Definition, Scope & Nature of International

Relations / Politics

Definition
International Relations (IR), also known as International Politics, is the study of the
interaction among states, non-state actors, and international institutions at the global
level. Traditionally, IR was confined to understanding how nations conduct their diplomatic
relations, negotiate treaties, engage in war and peace, and promote trade and
commerce. The primary concern was the survival of the state and the balance of power. For
instance, during the Cold War era, IR was dominated by the study of military alliances such
as NATO and Warsaw Pact, deterrence strategies, and nuclear arms control treaties.

In the contemporary period, however, IR has expanded to include issues that transcend
borders, such as climate change, human rights, migration, cyber security, terrorism, and
global health. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–22) showed how global health
became an integral part of international politics, with debates around vaccine distribution,
global solidarity, and vaccine nationalism. Similarly, the COP28 Climate Summit (2023,
UAE) highlighted how energy transition and environmental security are now at the heart of
international diplomacy.

Thus, International Relations today is not merely about power struggles between states but
also about global governance, ethical conduct, and collective problem-solving.

Scope of International Relations

The scope of IR has evolved over time and can be understood at three levels:

1. Traditional Scope
o Diplomacy and Treaties: In earlier centuries, diplomacy was the main tool of
IR, where envoys negotiated treaties of peace, war, and trade. Today,
diplomacy continues to be central, visible in agreements like the India–UAE
Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (2022) or ongoing
India–EU Free Trade Agreement negotiations.
o Security and War: The security of the state remains a primary concern. For
example, India’s participation in Operation Prosperity Guardian (2023–24),
aimed at protecting shipping lanes in the Red Sea against Houthi attacks,
shows the continuing importance of military cooperation.
o Economic and Trade Relations: With globalization, trade has become a
significant dimension. India’s rise as the world’s fifth-largest economy and
its participation in supply-chain initiatives like the Indo-Pacific Economic
Framework (IPEF) are evidence of trade diplomacy’s centrality.
2. Philosophical Aspect
International politics is also studied through philosophical schools of thought:
o Idealism/Liberalism: Stresses peace, cooperation, and institutions like the
UN, WTO, and WHO. Example: The Paris Climate Agreement (2015)
embodies liberal cooperation.
o Realism/Nationalism: Stresses power, self-interest, and survival. The
Russia–Ukraine war (2022 onwards) is a clear manifestation of realist
thinking where power trumps morality.
o Constructivism: Stresses the role of ideas, identity, and norms. India’s use of
the civilizational ideal “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (One Earth, One
Family, One Future) as the theme of G20 Summit 2023 shows how ideas
can shape state behavior.
3. Ethical, Social, and Legal Conduct of States
The ethical dimension of IR concerns how states should behave, guided by principles
of justice, fairness, and humanitarianism. For example, the International Court of
Justice’s provisional measures in 2024 in the South Africa v. Israel case emphasized
humanitarian obligations during armed conflict.
Similarly, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) ensures that even
during political disputes, diplomats must be treated with dignity and not harmed. This
was recently invoked in the India–Canada diplomatic row (2023).

Thus, the scope of IR is broad and interdisciplinary, touching upon politics, law, economics,
history, sociology, and philosophy.

Nature of International Relations

1. Dynamic in Nature: IR changes with time. From the colonial balance of power, to
Cold War bipolarity, to post-Cold War unipolarity, and now to a multipolar world
where the US, China, India, EU, and Russia all play important roles.
2. Interdisciplinary: It borrows from history (colonialism, wars), law (international
treaties), economics (trade, globalization), sociology (migration, human rights),
and philosophy (justice, ethics, dharma).
3. Normative as well as Empirical: IR studies both “what is” (power politics, wars,
alliances) and “what ought to be” (peace, justice, human rights).
4. Conflictual yet Cooperative: While conflicts like the Russia–Ukraine war and
Israel–Palestine conflict reveal the destructive side of IR, cooperative platforms like
BRICS, G20, and Paris Climate Agreement showcase the cooperative side.
5. Global in Character: States remain key actors, but non-state actors (UN, IMF,
World Bank, NGOs like Amnesty International, and corporations like Google shaping
cyber norms) also play vital roles.

Contribution of Indian Knowledge System (IKS)

Indian Knowledge System provides a unique contribution to international politics by offering
an ethical, holistic, and interconnected worldview. Unlike the power-centric Western IR
theories, Indian thought emphasizes Dharma—righteousness, justice, and balance between
self-interest and universal welfare.

 Dharma in politics ensures that rulers act not only for their own interest but also for
the welfare of humanity.
 The ideal of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) highlights global
interconnectedness and collective responsibility. This ideal was adopted as the
guiding philosophy of India’s G20 Presidency in 2023.
 Indian texts emphasize war ethics, diplomacy, righteous leadership, treaties based
on fairness, and humane treatment of enemies and messengers.
 In this sense, IKS anticipates many principles of modern international law and
humanitarian conventions.

Examples from Indian Texts

1. Rigveda – Leadership and Good Conduct

The Rigveda praises leaders who rule with righteousness, stating that those with just conduct
do not torture others. This sets the ethical foundation for leadership in politics.

 Modern parallel: India’s humanitarian diplomacy, such as Operation Dost (2023)

where India sent rescue teams and relief material to earthquake-hit Turkey and Syria,
reflects Rigvedic values of righteous leadership and humanitarian service beyond
borders.

2. Mahabharata – Shantiparva (Teachings of Bhishma)

The Mahabharata acknowledges that conflict is inevitable, but stresses that kings must rule
with Dharma.

 War Ethics:
o Do not attack the unarmed or surrendered.
o Do not strike below the waist or from behind.
o Do not overwhelm a single warrior with multiple attackers.
 Modern parallel: These principles resonate with the Geneva Conventions and
International Humanitarian Law. For instance, the ICJ’s orders in 2024
regarding the Israel–Palestine conflict called for protection of civilians and
humanitarian aid access, which is in line with the war ethics narrated in Mahabharata.

3. Ramayana – Envoy Ethics and Diplomacy

The Ramayana lays strong emphasis on envoy protection. Hanuman, though caught in
Lanka, was not killed because messengers must not be harmed.
 It also states that if even the greatest enemy seeks refuge or extends a hand of
friendship, the king must protect him.
 Modern parallel: This principle is institutionalized in the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations (1961). For example, during the India–Canada diplomatic
tensions (2023), though both sides recalled diplomats and reduced missions, the rule
of not harming envoys was respected.

4. Arthashastra – Kautilya’s Six-Fold Policy (Shadgunya)

Kautilya (Chanakya) emphasized that a king should act with Dharma but also with
pragmatism. His six-fold policy guides foreign relations:

1. Sandhi (Peace): e.g., India signing trade pacts like India–UAE CEPA (2022).
2. Vigraha (War): e.g., Ongoing Ukraine–Russia war reflects outright conflict.
3. Asana (Neutrality): e.g., India’s neutral stance on Russia–Ukraine war,
maintaining ties with both.
4. Yana (Preparation for War): e.g., India strengthening its military after the Galwan
clash with China (2020).
5. Samsraya (Alliance): e.g., India joining Quad (India, US, Japan, Australia) for
Indo-Pacific security.
6. Dvaidhibhava (Dual Policy): e.g., India balancing relations with Russia (defense
supplies) and US (strategic partnership) simultaneously.

Arthashastra also emphasized merit-based diplomacy, stating that envoys must be loyal,
eloquent, fearless, and skilled—qualities seen in modern Indian Foreign Service diplomats
who represent India globally.

5. Dharmashastras – Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, Narada Smriti

The Dharmashastras stress that war should be fought only for a just cause, not for greed or
conquest. They also emphasize the protection of non-combatants—women, children, the
sick, and helpless people must not be harmed.

 Modern parallel: These principles are echoed in International Humanitarian Law

and the Geneva Conventions (1949). Recent UN and ICJ discussions on civilian
protection in Gaza (2023–24) directly reflect these age-old principles of the
Dharmashastras.

Conclusion
International Relations is not only about power, survival, and competition but also about
ethics, justice, and global cooperation. While Western theories of IR—realism, liberalism,
constructivism—focus largely on power and institutions, the Indian Knowledge System
provides a unique and timeless perspective rooted in Dharma (righteousness), Vasudhaiva
Kutumbakam (global brotherhood), humane war conduct, ethical diplomacy, and
protection of the vulnerable.

