Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

MODULE 1

International Politics, Meaning, scope and nature


The scientific advancement and the improvement in the means of communication
during the past century has brought the states of the world much closer. As a result the
events in one part of the world have their repercussions elsewhere. Further the
development of aero planes, bombs and other sophisticated weapons has given rise to
fear of war and destruction. This has encouraged the states to come closer to the friendly
countries to counter the threat posed by the enemy countries. These friendly or hostile
relations among the states are designated as international relations and the policy
adopted for the establishment of such political relations is called the international
politics. The study of international politics is vital for the understanding of the
interpersonal relations between the states.
International Politics as an academic discipline emerged only after First World War.
Before that though the study of international politics was in vogue but it was studied as
a part of other disciplines like political science, history* international law, philosophy,
etc. In short, the origin of international politics as an independent discipline is of very
recent origin. Another notable feature of international politics is that it is essentially
inter-disciplinary in character and a number of features of other subjects like political
science, history, international law, philosophy, geography, etc. have found their place
in it.
Meaning : The term ‘international’ was first used by Jeremy Bentham in 1780 when
he talked of ‘international jurisprudence’. He used it for the branch of law which
commonly goes under the name of law of nations. Since then the term is used to refer
to those relations carried on or otherwise existing between different nations. On the
other hand, the term ‘politics’ has been drawn from the Greek word ‘politikas’ which
means concerning the city state or the citizen. In the modern times politics is taken as
the science and
art of government. Thus in literal sense the term ‘international politics’ is quite confusing
and seems to suggest that it includes the study of happenings exclusively among nations.
It does not convey all that is generally included in it viz. the political actions which take
place among the non-state units such inter-state organizations like NATO or multinational
organizations like UNO, or non-state organizations such as professional groups of
scientists, laborers, etc. which play significant political role. In fact, international politics
is more dependent on non-political aspects of international relations viz. economic, social
and military. Taking into account all these considerations David V. Edwards says that
international politics is “made up of incidents in which the units or actors generally nations
or combinations of nations, differ over power, resources, status or other desired ends, and
attempt to resolve their differences by whatever means available and acceptable”.
It may be noted that there is no unanimity amongst scholars regarding the meaning of
international! Politics and they have offered different definitions. This difference of
opinion is largely due to the fact that the subject is still in a state of constant flux.
Highlighting this point Stanley Hoffmann says “How could one agree once and for all upon
the definition of a field whose scope is in constant flux, indeed a field whose fluctuation is
one of its principal characteristics”? In view of the variety of definitions offered by various
scholars it shall be desirable to examine some of the definitions of International Politics.
According to Prof. Quincy Wright, international politics consists of “relations between
groups of major importance in the life of world at any period of history”. Prof. Morgenthau
says “International politics is struggle for power among nations”. Prof. Schleicher defines
international politics as “relations among states.” Another comprehensive definition of
International Politics has been given by Harold and Margret Sprout. They define
international politics as “those aspects of interactions and relations of independent political
communities in which some element of opposition, resistance of conflict of purpose or
interest is present”. Robert Purnell says international politics includes these political
aspects which are concerned with disagreement, competition, rival claims and various
outcomes arising from a desire for change in the relations of those special collective entities
we call states”.
Charles Reynold says “International Politics refers to the process by which conflicts
arise and are resolved at international level. In this environment nation-States try to serve
their national interests by means of their policies and actions which may be in conflict with
those of other nations. Thus the study of international politics is the study of conflicts, how
they originate, how the parties to the conflict behave in an attempt to deal with conflict and
how
they are resolved. Its study also involves the examination of political system context-the
Constitution and norms, with which the conflict takes place”.
Thus we find that almost all the writers have emphasized that international politics is
concerned with relations among states, although some of them have included in their
definitions the study of relations involving the non-state organizations as well. Further, it
includes the study of co-operational as well as conflict relations.
International Relations and International Politics

