. Under UN consent of only 5 states, P5 is needed. However the practical experience show that even that is not possible.

The collective security under UN remained paralyzed because of 'east west conflict'. Also, countries continue to give primacy to the national interest over justice, peace or order.

There are only two occasions when collective security could get operationalized under UN -

1) 1950 Korean Crisis. However, even in Korean crisis, it was not operationalized in ideal sense. North Korea was supported by China and Russia. South Korea was under the influence of USA. USA was successful in getting the permission of collective security action from UN only because Russian representative was absent. Russia was boycotting the UNSC on the issue of the permanent seat for Communist China. The moment Russian representatives came to know about the resolution, it came back and used Veto.

2) Gulf War I of 1989, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. More than 30 countries participated in UN operation under leadership of US.

To circumvent UNSC consensus, USA innovated a new concept. Acheson Plan aka Uniting for Peace resolution (UPR) . It suggest that in case there is a deadlock in UNSC, general assembly can authorize collective security by 2/3 majority. Russia never accepted the legality of UPR because it has not been the part of UN charter. Later on USA could not get support for most of the resolutions and hence even this route could not work.

It was the failure of collective security that the then secretary general Dag Hammarskjold proposed the concept of peacekeeping to keep the role of UN relevant in its primary purpose. However, peacekeeping is not a part of UN Charter. It is an extra constitutional growth.

Peacekeepers are sent only with the consent of the parties in conflict, there is no such requirement in case of collective security operations. Peacekeepers can use force only in self-defence.

The main objective of United Nations is to prevent wars, UNSC could not fulfil the obligation, hence the only way UN's role remained relevant was through peacekeeping. It is to be noted that India has made unparalleled contribution towards peacekeeping under UN. India's contribution in peacekeeping efforts is one of the strongest basis to demand permanent seat for India in UNSC. It needs to be emphasized that if there is any country whose actions kept UN relevant in its core objectives, it is India. Hence it is a paradox if India is not a permanent member at UNSC.

World Capitalist Economy

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.