The continuity between ancient Indian wisdom and modern international law is striking:

 Rigveda’s righteous leadership → India’s humanitarian diplomacy.

 Mahabharata’s war ethics → Geneva Conventions & ICJ rulings.
 Ramayana’s envoy protection → Vienna Convention & modern diplomatic
practice.
 Arthashastra’s six-fold policy → India’s balancing in global geopolitics.
 Dharmashastras’ just war principle → Humanitarian law in modern conflicts.

Thus, the Indian Knowledge System enriches the discipline of International Relations by
reminding the world that power must be tempered by ethics, and diplomacy must be
guided by justice.
Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points –
Detailed Notes

I. Historical Background
When the First World War (1914–1918) broke out, the European continent was torn apart by
rivalries, secret treaties, imperial ambitions, and an unprecedented arms race. Millions were
killed, and empires like Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian, and German collapsed.

In this context, Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States, who initially
maintained neutrality, was eventually drawn into the war in 1917 after German submarine
attacks and the Zimmerman Telegram scandal. Unlike the European powers, Wilson did not
want to punish Germany harshly but instead wanted to create a lasting peace framework.

Thus, on 8 January 1918, he delivered a speech before the U.S. Congress outlining
Fourteen Points, which became the moral basis for post-war peace negotiations. These
points were not just war aims but a vision for a new international order based on
democracy, self-determination, and collective security.

II. The Fourteen Points Explained

1. Open Diplomacy

Wilson insisted that diplomacy must be open, transparent, and free from secrecy.

 Reasoning: Secret treaties like the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy)
and Triple Entente (France, Britain, Russia) had created mistrust and pulled states into
conflicts they might otherwise have avoided.
 Example of Closed Diplomacy: Otto von Bismarck, after unifying Germany in 1871,
relied heavily on secret treaties to maintain balance in Europe. After his death, these
arrangements collapsed, leading to instability and war.
 Example of Open Diplomacy: In modern times, open trade agreements such as the
UK–India FTA negotiations are conducted transparently with parliamentary scrutiny.
 Impact: Open diplomacy was meant to prevent misunderstandings and conflicts. Yet
in practice, states continued to rely on secret negotiations (e.g., Sykes–Picot
Agreement of 1916 between Britain and France to divide Ottoman territories).

2. Freedom of the Seas

Wilson demanded absolute freedom of navigation on seas in both peace and war.
 This was aimed at Britain, which had used its powerful navy to blockade Germany.
 Germany retaliated with unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking neutral ships, which
dragged the U.S. into WWI.
 Contradiction: In WWII, both Axis and Allies violated this principle. Even today,
disputes over maritime sovereignty (e.g., South China Sea) show how contentious
freedom of seas remains.
 Modern relevance: Institutionalised under UNCLOS (United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea, 1982).

3. Free Trade

Wilson advocated the removal of economic barriers and insisted on equality in trade
conditions among nations.

 Belief: Economic interdependence would discourage wars.

 Example: Protectionist policies such as high tariffs had contributed to rivalries in pre-
war Europe.
 Modern context: The creation of the WTO and free-trade agreements reflect
Wilson’s principle, though protectionism still exists (e.g., U.S.–China trade war, EU
agricultural subsidies).

4. Disarmament

Wilson called for a reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with
domestic safety.

 Context: The pre-war arms race was a major cause of WWI. Britain and Germany
competed in building battleships; France and Germany in land armies.
 Failure: Post-war, the Treaty of Versailles disarmed Germany but not the Allies.
Soon, Japan, Italy, and Germany began rearmament in the 1930s, leading to WWII.
 Modern parallels: Disarmament efforts (NPT, CTBT, START treaties) still reflect
this Wilsonian idea, though complete disarmament remains utopian.

5. Adjustment of Colonial Claims

Wilson argued that colonial issues must consider the interests of both colonial powers and
colonial peoples.

 Contradiction: Applied mostly in Europe; colonies in Asia and Africa were ignored.
 For example, while Poland was granted independence, India and Egypt remained
colonies.
 This created disillusionment in colonised nations. Gandhi and Nehru criticised
Western hypocrisy: demanding self-determination for Europeans but denying it to
Asians and Africans.
6. Russia

Wilson demanded the evacuation of foreign troops from Russia and the right of Russians to
determine their own political future after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

 Western powers, however, intervened in the Russian Civil War, contradicting this
point.

7. Belgium

Germany’s invasion of neutral Belgium in 1914 was seen as a crime. Wilson called for
Belgium’s restoration of sovereignty and independence.

 This was widely accepted since Belgium had suffered immense destruction.

8. France (Alsace–Lorraine)

Wilson demanded the return of Alsace–Lorraine, annexed by Germany in 1871, to France.

 This was one of the least controversial points, as it was linked to national justice.

9. Italy

Wilson called for Italy’s borders to be redrawn according to the principle of nationality,
correcting secret arrangements such as the Treaty of London (1915), which promised Italy
extensive territories.

10. Austria-Hungary

Wilson proposed granting autonomy to the diverse nationalities within Austria-Hungary.

 Result: After WWI, the Austro-Hungarian Empire disintegrated into Austria,

Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.

11. Balkans

Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania were to be restored and guaranteed independence.

 The Balkan region had been the flashpoint of WWI (assassination of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand in Sarajevo).
 Wilson wanted to stabilise this region through self-determination.

12. Ottoman Empire

The Turkish portion of the Ottoman Empire was to retain sovereignty, while other
nationalities under Ottoman rule were to be given autonomy.

 Contradiction: The Middle East was secretly divided under the Sykes–Picot
Agreement (1916) and later placed under League mandates (British in Palestine,
French in Syria).

13. Poland

Wilson demanded the creation of an independent Poland with free access to the sea.

 Implemented by creating the “Polish Corridor” to the Baltic Sea.

 Poland became a sovereign state in 1919 after 123 years of partitions.

14. League of Nations

Wilson’s most important and lasting idea was the establishment of an international
organisation to ensure peace and collective security.

 Founded in 1919 at Geneva.

 Membership included many states, including India (despite colonial status).
 Problem: U.S. Senate refused to ratify, so America never joined.
 League failed to prevent aggression in the 1930s (Japan in Manchuria, Italy in
Ethiopia, Germany in Rhineland).
 Legacy: Inspired the creation of the United Nations in 1945, which remains central
to world politics.

III. Critical Evaluation of the 14 Points

Strengths

 Laid foundation for modern international organisations.

 Popularised principles of self-determination and collective security.
 Sought to create peace based on justice, not vengeance.
 Inspired colonised peoples to demand independence.

Weaknesses

 Too idealistic (utopian) – ignored realities of power politics.

 Colonial peoples excluded (Asia, Africa left out).
 League of Nations fatally weakened because the U.S. itself did not join.
 Reparations and territorial changes in Versailles contradicted Wilson’s spirit.

Legacy

 Though imperfect, Wilson’s vision shaped 20th-century IR.

 His ideals live on in institutions like the UN, WTO, NATO, and EU.
 Issues like disarmament, open diplomacy, and self-determination are still central
today (Palestine, Kurdistan, Kashmir, South China Sea).

IV. Conclusion
Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points remain one of the most significant attempts to
reconstruct the global order on moral and liberal foundations. Though they failed in
immediate practice, they provided the intellectual foundation for liberal internationalism,
which continues to shape world politics. His critics like E.H. Carr were right that Wilson was
utopian, but without such ideals, global governance institutions like the UN could not have
emerged.
Philosophical and Theoretical Context of
International Relations
Origins of the Discipline
The study of International Relations (IR) as a distinct discipline is relatively recent, emerging
in the early twentieth century in response to the devastating consequences of the First World
War. However, its philosophical and theoretical roots can be traced back to much earlier
intellectual traditions in political thought, law, and moral philosophy.

 Jeremy Bentham (1789): The English philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham is
credited with coining the term “international” in relation to law. His usage marked a
conceptual departure from the purely domestic focus of legal and political theory,
opening a framework for considering relations between sovereign states. Bentham’s
utilitarianism also influenced later debates about how international law should balance
the competing interests of states to maximize global welfare.
 Richard Zouche (17th century): Centuries before the formal establishment of IR as
an academic field, Richard Zouche, an English jurist, systematized ideas of
international law in his seminal work Juris et Judicii Fecialis. He was one of the
earliest scholars to treat relations among states as subject to legal order rather than
merely power politics. His writings laid important groundwork for what later evolved
into international law and ultimately became foundational to IR scholarship.