The term ‘international politics’ is often confused with terms like world, politics,
international affairs, international relations, etc. but it fundamentally differs form these
terms. For example the term international politics is sometimes equated with ‘world
politics’, but world politics is not international politics because ‘world politics’ can be
possible only in a world state which is still a distant phenomenon. On the other hand,
‘international politics’ is concerned with the existing phenomenon. Therefore, it would be
wrong to confuse the two terms. Similarly, the term ‘international politics’ is sometime
confused with ‘international affairs’ which is quite extensive and includes every matter of
interest in the international society.
But probably the greatest confusion exists between the terms ‘international relations’
and ‘international politics’. In fact some of the top ranking scholars of international politics
like Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Thompson, etc. have used these two terms as synonym.
Actually the term international relations has a wider connotation than international politics
because it embraces all sorts of relations among peoples and groups in the world society
viz. political, social, cultural, economic, legal, official as well as non-official. According
to Harold and Margaret Sprout the term is used “to designate all human behavior on one
side of a national boundary affecting the human behaviors on the other side of the country”.
On the other hand, the term international politics connotes the politics of international
community in a rather narrow sense. It is mainly concerned with diplomacy and relations
among states and other political units. In simple words, the term ‘international relations’ is
much wider than international politics in so far as it embraces all sorts of relations among
peoples and groups in the world society and these relations operate both at the official as
well as non-official levels. On the other hand, ‘international politics’ includes only those
aspects of international relations in which some conflict of purpose or interest in involved.
Prof. E.H. Carr has also tried to draw to a distinction between international politics and
international relations. He says that when states co-operate with one another to maintain
postal or transport services or to prevent the spread of epidemics or suppress the traffic in
drugs, these activities are described as non-political or technical. But as soon as an issue
arises which involves or is thought to involve, the power of one state in relation to another,
the matter at once becomes political. “He asserts that international politics includes only
those aspects of international relations in which some conflict of purpose or interest is
involved”.
International relations and international politics also differ with regard to the
methodology of study. While international relations is descriptive in so far as it involves
study of various factors in chronological order the international politics is purely analytical.
In international politics effort is made to examine what, when and how of the present with
a view to establish relationship between the past and the future. Viewed in this context it
can be said that international relations provide the basis for the study of international
politics. Again with regard to scope also international politics is mainly concerned with the
political aspects of the relations. In this sense international relations is more extensive than
international politics. But there is close relationship between the two. No wonder some
scholars have regarded international politics as a sub-category of international relations.
Despite the above differences between international politics and international relations,
it cannot be denied that both pursue the same objective and try to promote international
peace.

