Judul : International Relations
Edited by : Stephen McGlinchey
Halaman : 209
Cetakan : 2017
ISBN 978-1-910814-17-8 (paperback)
ISBN 978-1-910814-18-5 (e-book)
Penerbit : www.E-IR.info. Bristol, England
A. The Making of the Modern World (Erik Ringmar)
‘nation-state’, most commonly referred to in the shorter form of
‘state’. Instead you may hear people say ‘country’ or ‘nation’. But, these
terms are technically incorrect describing the prime units that comprise
international relations. France is a nation-state. It also happens to be a
country and a nation, but then so is Wales. But, Wales is not a nation-state. It is part of the United Kingdom, which is a nation-state because, unlike Wales, it possesses something called
‘sovereignty’ – which is yet another key jargon term central to IR.
International relations concerns a large number of disparate
events: leaders are meeting, negotiations are concluded, wars are started, acts
of terror committed.
In medieval Europe there were two institutions with pretensions to
power over the continent as a whole – the (Catholic) Church and the Empire. The
Church was the spiritual authority, with its centre in Rome.
Early modern Europe was the golden age of political economy.
During this period, the economy was not thought of as a distinct sphere
separated from politics but instead as a tool of statecraft which the state
could manipulate to serve its own ends.
The Treaty of Westphalia, 1648, which concluded the 30 years of
warfare, has come to symbolise the new way of organising international
politics.
Within a country ‘anarchy’ refers to a breakdown of law and order,
but in relations between states it refers to a system where power is
decentralised and there are no shared institutions with the right to enforce
common rules. An anarchical world is a world where everyone looks after
themselves and no one looks after the system as a whole.
the word ‘international’ itself was coined only in 1783, by the
British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. In most respects, however, the international
system continued to operate in much the same fashion as the Westphalian
inter-state system. Nation-states claimed the same right to sovereignty which
meant that they were formally equal to each other.
At the end of the eighteenth century, new ways of manufacturing
goods were invented which made use of machines powered by steam, and later by
electricity, which made it possible to engage in large-scale factory
production. As a result of this so called ‘industrial revolution’.
B. Diplomacy (Stephen Mcglinchey)
military theorist Carl von Clausewitz remarked in the early 1800s
that war was the continuation of policy by other means, he sought to normalise
the idea of war in modern politics. his words also indicated that actions short
of war are available to help states achieve their objectives. (P 200
diplomacy can be defined as a process between actors (diplomats,
usually representing a state) who exist within a system (international
relations) and engage in private and public dialogue (diplomacy) to pursue
their objectives in a peaceful manner. Diplomacy is not foreign policy and must
be distinguished from it. ( Page 21) a state’s foreign policy has two key
ingredients; its actions and its strategies for achieving its goals.
power, nuclear weapons are primarily held as defensive tools –
unlikely to be ever used. This is due to a concept known as deterrence. By
holding a weapon that can wipe out an opponent, such an opponent is unlikely to
attack you. (P 23)
The Treaty (NPT) sought to channel nuclear technology into
civilian uses and to recognise the destabilising effect of further nuclear
weapons proliferation on the international community. It was a triumph of
diplomacy.
instead of pursuing an impossible goal of eliminating nuclear
weapons, the Non-Proliferation Treaty sought to freeze the number of nations
that had nuclear weapons at the five nations which already possessed them: the
United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China.
Simultaneously, (P 25)
Due to established diplomatic customs, an embassy – although
hosted on foreign soil – is forbidden from being entered by the host state
unless permission is given (P 27)
Diplomacy today is integral to ensuring that our period of long
peace gets longer and that the world we live in is as conducive as possible to
the progress of the individual, as well as the state. (P 31)
C. One World, Many Actors (Carmen Gebhard)
Theories can be ‘empirical’ – based on measurable experiences,
usually through observation or experimentation. Empirical theories generally
seek to try to explain the world as it is. On the other hand, theories
can be ‘normative’ – meaning that they build on principles and
assumptions about how social interactions should occur. In other words,
normative theories generally seek to present a version of world that ought to
be (P 32)
the level of
analysis are
1) The individual level, Would we look at the
actions of individuals responding to the financial crisis according to their
own position or responsibilities? For example, a prime minister encountering
the leader of another state to negotiate an important financial agreement. If looking
at the actions of individuals, we would likely also need to engage with the
implications of human nature. This can be seen in the psychology and emotions
behind people’s actions and decisions, their fears and their visions as well as
their access to information and capacity to make a difference.
2) The group level, Would we be more interested in the actions
of groups of individuals, such as all voters of a country and the way they
express their views in the general election. A group
level analysis would again need to try and break the analysis down into certain
kinds of groups, how they relate to the state level and where they position
themselves with respect to the global dimension of the issues they are dealing
with.
3)
The state level, Would we then be looking at how states
interact with each other to deal with the crisis – in other words, their
foreign policy? How they build off each other’s suggestions and react to
international developments and trends? How they cooperate, say, in the
framework of international organisations? A
state-level study would require careful consideration of what kinds of states
we are looking at (how they are ordered politically), their geographical
position, their historical ties and experiences and their economic standing. It
would likely also look at the foreign policy of states,
4) The system level, might we try to look at the global level,
the big picture, and try to grasp wider ranging dynamics that emerge from the
global economic ‘system’ to affect its various components, states, national
economies, societies, individuals? A
system-level (‘systemic’) study would need to consider global linkages that go
beyond single interactions between states. It would need to look at such things
as the balance of power between states and how that determines what happens in
global politics.
foreign policy behaviour as something that is influenced by a
range of factors. Some of them can be found within a state, in its political
traditions, its socio-economic profile, its political party system or in the
minds of leading politicians. Others come from outside, from the global system
that builds the context within which states operate. This does not mean that
every meaningful discussion of foreign policy needs to look at all these
aspects: investigations at one particular level should be used very carefully
to draw conclusions about a different level. Where the levels overlap, we need
to be aware that each one will require us to look at different kinds of
evidence.