These early thinkers illustrate that while the formal “discipline” of IR did not emerge until
the twentieth century, philosophical explorations of relations among states had long been
embedded in legal, political, and moral thought.

Key Thinkers and Approaches

Quincy Wright (1890–1970)

One of the first modern scholars to treat IR as a systematic academic inquiry, Quincy Wright
distinguished between two ways of understanding the subject:

1. As a condition – IR refers to the practical conduct of relations among states. This

includes diplomacy, foreign policy, the formation of alliances, the practice of war and
peace, and the daily workings of governments on the global stage. In this sense, IR is
what states do.
2. As a field of study – IR is also an intellectual and academic enterprise, where
scholars analyze how states and other actors interact. This involves studying political
institutions, economic structures, social dynamics, and cultural influences that shape
international outcomes. Here, IR is what scholars study.
Wright’s dual perspective highlights the bridge between practice and theory: IR is both an
empirical reality and a discipline that seeks to explain, critique, and sometimes guide that
reality.

E.H. Carr (1892–1982)

In his landmark book The Twenty Years’ Crisis (1939), written on the eve of the Second
World War, Carr offered one of the earliest and most enduring critiques of the prevailing
Wilsonian idealism of the interwar period.

 Carr described interwar theories that emphasized morality, justice, and international
cooperation as “utopian.” He argued that such approaches neglected the underlying
realities of power politics.
 For Carr, international politics could not be explained by ideals alone; it had to be
understood in terms of interests, power, and the inevitability of conflict.
 His work reasserted the importance of Realism, emphasizing that states, like
individuals, are primarily motivated by self-interest and survival, not abstract moral
principles.

Carr’s analysis marked a turning point in IR theory, as it gave rise to the famous debate
between Realism and Idealism, which continues to shape the discipline.

Hans Morgenthau (1904–1980)

Often regarded as the founder of classical Realism, Hans Morgenthau systematized many of
the ideas that Carr had foreshadowed. In his seminal book Politics Among Nations (1948),
Morgenthau defined International Relations fundamentally as a struggle for power among
nations.

 For Morgenthau, power was the central concept of politics, both domestic and
international.
 He emphasized that the behavior of states could best be explained by objective laws
rooted in human nature, particularly the drive for domination and survival.
 His six principles of political realism established the theoretical foundation for
decades of scholarship and remain influential today.

Morgenthau’s classical Realism not only became the dominant paradigm of IR during the
Cold War but also provided policymakers with a framework for understanding the balance of
power, deterrence, and the limits of international morality.

Trevor (20th century)

Less well-known but still significant, Trevor defined International Relations as the discipline
that explains political activities across state borders. This formulation is important
because it broadened the scope of IR beyond traditional state-to-state diplomacy to include all
forms of cross-border political activity. It opened the door to considering non-state actors,
transnational movements, and international organizations as legitimate subjects of study.

Encarta (Modern Definition)

Modern definitions of IR reflect the evolution of the field from its realist origins into a more
inclusive, interdisciplinary area of study. According to Encarta and similar sources, IR can be
described as:

 A branch of political science that studies the relations between states and
international actors.
 It encompasses not only governments and their policies but also intergovernmental
organizations (such as the United Nations), non-governmental organizations,
multinational corporations, transnational advocacy networks, and even global civil
society.

This broader conception reflects the reality of globalization, where international outcomes are
shaped not only by the power politics of states but also by economic interdependence,
cultural exchange, technological change, and ecological concerns.

Conclusion
The philosophical and theoretical context of International Relations shows the gradual
evolution of the discipline from early legal-philosophical reflections on state conduct
(Bentham, Zouche) to systematic academic study (Wright), realist critique (Carr,
Morgenthau), and broader modern definitions (Trevor, Encarta).

What began as an inquiry into how sovereign states coexist in an anarchic world has
expanded into a multi-faceted discipline addressing the interplay of power, law, morality,
economics, and culture in shaping the global order.
Evolution of International Relations
1. Early Roots

The origins of International Relations (IR) as a discipline are often traced back to key
historical developments that shaped the modern state system. Before the 16th century, politics
was largely dominated by empires, religious authorities, and feudal lords. However, gradual
changes in Europe began to formalise the principles of sovereignty and interstate relations.

 Peace of Augsburg (1555):

This treaty marked one of the earliest formal recognitions of the principle of state
sovereignty. It allowed the princes of the Holy Roman Empire to determine the
religion (Catholicism or Lutheranism) of their own territories, encapsulated in the
principle of cuius regio, eius religio (“whose realm, his religion”). Although limited
in scope, it represented a crucial step toward the acceptance of territorial authority and
autonomy from external intervention.
 Treaty of Westphalia (1648):
The Peace of Westphalia, which ended the devastating Thirty Years’ War, is often
regarded as the true foundation of the modern international system. Its significance
lies in establishing:
o State sovereignty: Each state was recognised as having supreme authority
within its borders.
o Non-interference: External powers were discouraged from interfering in the
domestic affairs of others.
o Balance of power: States sought stability by preventing any one power from
dominating Europe.

The Westphalian order institutionalised the idea that states are the primary actors in
international politics, and it provided a framework that continues to influence IR
theory and practice to this day.

2. 19th Century Europe

The 19th century was a period of transformation in international relations, characterised by

efforts to maintain stability, the rise of nationalism, and a shift in the balance of power.

 Congress of Vienna (1815):

Following Napoleon’s defeat, European leaders convened to redraw the continent’s
political map. The Congress sought to prevent revolutionary upheavals and restore
monarchies under the principle of legitimacy. Most importantly, it created the
“Concert of Europe”, a system of collective security where the great powers
(Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and later France) agreed to consult and intervene if
necessary to maintain balance and order. This was an early attempt at institutionalised
diplomacy.
 Rise of Nationalism:
Nationalist movements, particularly in Italy and Germany, reshaped the political
landscape. The unification of Germany (1871) under Bismarck altered the balance of
power and introduced a powerful new actor into European politics. Nationalism also
acted as both a unifying and a divisive force, leading to tensions within multi-ethnic
empires such as Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.
 Secret Diplomacy and Alliance Systems:
Otto von Bismarck, the German Chancellor, skillfully engineered a series of alliances
to secure Germany’s position and prevent encirclement. His complex web of treaties
maintained relative peace for a time but also fostered mistrust and rigidity. Secret
diplomacy became a hallmark of the era, often conducted without public
accountability, planting the seeds of later conflict.

3. Early 20th Century & World War I

The early 20th century was marked by heightened militarism, colonial rivalries, and an
escalating arms race. These conditions culminated in the First World War (1914–1918).

 Causes of WWI:
Secret alliances, militarism, nationalism, and imperial competition created a volatile
environment. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria acted as the
immediate spark.
 Wilson’s Fourteen Points (1918):
U.S. President Woodrow Wilson proposed a visionary framework for peace,
advocating for self-determination of peoples, free trade, open diplomacy, and
collective security. His ideas reflected the liberal institutionalist perspective, seeking
to move beyond balance of power politics toward a more cooperative international
order.
 League of Nations (1919):
Established as part of the Treaty of Versailles, the League represented the first attempt
at a universal international organisation dedicated to preventing war through dialogue
and collective security. However, the League was hampered by the absence of the
United States, weak enforcement mechanisms, and the unwillingness of major powers
to sacrifice national interests for collective goals.

4. Interwar Period (1919–1945)

The interwar years were characterised by instability and the failure of international
institutions to manage global crises.

 Disarmament and Diplomacy:

Efforts such as the Washington Naval Conference (1921–22) and the Kellogg–Briand
Pact (1928) sought to limit armaments and outlaw war. Yet, these initiatives lacked
enforcement and failed to prevent renewed militarisation.
 The Great Depression (1929):
Economic collapse had profound international consequences. Protectionist policies,
unemployment, and social unrest created fertile ground for authoritarian regimes to
rise.
 Rise of Fascist Powers:
Expansionist regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan rejected the existing international
order. Their aggression—such as Japan’s invasion of Manchuria (1931), Italy’s
conquest of Ethiopia (1935), and Germany’s remilitarisation of the Rhineland (1936)
—exposed the League’s inability to act decisively.
 Failure of the League of Nations:
The League’s reliance on moral persuasion and economic sanctions proved
insufficient against determined aggressors. Its weakness made a second world war
virtually inevitable.