DEVELOPMENT AND SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL


POLITICS
The origin of international politics is generally traced back to the beginning of the
present century when some scholars tried to examine as to why states behave in a particular
manner which leads to war and how war could be avoided. The scholars tried to acquire a
systematic knowledge about the behavior of the states in the international arena with a
view to locate the areas of conflict and suggested ways for the resolution of these conflicts
with a view to secure world peace. At this stage emphasis was laid on the study of
diplomatic history and the current political events were studied in their historical context.
The study was mainly descriptive and only helped in understanding of the current events.
It did not in any way help in the understanding of international politics in theoretical
perspective.
The second stage in the development of international politics started after the first,
world war. Scholars adopted two different approaches for the study of international
politics. Some scholars laid emphasis on the study of current events and highlighted their
significance. However, while making a study of the present, the scholars did not pay much
attention to the past. They also did not pay any attention to the methodology and the future
of international relations. In short the scholars concentrated mainly on the study of the
current events and completely neglected the historical aspect.
The third stage of development of international politics started almost simultaneously with
the second stage. A number of scholars tried to study international relations with reference
to international organisations and international law. Effort was made to search the goals
and values towards which the international community should move. It'was emphasised
that a peaceful world could be attained only through law and international institutions. As
Morgenthau has observed, the main concern during this period was “not with
understanding the nature of international relations but with developing legal institutions
and organisation devices which could supersede the type of international relations then
existing”. But as the hard realities of international relations were neglected, the study of
international relations lacked dynamic character.
The fourth phase in the development of international politics set in after the second
world war. Scholars discarded the utopian ideal of a peaceful world order and resorted to
realistic analysis of the world politics. A number of scholars like George Schwarzenberger
(Power Politics 1941); Hubert Butterfield (Christianity, Diplomacy and War 1953);
Morgenthau (Politics Among Nations, 1948); George Kennan (American Diplomacy,
1952), etc. devoted themselves to the investigation of the elemental facts of the activity of
states. They also try to find out the driving forces behind the foreign policy of the states
and came to the conclusion that the ‘power’ constituted the most important factor in the
study of international politics. The Realist scholars in the main concentrated on three
aspects viz. the motivating factors of foreign policies everywhere, techniques of the
conduct of foreign policies and mode of resolution of international conflicts. These
scholars also assigned important position to the study of United Nations. But they tried to
study UNO in the political rather than constitutional context. They viewed United Nations
as a “Political organization designed not as substitute of power politics but as appropriate
mechanism within which the direct national rivalries are compromised through normal
process”.
The nature of international politics also underwent a change in the post world war ii
period due to emergence of large number of new sovereign states as well as formation
of power blocs. Europe ceased to be epicentre of world politics and international politics
assumed truly international character. Herbert J. Spiro has brought out the change in the
nature of post 1945 international politics thus “a change in units from a few mainly
European sovereign national states as the major actors in the intemationai relations to
the so-called blocs combined in treaty organisations plus the poorly defined new states,
plus the Secretariat of the United Nations.”
The emergence of new states was accompanied by greater say of the people in the
determination of foreign affairs. Often the governments were forced to modify their
policy in accordance with the wishes of the people. It is well known that the US
Government has to make a retreat from Vietnam chiefly due to pressure of public
opinion.
The new technological developments also greatly contributed to change in the nature
of international politics in the post world war II period.
In the late fifties the study of international politics assumed a new dimension when the
scholars of international politics adopted behavioural approach and made use of the tools
and techniques developed in other disciplines. They build up theories and models which
could explain the pattern of behaviour of political units and systems with fair degree of
accuracy. In short, international politics began to be studied in theoretical context.
Highlighting the dominance of the theoretical aspect of the study of international politics
Abdul Saeed has said “Today the prominent students of international relations are all
theorists (and) there are as many theories as is the number of theorists”
In the present times, the study of international politics has undergone further changes
and emphasis is laid on the study of substantive issues of international politics. The
scholars are trying to study the relevant and current problems of international politics with
the help of sophisticated methods and tools of study. Further, the development of nuclear
weapons has brought about a change in the nature of international relations. On account of
the highly destructive nature of the nuclear weapons the efficacy of war as an instrument
of national policy is being questioned and there is a growing tendency among states to
avoid war as far as possible. In other words, war has lost its primacy as a means for
settlement of international disputes, even though it has not been fully eliminated as yet.
Another factor which has exercised profund influence on international politics is
growth of powerful peace movements. Most of the states are keen to avoid war and
promote their national interests through peaceful means. As a result, study of problem of
peace has become an important part of international politics. The attainment of world peace
is possible through international institutions and organisations, therefore, the study of
international organisations also becomes as important facet of international politics in our
times.
It is evident from the foregoing account that the scope of international politics has
greatly widened over the years. It is not merely concerned with the study of the conduct of
the states but also examines the processes and environments which influence their
international activities. It also takens into account the study of the UNO and other regional
organisations like EEC, NATO, ASEAN, COMECON and SAARC, etc. In addition it also
concentrates on the study of various instruments for the promotion of world peace as well
as the international institutional which play a vital role in the regulation of international
politics. According to Padelford and Lincoln “International politics as a field of study has
few fixed bounds with respect to time, space or the relevance of data. It can be viewed as
stretching from the past through the present to a future whose long-term course is difficult
to predict because of powerful forces of change that are at work in human affairs.
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AS AN AUTONOMOUS
DISCIPLINE