D. International Relations
Theory (Dana Gold & Stephen
McGlinchey)
Hans Morgenthau, a prominent realist, is known for his famous
statement ‘all politics is a struggle for power’ (Morgenthau 1948). This
demonstrates the typical realist view that politics is primarily about
domination as opposed to cooperation between states. (P 48)
Realists and liberals look at the very same world. But when
viewing that world through the realist lens, the world appears to be one of
domination. Liberals, when looking at the same world, adjust their lenses to
blur out areas of domination and instead bring areas of cooperation into focus.
It is important to understand that there is no single liberal or
realist theory. Scholars in the two groups rarely fully agree with each other,
even those who share the same approach.
if we think of the simple contrast of optimism and pessimism we
can see a familial relationship in all branches of realism and liberalism.
Liberals share an optimistic view of IR, believing that world order can be
improved, with peace and progress gradually replacing war. They may not agree
on the details, but this optimistic view generally unites them. Conversely,
realists tend to dismiss optimism as a form of misplaced idealism and instead
they arrive at a more pessimistic view. (P 49)
IR is, then, a never-ending journey of change chronicling the
accumulation of the accepted norms of the past and the emerging norms of the
future. As such, constructivists seek to study this process. (P 52)
Liberals tend to have faith in the capacity of international
organisations, primarily the United Nations, along with others organisations
such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization and the
World Bank, to uphold the framework of global governance.
Realists, although they do not reject the United Nations
completely, argue that the world is anarchic and states will eventually resort
to war despite the efforts of international organisations, which have little
real authority. Generally, realists believe that international organisations
appear to be successful when they are working in the interests of powerful
states.
Marxists would argue that any international body, including the
United Nations, works to promote the interests of the business class.
Feminists would look to how those in positions of power, whether
politicians or those working for the United Nations such as officials and
delegates, perpetuate a discourse of masculinity.
postcolonialists would argue that the discourse perpetuated by the
United Nations is one based on cultural, national or religious privilege. They
would suggest, for instance, that, as it has no African or Latin American
permanent members, the Security Council fails to represent the current state of
the world. Postcolonialists would also point to the presence of former colonial
powers on the Security Council and how their ability to veto proposals put
forward by other countries perpetuates a form of continued indirect colonial
exploitation of the Global South. (P 55)
E. International
Law (Knut
Traisbach)
Sovereignty continues to be the foundational pillar of the
international legal order. For many decades this foundational pillar of
international law read: sovereign states are the masters of international law
with no world government above them. This meant that the validity of any legal
rule depended on the will of states or, conversely, that states are only bound
by authoritative legal precepts (norms) that they have consented to.
International humanitarian law (IHL) is the law of armed conflicts
(jus in bellum – the law applicable in war) and regulates the conduct of
international and non-international hostilities. In times of war, the use of
force, including the killing of human beings, is not prohibited. (P 61) International
humanitarian law regulates, among other things, the methods and means of
warfare and the protection of certain categories of persons – for example, the
sick and wounded, prisoners of war and civilians.
The most important and most concrete sources of international law
are bilateral and multilateral treaties. (P 63). Customary law refers to the
established practices of states that are supported by a subjective belief to be
required by law.
F. International
Organisations (shazelina z. Abidin)
intergovernmental organisation, is an organisation with a
membership of only states. The organisation is usually founded upon a treaty,
or a multilateral agreement, and consists of more than two states. Member
states determine the way in which the organisation is run, vote within the
organisation and provide its funding. (P 72)
as long as an organisation is composed exclusively of states, or
governments (including government agencies), it is an international
governmental organisation operating according to international norms
One of the more visible international non-governmental
organisations in the world is the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement.
G. Global Civil Society (Raffaele Marchetti)
Globalisation links distant communities and opens up spaces for
new social actors. Among the non-state actors benefiting from this change are
public-interest-orientated non-governmental actors, often known as civil
society groups. (P 78)
Civil society organisations can include community groups,
non-governmental organisations, social movements, labour unions, indigenous
groups, charitable organisations, faith-based organisations, media operators,
academia, diaspora groups, lobby and consultancy groups, think tanks and
research centres, professional associations, and foundations.
Liberals may understand Global civil society as the actor that
provides a bottom-up contribution to the effectiveness and legitimacy of the
international system as a whole.
Realists may interpret global civil society as a tool used by the
most powerful states to advance their ultimate interests abroad, often
promoting and popularising ideas that are key to the national interest.
Marxists may see global civil society as political vanguards that
can spread a different world view that challenges the dominant order.
through the internet, groups from different parts of the world
have been able to familiarise themselves with other political realities,
like-minded organisations, and alternative forms of action.
H. Global Political
Economy
(Günter Walzenbach)
I. Religion and Culture (John a. Rees)
.jpeg)