5. The Cold War Era (1945–1991)

The aftermath of World War II gave rise to a bipolar international order dominated by the
United States and the Soviet Union. This period shaped much of modern IR theory.

 United Nations (1945):

Established as the successor to the League, the UN was designed with stronger
enforcement mechanisms, including the Security Council with veto powers for the
major victors of WWII. Its goals extended beyond security to human rights,
development, and international law.
 Bipolar Rivalry:
The world was divided into two ideological and military blocs: capitalist democracies
led by the U.S. and communist states under Soviet leadership. The Cold War involved
proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan), an arms race, and the nuclear “balance of
terror.”
 Realist Dominance in Theory:
IR scholarship during this era was heavily influenced by realism, emphasising power,
security, and national interest. Concepts such as deterrence, containment, and the
balance of power dominated strategic thinking.

6. Post-Cold War & Contemporary IR (1991–Present)

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 reshaped the global order and introduced new
complexities to international relations.

 Unipolar Moment (1990s):

With the U.S. as the sole superpower, scholars spoke of a “unipolar world.” American
dominance in military, economic, and cultural spheres seemed unchallenged, with
interventions in the Gulf War (1991) and the Balkans underscoring its global role.
 Emerging Multipolarity (21st Century):
The early 2000s witnessed the gradual erosion of unipolarity. China’s rise as an
economic and military power, the consolidation of the European Union, India’s
growing influence, and Russia’s resurgence under Vladimir Putin all contributed to a
more multipolar order.
 New Global Challenges:
International relations today extend beyond traditional state-centric conflicts to
include transnational issues:
o Terrorism (e.g., 9/11 and the subsequent “War on Terror”).
o Climate change, demanding collective global action.
o Cyberwarfare and technological competition, reshaping security concerns.
o Global health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting
interdependence and vulnerability.
 Theoretical Pluralism:
Contemporary IR combines realist concerns about power and security with liberal
institutionalism’s focus on cooperation, as well as constructivist insights into identity,
norms, and ideas. Increasingly, scholars also draw on critical theories (feminism,
postcolonialism, Marxism) to broaden the scope of analysis.
International Politics: Nature and
Characteristics
1. Nature of International Politics
International politics (IP) is the study of relationships among nations, international
organizations, and non-state actors on the global stage. Its nature is defined by the inherent
features, underlying principles, and behavioral patterns of states. In simple terms, it
answers the question: “How and why do states behave the way they do in global affairs?”

The nature of international politics is multi-faceted:

1. It reflects the actions of states and how they interact with each other. A state’s
foreign policy, strategic decisions, and diplomatic initiatives are all shaped by its
perception of international politics.
2. It encompasses the belief systems, ideologies, and approaches of states. For
example, a democratic state might prioritize human rights in its international
engagements, while an authoritarian state might emphasize security and territorial
integrity.
3. It is inherently dynamic, influenced by shifts in global power structures,
technological advances, economic dependencies, and cultural exchanges.

Example: The ongoing U.S.-China rivalry demonstrates how the nature of international
politics combines power, ideology, and strategy. While the U.S. focuses on promoting
democracy and maintaining freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific, China emphasizes
economic influence and territorial claims.

2. Characteristics of International Politics

International politics is distinguished by several key characteristics, each shaping global
interactions in unique ways.

A. No Single Definition

International politics cannot be defined in one sentence because it is inherently multi-

disciplinary. It draws from:

 History: Understanding past wars, treaties, and colonization informs contemporary

state behavior.
 Law: International law governs how states interact, including treaties, conventions,
and the UN Charter.
 Geography: Location, resources, and strategic positioning shape political decisions.
 Economics: Trade, aid, and financial dependencies influence state power.
Thus, international politics is not confined to a single domain; it overlaps with several
academic disciplines and practical spheres.

Example: The Russia–Ukraine war shows how history, geography, international law, and
economics all converge in global politics. Historical grievances influence Russian actions,
international law frames the debate on territorial sovereignty, and economic sanctions shape
responses.

B. Operates in Anarchy

Unlike domestic politics, where a government maintains law and order, international politics
operates in a state of anarchy, meaning there is no overarching global authority capable of
enforcing rules uniformly. Each state is sovereign, responsible for its own survival and
security.

 Thomas Hobbes analogy: In a world without a sovereign, international politics is

like the "state of nature" described by Hobbes—competitive, dangerous, and often
conflict-prone.
 States rely on alliances, military strength, and diplomacy to secure their interests in
this anarchic system.

Current Affairs Example:

 The South China Sea disputes illustrate an anarchic environment where multiple
countries assert territorial claims, and no global power can enforce a resolution
independently.
 Similarly, the UN Security Council’s inability to enforce decisive action in Syria
highlights how anarchy dominates international relations.

C. Euro-Centric Perspective

International politics, as a field of study, has historically been Euro-centric, meaning it is

primarily shaped by European experiences, theories, and institutions. Concepts like the
balance of power, sovereignty, and international law were developed in Europe and later
exported worldwide.

 European dominance in the colonial era ensured that treaties, alliances, and
diplomatic norms often prioritized European interests.
 Today, this bias continues subtly in global institutions, such as the European Union
(EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which often project
European norms and strategic interests globally.

Current Affairs Example:

 The EU’s imposition of sanctions on Russia following the Ukraine invasion
demonstrates how European interests continue to dominate certain aspects of
international law and global diplomacy.

D. Focus on Global Issues

International politics is not limited to military conflicts or bilateral diplomacy; it is

increasingly concerned with global issues that transcend borders. These include:

1. Environmental challenges: Climate change, deforestation, and water scarcity require

global cooperation.
2. Terrorism and security threats: International terrorism poses challenges that no
single state can tackle alone.
3. Technology and cyber-security: AI, cybersecurity, and space exploration are now
central arenas for state competition.
4. Economic development and global inequality: Trade policies, debt relief, and aid
programs are integral to global stability.
5. Human rights and migration: Refugee crises, labor rights, and minority protection
are critical areas of concern.
6. Global health: Pandemics and disease control require coordinated international
responses.

Current Affairs Example:

 The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the necessity of international cooperation in

health crises.
 COP28 climate negotiations (2025) highlight how states are negotiating shared
responsibilities to combat climate change.
 The ongoing refugee crisis in Sudan requires multi-state coordination for
humanitarian assistance.

E. State as the Primary Actor

Despite the rise of non-state actors like multinational corporations (MNCs), international
organizations, and NGOs, the state remains the principal actor in international politics.
States possess:

 Sovereignty and legal recognition under international law

 Authority to engage in treaties and alliances
 Control over military and economic resources

Current Affairs Example:

 India’s role in BRICS and G20 meetings showcases how states coordinate to shape
international economic and political agendas, even in the presence of influential non-
state actors like the IMF or World Bank.
F. National Interest and Power as Core

At the heart of international politics lies the pursuit of national interest and power:

 National interest is the combination of a state’s political, economic, security, and

cultural objectives. It reflects the intentions of the people and government.
 Power is the tool to achieve national interests and can take various forms:
o Military power: Defense and deterrence strategies
o Economic power: Trade leverage and financial influence
o Diplomatic power: Negotiation, alliances, and treaties

Current Affairs Example:

 The competition between the U.S. and China in emerging technologies, like AI and
5G, is driven by national interest and the desire for global strategic dominance.
 Russia’s actions in Ukraine reflect its pursuit of security and territorial power as
national interests.

3. Summary
International politics is a complex, dynamic, and multi-disciplinary field, shaped by the
interplay of power, national interests, and global challenges. Its key characteristics include:

1. Multi-disciplinary nature
2. Operation in an anarchic system
3. Euro-centric origins
4. Engagement with global issues
5. State as the central actor
6. National interest and power as guiding principles

Conclusion:
Understanding international politics requires recognizing the interconnection between
historical context, power dynamics, and contemporary global issues. Current affairs—
from the Ukraine war to climate negotiations—illustrate that international politics is not just
theoretical but highly practical, influencing lives, economies, and security worldwide.
Scope of International Politics
Definition:
The scope of a subject delineates its range, boundaries, and areas of study. In the realm of
International Politics, this encompasses the examination of state and non-state actors, their
interactions, ideologies, economic engagements, security concerns, and the overarching
global structures that influence these dynamics.

1. Role of Non-State Actors in International Relations

Overview:
Non-state actors, encompassing entities like multinational corporations (MNCs), international
organizations (e.g., United Nations, World Bank), non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
and transnational advocacy networks, play pivotal roles in shaping global politics.

Contemporary Examples:

 Humanitarian Organizations: Entities like the International Red Cross are

instrumental in conflict zones, providing aid and advocating for international
humanitarian law.
 Multinational Corporations: Companies such as Google and Apple influence global
trade policies, labor standards, and technological advancements.
 Advocacy Networks: Groups like Amnesty International and Greenpeace mobilize
global public opinion on issues ranging from human rights to environmental
conservation.

Recent Developments:

 Digital Diplomacy: The rise of social media platforms has enabled non-state actors to
engage directly with global audiences, influencing public opinion and policy
decisions.
 Corporate Influence: MNCs are increasingly involved in lobbying efforts, shaping
trade agreements and regulatory frameworks to align with their interests.

2. Political Economy and Globalization

Overview:
Political economy examines the interplay between politics and economics on a global scale,
focusing on how economic policies and practices influence political decisions and vice versa.

Key Areas of Study:

 Trade Agreements: Bilateral and multilateral agreements that govern international

trade relations.
 Financial Institutions: The role of institutions like the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and World Bank in shaping economic policies of nations.
 Global Supply Chains: How interconnected production processes across countries
affect economies and politics.

Contemporary Issues:

 Trade Wars: Ongoing trade tensions, such as those between the U.S. and China,
impact global markets and diplomatic relations.
 Economic Sanctions: Measures like those imposed on North Korea aim to influence
state behavior but often have unintended humanitarian consequences.
 Technological Advancements: Innovations in areas like artificial intelligence and
biotechnology are reshaping economic landscapes and raising ethical considerations.

3. International Security

Overview:
International security involves the study of threats to global peace and stability, including
military conflicts, terrorism, cyber threats, and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.

Key Areas of Concern:

 Military Alliances: Organizations like NATO play crucial roles in collective defense
and deterrence strategies.
 Conflict Zones: Ongoing conflicts in regions such as Ukraine and the Middle East
pose significant challenges to international peace.
 Cybersecurity: The increasing frequency of cyberattacks on critical infrastructure
highlights vulnerabilities in the digital age.

Recent Developments:

 Ukraine Conflict: The war in Ukraine continues to test international norms and
alliances, with implications for global security architectures.
 Cyber Warfare: State-sponsored cyberattacks are becoming more sophisticated,
targeting governmental and private sector entities.
 Arms Control: Efforts to regulate and reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons
face challenges amid rising geopolitical tensions.

4. Comparative Foreign Policy

Overview:
This area involves analyzing and comparing the foreign policies of different states to
understand their objectives, strategies, and outcomes.

Key Comparative Aspects:

 Diplomatic Strategies: How states engage with one another through negotiations,
alliances, and treaties.
 Military Postures: Examination of defense policies and military capabilities.
 Economic Policies: Analysis of trade policies, foreign aid, and investment strategies.

Contemporary Examples:

 U.S. vs. China: The contrasting approaches of the U.S. and China in areas like trade,
technology, and regional influence offer insights into their respective foreign policy
orientations.
 European Union: The EU's collective foreign policy efforts, particularly in trade and
diplomacy, showcase the challenges and benefits of multilateralism.

5. Ideologies in International Politics

Overview:
Ideologies provide the foundational beliefs and values that guide the foreign policies and
international interactions of states.

Major Ideologies:

 Liberalism: Advocates for democracy, human rights, and free markets.

 Realism: Emphasizes power, national interest, and the anarchic nature of
international relations.
 Constructivism: Focuses on the role of ideas, beliefs, and identities in shaping
international outcomes.

Contemporary Trends:

 Rise of Populism: The resurgence of nationalist and populist movements in various

countries is influencing foreign policy decisions and international alignments.
 Environmentalism: Growing concerns about climate change are leading to the
development of green policies and international environmental agreements.
 Human Rights Advocacy: Increased emphasis on human rights is shaping diplomatic
relations and international interventions.

Conclusion:
The scope of International Politics is vast and multifaceted, encompassing a wide range of
actors, issues, and ideologies. Understanding these dimensions is crucial for analyzing global
events and formulating informed policies in an interconnected world.
Approaches of International Politics –
Study Notes

1. Idealism
Definition

Idealism is a normative approach in international politics that emphasizes morality, ethics,

and universal principles as guiding forces in the conduct of states. It believes that human
beings are inherently noble and that a just international order can be created through rational
institutions and collective efforts.

Key Beliefs

 The world order should be free from violence, power politics, and immorality.
 Peace and security can be achieved by creating a supreme authority to regulate state
behavior.
 People are inherently noble and capable of moral development.
 International organizations should work to promote peace, security, economic
development, trade, and the elimination of social evils.

Prominent Thinkers

 Plato: Advocated for the ideal state ruled by philosopher-kings guided by reason and
ethics.
 Woodrow Wilson: Promoted the League of Nations as a mechanism for collective
security and peace after World War I.
 Mahatma Gandhi: Emphasized non-violence (Ahimsa) and moral responsibility in
politics.
 Bertrand Russell: Argued that a world full of human happiness is achievable through
reason and moral progress.

Current Relevance

 The United Nations (UN) and World Trade Organization (WTO) are based on
idealist principles, promoting global cooperation, peace, human rights, and
development.
 The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reflect idealism by promoting social
welfare, equality, and environmental sustainability.

2. Liberalism
Definition

Liberalism focuses on the role of individual freedom, democracy, economic

interdependence, and international institutions in shaping peaceful global relations. It
promotes structured cooperation between states rather than competition based on power.

Economic Foundations

 Inspired by Adam Smith, who emphasized individualism and free trade.

 Promotes laissez-faire economics and interdependence between states as a means of
preventing war.
 Economic ties reduce the likelihood of armed conflict.

Immanuel Kant’s Framework for Perpetual Peace

1. Preliminary Articles

 No secret treaties.
 No illegal acquisition of property.
 No standing armies.
 No national debt.
 Regulate conduct of war by prohibiting inhumane practices like using assassins or
mistreating prisoners.

2. Definitive Articles

 States should adopt Republican Constitutions (representative democracy).

 Establish a Federation of Free States (precursor to the UN).
 Recognize Cosmopolitan Rights: Universal hospitality and basic individual
freedoms.
 M.N. Roy: Advocated for International Citizenship beyond territorial borders.

3. Moral Foundation

 Political morality should be universal, beyond national self-interest.

 Distinction between personal morality and political morality, with the latter aiming
for global welfare.

Just War Theory (St. Thomas Aquinas)

War is just only when:

1. Initiated by legitimate authority.

2. Based on a just cause (e.g., defending against aggression or reclaiming illegally
acquired territory).
3. Fought with right intentions.

Example: The conflict over POK (Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir) is seen by some as a just
cause for defense.
3. Key Themes of Liberalism
Interdependence Liberalism

 Complex economic and political interconnections create incentives for cooperation

rather than conflict.
 Rejects the beggar-thy-neighbor policy.
 Focus shifts from survival (security) to welfare, human rights, and environmental
protection.

Republican Liberalism

 Based on Kantian theory.

 Argues that democratic states are less likely to go to war with each other.
 Democracy promotes transparency, accountability, and public participation.

Liberal Institutionalism

 Belief in strong international institutions to prevent war and maintain global order.
 Example: United Nations serves as a forum for conflict resolution and promotes
collective security.

4. Characteristics Shared by Idealism and Liberalism

 Human nature is essentially good and noble.
 Social environment affects human behavior; bad conditions lead to social evils and
conflict.
 Aim is to develop the human condition by eliminating poverty, corruption, and
injustice.
 Belief that war is the worst possible state of affairs.
 International organizations should prevent war and promote human welfare.

5. Contemporary Relevance
 International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC)
reflect idealist and liberal values by holding states accountable to global norms.
 Paris Climate Accord (2015) is an example of states cooperating for environmental
sustainability.
 The role of WTO in promoting free trade and economic interdependence aligns with
Liberalism.
 Global pandemic cooperation (e.g., COVID-19 response coordinated by WHO)
reflects liberal institutionalism by promoting cooperation over isolationism.
REALISM – Study Notes

Definition of Realism

Realism is a pragmatic and power-centered approach in international politics. It

emphasizes that state behavior is driven by national interest, survival, and power rather
than moral ideals or international cooperation. Realists view international politics as a
constant struggle for power where conflict is inevitable due to the anarchic nature of the
international system.

1. Chanakya’s Realist Thought

Chanakya, an ancient Indian thinker, is considered one of the earliest proponents of Realist
ideas in political science. His views are primarily found in the Arthashastra, which remains
a key text on statecraft.

Key Principles by Chanakya:

 A ruler should always prepare for war, not hope for peace.
 The immediate neighbor of a state is considered its enemy, and the enemy’s enemy is
a friend.
 Every friendship is based on some interest; hence, do not disclose everything to even
your closest friends.

Three Powers (Shakti) to Overcome Enemies:

1. Mantra Shakti: Intellectual power (strategic planning, diplomacy, political wisdom).

2. Prabhav Shakti: Physical power (strong economy, powerful military).
3. Utsah Shakti: Energetic power (moral and ethical justice backed by courage).

Types of Enemies

 Natural Enemy: Real and persistent threat (e.g., Pakistan in Indian context).
 Spontaneous Enemy: Enemy that arises due to shifting circumstances.
 Artificial Enemy: Pretended enemy with no real danger (e.g., Maldives, Azerbaijan),
where political leaders declare others as enemies for strategic reasons.

Types of Friends
 Natural Friend: Traditionally close nations (e.g., Russia, Israel, Nepal), though
relationships can change over time.
 Spontaneous Friend: Unpredictable allies outside the control of the state.
 Artificial Friend: Pretends to be an ally without genuine motives (e.g., Maldives).

2. Mandala Theory of Kautilya (Chanakya)

Mandala Theory is a geopolitical concept that explains how a state relates to other states
based on their position.

 Primary Objective of State: Achieve Parsnigraha (self-interest and national

security).
 States are categorized into three types:
1. Madhyam (Middle): Neutral or buffer states (e.g., India’s role historically).
2. Udasen (Isolated): States that do not engage in alliances or hostilities (e.g.,
America before 1917, isolationist policy).
3. Enemy States: Direct neighbors or threats.

Venn Diagram Example:

 Central State → Natural Enemy (neighbor)

 Enemy of Enemy → Natural Friend
 Artificial Enemy and Friend → Based on political expediency.

3. Four Upayas (Strategies) of Statecraft (from

Arthashastra)
1. Sama (Conciliation): Diplomatic talks, negotiation, dialogue.
2. Dana (Gifts): Using economic aid or inducements to influence other states.
3. Danda (Force): Use of military power and coercion.
4. Bheda (Division): Divide and rule strategy, creating internal discord in enemy states.

4. The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli – Realist

Contribution
Machiavelli is often called the founder of modern political realism.

Key Quotes from The Prince:

1. "War should be the only study of the prince."

2. "The promise given was necessity of part; the promise broken is necessity of present."
3. "Politics has no relation with morality or religion."
o He emphasizes a strict separation between politics and ethics.
o Politics is about power, not morality.

Machiavelli’s realism rose as a reaction to the idealism of Plato and others, focusing
instead on historical observation of power struggles.

5. Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War

Thucydides, an ancient Greek historian, presented realism in practice through his analysis of
the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) between Athens and Sparta.

 First Stage: Rise of two powers (Athens and Sparta among many Greek city-states).
 Second Stage: Conflict intensifies.
 Third Stage: Sparta defeats Athens, weakening Athens; Sparta itself weakens and is
eventually overtaken by the Roman Empire, which unified the Greek city-states.

Thucydides’ core argument: In the anarchic international system, might makes right and
power struggles are inevitable.

6. Types of International Systems

 Multipolar System: Several major powers exist (e.g., pre-WWI Europe).
 Bipolar System: Two dominant powers (e.g., US and USSR during the Cold War).
 Unipolar System: One superpower dominates (e.g., post-Cold War US hegemony).

7. Classical Realist Thinkers

 Thomas Hobbes:
o Wrote Leviathan.
o Advocated absolute monarchy as the only way to prevent anarchy.
o Believed there is no sovereign above the sovereign.
o The world is in a state of constant conflict without a central authority.
 John Austin:
o Law is the command of a sovereign backed by sanctions.
 John Locke:
o Father of Liberalism.
o Contrary to Hobbes, believed in the social contract where the people are
sovereign, and power is derived from consent.
8. Historical Context
 1648: Treaty of Westphalia established the concept of state sovereignty.
 1648–1649:
o Glorious Revolution in England: Power shifted from monarchy to parliament
→ Birth of modern democracy.
o This period is seen as the origin of state-based sovereignty in international
politics.
 EH Carr’s *The Twenty Years’ Crisis (1919–1939):**
o Criticized Utopian idealism.
o Argued that states act in their national interest, driven by power, not moral
duty.

9. Realist Perspective on International Relations Today

Realism maintains that no meaningful cooperation is possible at the global level since states
act to maximize their national interest.

 Conflict vs. Cooperation (1919 onwards):

Utopian idealists seek global peace, but Realists argue that weak states strive to gain
power, and strong states maintain dominance.
Example: Territorial disputes in Kashmir, South China Sea conflicts.
 Realists assert that self-interest, survival, and power politics dominate state
behavior, and international institutions serve only when they align with national
interests.

🌟 Hans J. Morgenthau – Principles of Political Realism

Hans J. Morgenthau, a key figure in the study of International Relations, authored the book
Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. In this foundational work, he
argued that power plays a central role in international politics and outlined six core
principles of political realism. According to Morgenthau, power is not just a means to an end
but also an end in itself. The primary objective of states in the international arena is to
struggle for power, as this is an inherent feature of political relations between nations. He
emphasized that the pursuit of power is the imminent and immediate aim of every state,
rejecting any idealistic notions of international cooperation without regard to national
interests.

✔ First Principle – Objective Laws in International Politics

Morgenthau asserted that international politics is governed by objective laws rooted in

human nature. These laws are not arbitrary but remain unchanging over time. They are
based on the understanding that human nature, characterized by self-interest and the desire
for power, shapes political decisions and interactions between states. The objective laws are
binding in character, meaning that their violation must be met with consequences. According
to Morgenthau, these laws must be universally valid and should guide the actions of state
leaders, making the field of international relations predictable in its dynamics. This principle
underscores the importance of realism by contrasting it with utopian or moralistic theories,
which fail to account for the immutable aspects of human nature.

✔ Second Principle – Role of the Leader

A state's foreign policy is not created in isolation but is deeply influenced by the acts and
decisions of its leader. The leader’s actions represent both the individual’s judgment and the
state’s strategic approach. A famous example is the dispute over Katchatheevu Island,
claimed by India but later handed over to Sri Lanka by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1974.
This decision had a significant political impact, particularly in Tamil Nadu politics, as it
stirred controversy and debates over national sovereignty. Morgenthau emphasized that the
leader's responsibility is not merely symbolic but central to shaping national interest. He
categorized policies into two types: analysis of the situation and intellectual capacity of the
statesman. Both, however, could be futile or deceptive if not aligned with the pragmatic
realities of power politics.

✔ Third Principle – Dynamic National Interest

Morgenthau argued that the national interest of a state is never static but always dynamic.
It changes according to shifts in power structures, threats, and opportunities on the global
stage. National interest is a practical guide for policy, continuously adapting to the changing
balance of power, economic trends, and diplomatic relations. This fluid nature of national
interest differentiates realism from rigid ideologies, allowing states to make strategic
decisions based on the contemporary context rather than abstract principles.

✔ Balance of Power – A Central Realist Concept

The balance of power is considered the primary mechanism by which states maintain
stability and prevent domination by any one state. Morgenthau emphasized that power might
consist of military strength, economic resources, or political influence—anything that enables
one state to control others. The balance of power is essential to prevent conflicts from
escalating into total war. It helps maintain equilibrium by ensuring no single state becomes
overwhelmingly dominant.

A key aspect of this theory is that no state is allowed to become excessively powerful, as
this could destabilize international peace. Nuclear weapons and other strategic tools serve as
deterrents that maintain this delicate balance. The balance of power is not just about physical
force but also involves diplomatic maneuvers and negotiations aimed at preserving the
existing order.
✔ Types of Power Systems in International Relations

Morgenthau identified several types of power structures that characterize the international
order:

1. Loose Bipolar System: In the post-World War II era, particularly around 1947, the
world was divided into two major blocs—USSR and USA—while some countries
chose to remain non-aligned, giving rise to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
2. Tight Bipolar System: A more rigid system where two superpowers directly engaged
in diplomatic or military confrontations. An example is Egypt’s president reaching out
to the USA for negotiations, exemplifying how states navigate alliances for national
interest.
3. Universal System or Federal System of World Order: This represents an ideal
where global governance is centralized under a single authority, such as the United
Nations Organization (UNO). The General Assembly (UNGA) acts as a global
parliament, fostering a federal system where laws and policies are applied universally
to maintain peace.
4. Hierarchical System: This system establishes a single supreme authority in the
world, exerting clear control and governance over all other states, aiming for order
and stability.
5. Unit Veto System: This principle creates a structure of multipolarity in the world
order where no single power can impose its will. Instead, several powers hold veto
power to balance decisions and prevent unilateral domination.
📘 Detailed Notes on Game Theory &
Realism in International Relations

1. Game Theory in International Relations

Game theory is the study of strategic decision-making where the outcome for one actor
depends on the choices of others. In international relations, it helps to understand how states
interact under conditions of conflict, cooperation, or uncertainty. States are treated like
“players” in a game, each calculating gains and losses before acting.

A. Types of Games

i. Zero-Sum Game

 A zero-sum game is one in which the total amount of gains and losses is fixed; one
player’s gain is always equal to another’s loss.
 There is no possibility of compromise or mutual benefit.
 Example:
o Traditional wars are often treated as zero-sum, where one state’s victory
ensures another’s defeat.
o During the Cold War, nuclear superiority was seen as a zero-sum pursuit: if
the U.S. gained, the USSR lost.

ii. Non Zero-Sum Game

 In a non zero-sum game, cooperation is possible, and both players can either benefit
or suffer together.
 Unlike zero-sum, this game allows win–win or lose–lose outcomes.
 Example:
o International trade agreements, where both countries benefit.
o Climate change negotiations, where failure to cooperate harms all.

B. Concepts of Utility and Satisfaction

 Utility (Jeremy Bentham): Every actor makes decisions based on what brings them
the most satisfaction or “utility.”
 However, utility is subjective. What appears rational to one state may not be rational
for another.
 Example: For the U.S., investing billions in defense increases its sense of security,
while for a developing country the same resources would be more useful in education
or healthcare.
2. Major Games in International Relations
A. Prisoner’s Dilemma

 Perhaps the most famous game in IR.

 Based on trust and suspicion between two actors.
 Rooted in the idea that complete trust is impossible, just as Chanakya (Kautilya)
suggested that rulers should never disclose everything to friends or allies.

Classic Setup:

 Two prisoners are arrested for the same crime.

 Police lack enough evidence, so they offer each prisoner a choice: confess (betray) or
remain silent.

Possible Outcomes:

1. Both stay silent: minimal punishment for both (best joint outcome).
2. One confesses, other stays silent: confessor goes free, silent one gets harsh
punishment (worst outcome for one).
3. Both confess: both receive moderate punishment.

Application in IR:

 Countries often face similar dilemmas.

 Example: Nuclear disarmament. If both states disarm, peace is achieved. But if one
disarms and the other does not, the disarming state becomes vulnerable. Thus, both
keep weapons, even though it creates insecurity.
 Explains arms races and mistrust in alliances.

B. Game of Chicken

 In this game, two players move toward a disastrous collision unless one yields.
 Example in daily life: two cars drive straight toward each other; if neither swerves,
both crash.

Applications in IR:

 Symbolizes brinkmanship — the strategy of pushing dangerous situations to the

edge of disaster to force the other side to back down.
 Example: The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) between the U.S. and USSR, where both
came close to nuclear war before the USSR backed down.
 Modern Example: U.S.–North Korea nuclear tensions.

3. Arms Dilemma and Security Outcomes

Two states (A and B) deciding whether to arm themselves or not:

B without arms B with arms

A without arms Peace, mutual security A vulnerable, B secure
A with arms A secure, B vulnerable Arms race, insecurity for both

Analysis:

 Mutual Disarmament: Creates peace, but rarely occurs due to lack of trust.
 One-Sided Disarmament: Extremely dangerous — the unarmed state is vulnerable.
 Mutual Armament: Leads to security dilemma where both states feel insecure
despite arming themselves.

Example:

 U.S. and USSR nuclear buildup during the Cold War. Even though both sides
developed massive arsenals, neither felt completely secure.

4. Neo-Realism (Structural Realism) – Kenneth Waltz

Neo-realism moves beyond Hans Morgenthau’s classical realism (which emphasized human
nature) and instead focuses on the structure of the international system as the cause of state
behavior.

Key Principles:

1. Anarchy: The international system is anarchic, meaning there is no world

government above states.
2. Survival as Goal: Every state’s primary aim is survival.
3. Capabilities Matter: Differences in outcomes are explained by differences in
capabilities, not motives.

Units of Capabilities:

1. Economic strength
2. Demographic size
3. Technological advancement
4. Natural resources
5. Military power

 States act rationally to maximize their survival, not necessarily their morality.
 Cooperation is limited because states fear relative gains (the possibility that the other
state benefits more).
5. Security Dilemma
 Coined by John Herz, it describes how defensive measures by one state create
insecurity in others.
 For example, if State A builds weapons for defense, State B interprets it as
preparation for aggression and responds by building more.
 This spiral of action–reaction leads to an arms race.

Example:

 India–Pakistan nuclear buildup. Each perceives the other’s actions as threatening,

even when both claim defensive intentions.

6. Variants of Realism
A. Offensive Realism – John Mearsheimer

 States must continuously maximize their power.

 The best way to ensure security is to dominate others.
 Expansion and aggression are rational strategies.
 Example: Germany under Hitler sought to maximize power aggressively.
 Modern Example: China’s assertive rise in Asia, especially in the South China Sea.

B. Defensive Realism – Kenneth Waltz

 States seek only enough power to ensure survival, not to dominate.

 Over-expansion or aggression is counter-productive and invites resistance.
 Example: U.S. Cold War strategy of “containment” aimed at balancing Soviet power,
not destroying it.

7. Overall Significance of Game Theory & Realism in IR

 Game theory provides models (like Prisoner’s Dilemma, Chicken, and Arms Race) to
explain why states often fail to cooperate even when it would benefit them.
 Realism explains the pessimistic nature of international politics: mistrust, conflict, and
power struggles dominate relations between states.
 Together, they show why peace is difficult to maintain in an anarchic world.
The Relationship between International
Politics and International Law
Introduction

The relationship between politics and law is one of mutual influence. Politics often acts as
the foundation of law, providing both the environment and the necessity for legal structures
to emerge. International law, unlike municipal law, is not enforced by a central authority but
rather emerges from the collective will and political consensus of sovereign states. While law
is binding, its formulation, interpretation, and implementation are deeply influenced by
political considerations.

International law can therefore be seen as both the outcome of political negotiations among
nations and a constraint on political action. It reflects the trade-off between sovereignty
and cooperation—states sacrifice a measure of sovereignty to create binding legal norms,
but in return, they gain predictability, order, and legitimacy in the international system.

1. Politics as the Foundation of International Law

 Politics provides the groundwork upon which international law is created.
 Without political consensus, law cannot take shape in the international arena.
 Laws reflect the political interests, values, and compromises of the states involved.

Categories of Law

 International Law
o Public International Law: Governs relations between states (e.g., UN
Charter, treaties).
o Private International Law: Regulates cross-border issues between private
parties (e.g., international contracts, arbitration).
 Municipal/National Law: Domestic legal systems operating within states.

This division itself is a product of political necessity, as states require frameworks to govern
both inter-state and intra-state relations.

2. Politics and International Law in Practice

(a) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948)

 Drafted in the aftermath of WWII, when political consensus was built around the
protection of human dignity.
 Though not legally binding at first, it laid the political and moral foundation for
subsequent binding treaties such as:
o International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966).
o International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR,
1966).
 Example of politics shaping law, and law reinforcing political values.

(b) International Law and Self-Determination

 Nations have rights under international law to protect their national interests.
 International law empowers states to demand self-determination (freedom to choose
their political status).
 UN Charter, Article 2(1): Recognizes the sovereign equality of all states.
 Supported by political thinkers such as Vladimir, who wrote extensively on the role
of self-determination in preserving international stability.

(c) Indian Context

 Article 51 of the Indian Constitution: Directive Principle that guides the state to:
o Promote international peace and security.
o Maintain just and honorable relations among nations.
o Respect international law and treaty obligations.
 Reflects Gandhian philosophy, emphasizing peaceful coexistence, moral conduct,
and respect for global justice.