Another question which deserves consideration is whether it would be proper to regard


international politics.as an autonomous discipline? There is no unanimity amongst scholars
on this question. Robert Loring Allen is not willing to accept international politics as an
independent branch of study because it lacks a distinct method of investigation and settled
set of theoretical problems. However, this view cannot be accepted because judged by
these criterias even discipline like History, Economics, Sociology, and Political Science
cannot be regarded as independent disciplines. On the other hand, Prof. Quincy Wright
regards international politics (relations) as an independent discipline. He asserts that the
discipline of international relations has grown and is growing. It has synthesised in itself
various other disciplines like world history, world geography, psychology and sociology
of international relations.
Before we decide whether international politics is an autonomous discipline or not, it
shall be desirable to understand as to what is meant by an independent discipline.
According to Fuller any subject to be treated “as a separate discipline must have a body of
data systematised by distinctive analytical method and capable of permitting prediction
with exactitude”. Judged by this criteria international politics cannot be treated as an
independent discipline. According to Palmer and Perkins. “It lacks clear cut conceptual
framework and systematic body of applicable theory; and it is highly dependent upon other
better organised disciplines.” Similarly Mortan Kaplan is also not willing to treat it as an
independent discipline. He says, a discipline implies a set of skills and techniques, a body
of theory and hypothesis and subject matter and asserts that international relations (politics)
fulfills only one condition of an independent discipline, viz. subject matter and completely
lacks the other two. He further says that even the qualification of subject-matter is of a
doubtful nature because international transactions fall under the jurisdiction of many other
recognised disciplines. For example, Economics deals with international trade, Psychology
deals with international tensions and so on. Though Kaplan is not willing to regard
international politics as an independent discipline, he is willing to regard it as a sub-
discipline of Political Science.
Frederick Dunn, however, regards this controversy about international politics being
treated as an independent discipline as completely futile. Thus he avoids the two extreme
views.
In the light of the above controversy it can be said that international politics as a
discipline has as yet not reached a stage where it can be treated as an independent
discipline. However, it cannot be denied that it possesses the potentialities of becoming
an independent discipline. The efforts being made by scholars to develop theory about
the behaviour of the states and the success achieved by them in this regard indicated that
the day is not far when international politics would gain recognition as an independent
discipline.
APPROACHES IN THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL
POLITICS
The Realist and the Idealist approach.
Before we examine the controversy between the classicists and the behaviouralists,
it shall be desirable to examine the two variants of the classical approach, viz., Realists
and Idealists.

(a) The Realist Approach


Realism in international relations does not mean reality as abstract ideas as Ploto
expressed to the political expedience which Machiavelli propounded, or the philosophic
doctrine of empiricism given by John Locke. “It is rather a set of ideas which take into
account the implications of security and power factors.” The ideas emerge out of the
individual’s belief that others are always trying to destroy him and, therefore, he must
be always ready to destroy others whenever need be in order to protect himself. Thus
the basic assumption underlying the realist theory is the perpetual existence of conflict
among nations in one form or the other. This is taken as a fixed doctrine. It is, therefore,
evident that a contest for power is going on in the world and this can neither be
controlled nor regulated by international law or world government or an international
organization. Thus, realism unequivocally accepts as its guiding principle the
permanence of the struggle for power.
The prominent realists include the classical theorists Thomas Hobbes and Nicolo
Machiavelli. In recent years George Kennan and Hans J. Morgenthau, Henry Kissinger,
etc. have been the leading exponents of the realist theory. The best exposition of the
realistic theory of international relations has been offered by Morgenthau. He says:
“international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate
aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim. Statesmen and people
may ultimately seek freedom, security, prosperity of power itself. They may define their
goals in terms of a religious, philosophic, economic or social ideal. They may hope that
this ideal will materialize through its own inner force, through divine intervention, or
through the natural development of human affairs. They may also try to further its
realization through non-political means, such as technical co-operation with other
nations or international organizations. But whenever they strive to realize their goal by
means of international politics, they do so by striving for power.”
Morgenthau in his Realist Theory laid emphasis on six principles which are as under.
Firstly, politics is governed by objective laws which are based on human nature and
psychology. We can understand the political phenomena by developing a political
theory based on human psychology and reason. He laid emphasis on ascertaining of
facts and giving them meaning through reason.
Secondly, Morgenthau lays great emphasis on the concept of national interest which
he defines in terms of power. He says that politics cannot be
understood in moral or religious terms. It can be understood only on rational basis. In other
words, he laid emphasis on presentation of a rational theory rather than indiscriminate
description of the political study.
Thirdly, Morgenthau holds that interest is not fixed and is moulded by the
environments. Thus he assigns important role to environments in the determination of
political action.
Fourthly, Morgenthau asserts that universal moral principles cannot be applied to
state’s actions and these must be modified according to the circumstances of time and
place. He says that the state is not expected to observe the same standards of morality as
are observed by the individual. He argues, the individual may say for himself “let justice
be done even if the world perishes” but the state has no right to say so. The individual may
sacrifice himself in defence of moral principles but the state has no right to sacrifice its
liberty for moral principles. Realism also holds that prudence is the supreme virtue in
politics; without prudence there cannot be any political morality.”
Fifthly, Morgenthau does not find any identity between moral aspirations of a nation
and the moral law which govern the universe and asserts that all political actors pursue
their national interests. It is this concept of interest which saves the nation from political
folly and moral excess.
Finally, Morgenthau says that political sphere is as autonomous as the spheres of the
economist, or the lawyer or the moralist. The political actors think in terms of interest as
the economist thinks in terms of utility; the lawyer in terms of conformity of action with
moral principles. Though the realist theory admits the relevance of non-political standards
of thought, but treats them as subordinate to the standards of politics.
Similarly, Kennan also asserts that the national interest is a reliable guide to intelligent
policy and each state tries to safeguard its national interest. However, Kennan insists on
adopting moral approach in the formulation of policy while safeguarding the national
interests. On the other hand, Morgenthau completely ignores the moral aspect and insists
on taking national interests as they are, the real guide to the formulation and understanding
of international relations. However, both of them regard the power politics as the basis of
world political relations.

Criticism
The realist approach has been severely criticised on the following grounds.
First, the theory suffers from ambiguity and is inconsistent with reality. No universally
acceptable definition of power is offered. For example, Morgenthau takes power as a
‘psychological relationship among states’, but the psychological relations themselves are
quite vague and it is not possible to measure to study the same. The study of complex
psychological relationship among more than 150 nation states of the modern world renders
them even more complex.
Secondly, the theory wrongly assumes that all men and states seek their national
interests in terms of power. If it were so, there would be constant struggle going on between
various states and there would be no systematic conduct of international relations. In fact,
the element of mutual co-operation among the members of the international community
exercises profound influence on the conduct of international relations. Stanley Hoffmann
has rightly observed: “It is particularly uncomfortable when one’s basic postulate about
human nature is such that history cannot be anything but a tale full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing. For it is a postulate which stresses the inevitability and universality of
evil and which assumes that reason far from following its own inherent impulses is driven
towards its goal by the irrational forces and end of which it serves. Now, this view makes
it almost impossible to understand how there could be a national theory of national human
behaviour.”
Thirdly, the theory wrongly assumes that power is the most important goal which the
nations pursue. In fact, other considerations like wealth, cultural welfare, security,
protection and promotion of ideology also greatly influence the actions of the states.
Fourthly, theory is defective in so far it treats the world as a static unit in which power
is a permanent guiding factor. This is against the well-accepted fact that the nations keep
on changing from time to time.
Fifthly, Duke has severely criticized the realist theory. He says “If power were always
the end in itself, politics could be likened to a game the object of which is to select the
current. It would presumably be a more bloody game than is chess or baseball, but still the
outcome would be without moral significance. The victory of one participant in the game
would be followed sooner or later by the victory of another, and life would be made up of
endless round of meaningless struggle. Each victor would have demonstrated his power
and that would be that.”
Sixthly the critics point out that Morgenthau’s conception that national interest carries
its own morality holds good only during the stable periods when accommodation of
national objectives is possible. But in the present conditions when different nations are
often ready to eliminate on other nations, it would be wrong to assume that national interest
carries its own morality.
Seventhly the realist theory is defective in so far it assumes that there is hardly any
relationship or activity which does not involve power. Actually, there exist a number of
non-political relationships and activities which do not involve power, such as international
sports events, circulation of books and
other reading matter, private letters and telegrams, etc., which ate not political activities. Morgenthau does not suggest any
criteria for the separation of the political activities from the non-political activities.
Finally, the realist theory, of Morgenthau, is defective in so far as it regards the political sphere as autonomous as the
spheres of economists, or lawyers moralists, but he is not quite clear about the nature of autonomy. Though he maintained that
a political realist should only deal with limited set of variables, yet in his book Dilemmas of Politics he asserts that politics
must play the roles of the common integrating core. In other words, he says that politics must be concerned with all the
variables with which the other specialised spheres deal. All this leads to confusion.
Despite these shortcomings of the realist approach, it cannot be denied that the approach has three distinct advantages.
First, it is persuasive and is supported by historical experience. Secondly* the realist approach has given a jolt to scholars and
compelled them to re-evaluate their own assumptions. Thirdly, even those scholars who challenge the bases of realism have
tended implicitly to rely on realist perspectives, which is a great compliment to this approach.