3. Dr. Mira Ghirah’s Perspective: Three Dimensions of

Law and Politics
Dr. Mira Ghirah emphasized that the interaction between law and politics can be understood
in three broad aspects:

(i) Law as a Goal

 International law embodies the long-term objectives of the international community.

 Law often sets aspirational standards, even when immediate compliance is not
possible.
 Examples:
o United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): Seeks to
regulate maritime rights and resources for the collective good.
o Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961): Provides a framework
for diplomatic immunity, aiming at global stability.

(ii) Law as a Means to Fulfill National Interests

 States use international law instrumentally to advance or safeguard their own national
interests.
 Law provides a legal and moral justification for actions taken in pursuit of economic,
political, or security goals.
 Examples:
o FTA between India and UK: Legal agreements serve as vehicles for mutual
economic benefit.
o US-China Tariff Wars: Both countries relied on trade laws, WTO provisions,
and retaliatory legal measures to legitimize their policies.

(iii) Law as an Obstacle

 International law may restrict or obstruct states from freely pursuing their political
interests.
 Binding treaties, obligations, or norms sometimes prevent states from unilateral
actions.
 Example: Environmental treaties may hinder industrial growth in developing nations,
even if politically desirable domestically.

4. Shirley Scott’s Framework: International Law as an

Ideological System
Shirley Scott emphasizes that international law does not merely regulate behavior but also
serves as an ideological framework that sustains international political order.

Key Characteristics:

1. Creation of Legal vs. Non-Legal Dichotomy

o International law distinguishes between what is legal and illegal in the conduct
of states.
o This dichotomy pressures states to act within the law or at least appear
compliant.
2. Vocabulary for Justifying State Actions
o States use the language of law to defend their political actions, even when
controversial.
o Example:
 ICJ Case: South Africa v. Israel: Both states relied heavily on legal
justifications to defend political decisions.
3. Sustaining the Structure of International Political Order
o International law reinforces the global status quo and prevents chaos.
o By providing predictability and legitimacy, it sustains international
institutions, treaties, and power relations.

Conclusion
The interaction between politics and international law is complex and dynamic.

 On one hand, politics shapes law by determining its content, scope, and enforcement.
 On the other hand, law constrains politics, by binding states to norms, obligations,
and accountability before the international community.

Law can thus act in three ways:

1. As a goal (aspirational frameworks like UDHR, UNCLOS).

2. As a means (instrument to pursue national interests like trade treaties).
3. As an obstacle (limitations imposed by binding obligations).

Ultimately, international law is both a product of political will and a tool for managing
political relations. Its true strength lies not only in legal enforceability but also in its ability
to legitimize, justify, and sustain the political order at the international level.
Topic: Power and National Power

1. Concept of Power
 Definition:
Power refers to the ability of a state (or an individual) to influence the behavior,
actions, or decisions of others in order to achieve desired outcomes.
 In International Relations (IR):
o Power is the most fundamental concept, central to the functioning of states in
the global order.
o It determines who gets what, when, and how.
o States seek power not only for survival but also for security, prestige, and
influence.
 For Individuals:
o Power means the ability to influence others and shape outcomes in one’s
favour.
o E.g., a leader influencing citizens, or a diplomat shaping international
negotiations.
 Why Important?
o Power defines the hierarchy among states.
o It is the basis for foreign policy, alliances, wars, and international institutions.
o Without power, no nation can safeguard sovereignty or promote national
interests.

2. Categories of Power
Scholars generally classify power into three major categories:

(a) Hard Power

 Nature: Coercive, force-based, and tangible.

 Definition: Use of military force, economic sanctions, and threats to influence
another state’s behaviour.
 Instruments:
1. Economic Power – sanctions, aid conditionalities, trade wars.
2. Military Power – defence capabilities, deterrence, occupation of territories.
3. Technological Power – nuclear weapons, cyber warfare, space technology.
4. Natural Resources – oil, gas, rare earth minerals.
 Examples:

o Operation Enduring Freedom (U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, 2001) –

exercise of military power.
o Israel–Palestine conflict – use of military strength and occupation.
o Japan’s technological hegemony – control of high-tech industries, robotics,
and semiconductors.
o U.S. sanctions on Iran and Russia – economic coercion.

 Criticism:

o Can create resentment and resistance.

o Expensive to sustain in long-term.
o May damage reputation internationally.

(b) Soft Power

 Concept introduced by Joseph Nye (1990s).

 Definition: The ability of a country to attract and co-opt rather than coerce. Power of
persuasion, not force.
 Sources of Soft Power:
1. Culture – literature, films, food, yoga, traditions.
2. Values & Ideals – democracy, freedom, human rights.
3. Foreign Policy & Diplomacy – peaceful coexistence, development aid.
4. Educational and Scientific Exchange – scholarships, research collaboration.
 Examples:

o India:
Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (world is one family).

Bollywood and Yoga as cultural exports.

International Solar Alliance.

o United States:
 Hollywood, pop culture, internet giants (Google, Apple).
 Idea of democracy and liberty.
o South Korea:
 K-pop and Korean wave (Hallyu).

 Criticism:

o Soft power is fragile and hard to measure.

o Cultural values may not appeal universally (e.g., Western liberalism seen as
alien in some societies).
o Risk of “identity crisis” – clash between traditional and global ideas.

(c) Smart Power

 Definition: Combination of hard power and soft power, using both coercion and
persuasion strategically.
 Concept: Popularised by scholars and policymakers in the early 21st century as a
balanced approach.
 Why Needed?
o In a globalised world, neither military strength alone nor cultural diplomacy
alone is sufficient.
o Smart power blends hard force (military/economic tools) with soft appeal
(diplomacy, culture, values).
 Examples:
o U.S. policy in 21st century – Iraq war (hard) + democracy promotion (soft).
o India’s neighbourhood policy – using both strategic defence partnerships
(hard) and cultural diplomacy (soft).
o China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – infrastructure investment (hard) +
Confucius Institutes (soft).

3. National Power
 Definition:
National power is the aggregate capacity of a state to influence international actors
and achieve its national objectives.
 Elements of National Power (Hans Morgenthau & others identify multiple
components):
1. Geography – size, location, natural boundaries (Russia’s vast landmass).
2. Population – human resource potential (India, China).
3. Natural Resources – oil in Middle East, rare earths in Africa.
4. Economic Strength – GDP, industrialization, trade networks.
5. Military Strength – defence capabilities, nuclear arsenal.
6. Technology – innovation, cyber capability, space exploration.
7. Culture & National Character – unity, resilience, civic values.
8. Government & Leadership – efficiency, legitimacy, diplomatic skill.
 Importance:

o National power determines a state’s global standing.

o It enables protection of sovereignty and pursuit of national interest.
o It is a dynamic concept – constantly changing with technology and geopolitics.

4. The Concept of Nation

 Definition:
In Political Science, a nation is a community of people united by a strong identity
based on:
o Common race/ethnicity
o Shared homeland or attachment to motherland
o Common language
o Shared history
o Religion and culture
o Common economic needs
 Nation vs. State:
o Nation: A socio-cultural entity based on collective identity.
o State: A political and legal entity with sovereignty, government, and defined
territory.
o Nation-State: When both overlap (e.g., Japan, France).
 India as a Nation:
o India is both a state (sovereign, legal entity) and a nation (shared
constitutional values, unity in diversity).
o Basis of Indian nationhood is civic nationalism, not ethnic nationalism.
o Constitution provides the unifying framework.
 Challenges to Nationhood:
o Regionalism and separatism.
o Religious and cultural diversity.
o Influence of western/global ideas leading to “identity crisis.”

5. Key Thinkers and Contributions

 Joseph Nye – Concept of Soft Power.
 Hans Morgenthau – Classical realist, emphasized national power and its elements.
 Kenneth Waltz – Neo-realist, focused on structure of international system and
distribution of power.
 Antonio Gramsci – Cultural hegemony, similar to soft power in influence.

6. Conclusion
 Power remains the core concept in Political Science and International Relations.
 Hard power ensures survival, soft power ensures legitimacy, and smart power ensures
adaptability.
 National power is not static; it evolves with globalization, technological change, and
shifts in values.
 For states like India, balancing military preparedness with cultural diplomacy and
economic growth is the key to becoming a global power.