(b) The Idealist Approach


The other aspect of the classical approach is the utopian or the idealist approach. It regards the power politics as the passing
phase of history and presents the picture of a future international society based on tire notion of reformed international system
free from power politics, immorality and violence. It aims at bringing about a better world with the help of education and
international organisation. This approach is quite old and found its faint echos in the Declarations of the American War of
Independence of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789. The most important writers in whose works the approach found
expression include Condorcet, Rousseau, Kant, Woodrow Wilson, etc. In 1795, Condorcet wrote a treatise which contained
everything considered as the essential basis of idealism in the international relations. He visualised a world order free from
war, inequality and tyranny. This new order would be marked by constant progress in human welfare brought about by the use
of reason, education and science. Rousseau’s idealist views are reflected from Fragment on War. He says: “When thousands
of bellicose peoples have slaughtered their prisoners, when thousands of doctors in the keep of tyrants have justified these
crimes, do not truth man’s errors matter or their barbarity to justice ? Let us not search for what has been done but rather for
what should be done and let us dismiss evil and mercenary authorities who end up by making men slaves, evil and miserable.
“Similarly, Kant made a strong plea for the prevention of war among states and creation of conditions for perpetual peace. But
probably the greatest advocate of the idealist approach was President Wilson of USA who gave a concrete shape to his idealism
through the text of treaty of Versailles. He made a strong plea for world peace and international organization. All the above
writers and thinkers visualized a future system free from power politics, immorality and violence. On account of their optimism
the idealist regard the power struggle as nothing but the passing phase of history. The theory proceeds with the assumption
that the interests of various groups or nations are likely to be adjusted in the larger interest of mankind as a whole.

The difficulty with this approach is that such a system could emerge only by following the moral principles in mutual
relations in place of power, which is not possible in practice. Secondly, to bring about such an order the totalitarian forces
must crushed by all means through the use of democratic methods and the last necessity is the establishment of the world
government. The main criticisms against this theory is that it runs short of factual position. The nations do not behave as they
are expected. As a result the realism in international relations appears to be more near the truth. Rigid adherence to idealism
is likely to lead to frustration. Looking at the glaring defects of the idealist theory a middle cause has been adopted by a school
of thought called ECLECTICISM. Eclecticism does not regard either the realist approach or the idealist approach as completely
satisfactory. They offer a synthesis of the pessimism of realist and the optimism of idealists.
According to Prof. Quincy Wright the terms ‘realism’ and ‘idealism’ are ambiguous. They can at the most be used
to distinguish between short run and long run policies. Realism would aim at the fulfillment of the short run national policy
aimed at the fulfillment of the immediate necessities and idealism on the other hand represents the long run policy and would
aim at the objectives to be realized in the future. Thus realism cannot ignore the immediate needs for a rosy future and
idealism cannot leave out the prospective future only to solve the bleak present. In fact, neither of these two approaches is
wholly correct and both possesses respective merits and demerits. For a balanced understanding of international relations it
is desirable that realism and idealism must be intermingled. In the conduct of international relations also the statesmen
should neither show total aversion to the norms and values nor complete this regard to reality. Carr has rightly suggested that
the combination of realism and idealism is the best solution. He says “Where utopianism has become a hollow and
intolerable sham, which serves merely as a disguise for the interest of the privileged, the realist performs an indispensable
service in unmasking it. But pure realism can offer nothing, but a naked struggle for power which makes any kind of
international society impossible. Having demolished the current utopia with the weapons of realism, we still need to build a
new utopia of our own, which will one day fall to the same weapons.”

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi