International Relations Notes

International Relations is both an academic discipline and a state of affairs among the
states of the world. IR is often seen as a branch of Political Science but with its capacity
and ability to cover the rapidly changing international trends, the subjects has gained its
own distinct recognition. The definition of International Relations is not absolute just as
its scope. It has broader perspectives and ways of interpretation than we think.

- International Relations Definition

- Scope of International Relations
- The Nation State System
- Evolution of International Society
- International Relations Theoretical Approaches

 Liberalism and Idealism

 Realism
 Neo-Realism
 Neo-Liberalism
 World System Theory
 Feminist Theory

- Power & Elements of National Power

- National Interest
- Sovereignty
- Balance of Power
- Conceptualization of Security in 21st Century

International Relations Definition

One can better define International Relations if one clarifies in which aspect it is required
to be defined. International Relations is beyond a comprehensive definition because of its
multidimensional approaches. Scholars however devised their own kinds of definitions
depicting the sense in which they take IR. As Palmer and Perkins used these words to
define IR;

"International Relations is the objective and systematic study of

international life in all its aspects."

This is a relatively general definition yet beyond the width of International Relations as
a discipline.
Central Point of all Efforts made to define International Relations
In nearly all definitions proposed for International Relations, scholars share one point in
common that works as the central idea behind this discipline. That idea is of 'nation states'
and the relationships between them.

IR in its very first sense name of the relationships between the nation states of the world.
The internationality is subject matter of the discipline. Modern nation state system
evolved from the Peace of Westphalia Treaty signed in 1648. Today, in the complex
structure of world states working on varying ideologies, International Relations helps to
study them in a unanimity of thought.

Scope of International Relations

Another merit as well as demerit of this discipline is that it has no boundaries of its scope.
It is merit in the sense of provision of absolute opportunity to man to make research on
the daily changing international relations. It is demerit as the discipline fails to give itself
a concrete shape and outline. But still keeping in view the aspects studied in the
International Relations till now, we will try to elaborate its scope. Following points will
prove helpful in this regard;

 IR studies relations between states in their political and economic prospects

primarily.
 IR covers the realm of 'foreign affairs' in all its dimensions.
 IR deals with the recording and studying of International History with the aim to find
out the basis of states' relations in the past.
 IR studies International Law in the context of how international rules define and
govern the relations between states.
 IR embodies its scope with the inclusion of not only states but also the non-state
actors in international relations.

IR deals with the international events of;

 War
 Peace
 Nuclear world
 International political economy
 Globalization
 International institutions
 Conflicts among states
 Foreign policy and decision making
 National powers and interests

Conclusion
 International Relations has a wider scope. The points elaborated above as its scope are
not final. This discipline broadens its scope with the changing events of the world and
new dynamics of international relations. It is a subject along with being a practical course
adopted by nations of the world and the international institutions.

The Nation State System

Modern world is the world hosting nation state system. This system in its very basic sense
ensures the origin of states on the world map. And the relationships among these states
are to be regulated by internationally agreed set of rules. This nation state system is child
of political and social evolution of the world that commenced with the birth of social
animal on this planet.

What is Nation State System?

Palmer defines nation state system in these words; "Nation State System is a pattern of
political life which organizes people separately into sovereign states".

Elements of a Nation State

Every nation state of the world is to possess four essential elements in order to prove its
recognition. These elements are;

 Population as a nation
 Definite territory for that population to live in
 A government to govern that population with the defined territory
 Sovereignty of that nation state

Origin of Nation State System

Origin of the modern nation state system can be traced back into 1648 when the Peace
Treaty of Westphalia was signed. This treaty was actually an agreement to end the 'Thirty
Years of War' from 1618 to 1648 between various religio - political factions of the
landmass Europe.

Prior to signing of this treaty various religious sects of Christian Europe were at daggers
drawn at one hand and there was dreadful clash between the Church and the Throne on
the other hand.

With the Peace of Westphalia drawn in 1648, for the first time in human history,
independent sovereign territories were defined to be ruled by the nations living in them.
This was a way to end the long war and it proved quite effective.

Modern Nation State System

Europe became the birthplace of the contemporary nation state system. Though it was
not in this position at that time but with the time passing it evolved. Today, the nation
state system shapes an international community to discuss and deal with the affairs
between them.

Today, the nation state system is complex than ever. Not only the states are the
prominent actors as in the past but also the non-state actors occupy their place. Nation
state system of present day is however more concrete but still victim of various
international problems.

Future of Nation State System

There can never be one state of the whole world as nations hesitate to lose their distinct
identities. Nation state system will continue in the future of this world with any rare
chance of being replaced. It is system that if not perfect then at least better than its
previous versions.

Further, nations have learned to govern themselves and their states. They have
established international community, international peace making institution and
international law as well. Thus, it is a relatively better system.

Conclusion
Nation state system is the framework in which modern political world acts. It has more
evolved and developed mechanisms of conduct with each other. Nation states become the
basis of studying International Relations as well both in terms of a discipline as well as in
terms of a mechanism.

Evolution of International Society

Nation state system provided the fundamental unity for giving this world an international
society. This society of states faced various phases of peace and war to evolve into its
contemporary shape. Today, international society is more powerful and strong under the
shadow of international law than it was ever before in the past. Conflicts and frictions in
the relations among states however undermine the concreteness of international society at
different levels of interaction.

What is International Society?

International society can be defined as 'community of world states gathered under an
agenda that may be in the shape of international law at a universal organization in order
to sort out the ways for achieving common goals and averting common threats thus
primarily fulfilling the aim of a peaceful world'.

Elements shaping International Society

The definition carries following elements that establish an international society;
 Nation states
 International organization
 International law
 Common Agenda
 Aim for world peace

Origin of International Society

Evolution of international community can be studied after knowing its origin. It was the
Peace of Westphalia of 1648 that actually laid the formal structure of nation states.
Establishment of an international community was possible not before that. Thus, nation
states became the first element of international community.

Nation states of the world plunged into the First World War in 1914. At the end of this
war, the first ever time came in history when the idea of an international community was
materialized. Following the proposition of the then American President Wilson, the
League of Nations was established as an apparent body of international society.

Evolution of International Society

Evolution of international society began with the birth of the League of Nations after the
First World War. The league became the first platform where the member states could
debate over the international problems. But soon after the Great Depression of 1930s, the
League became the victim of nationalism and state - centrism. This undermined the
evolution of international society. World put itself into another Great War from 1939 to
1945. This was a period which might or might not be taken as evolutionary phase of
international community. But in a compact view, World War Two ended bringing the
nation states closer again in order to revive this interrupted evolution of international
society. At that moment another international organization with the name of the 'United
Nations' (UN) was established.

UN survives even today after having passed through the bumpy decades of the Cold War
between the US and the USSR. The organization represents an international society with
the gathering of 192 states as its members.

UN & the Evolution of International Society

In the contemporary state of affairs, the evolution of international society can be seen
and assessed in terms of the evolution of the UN.

The UN as universal body of nation states pledges for the world peace and to avoid any
possibilities that might lead the world into another major conflict.

International society today has evolved to discuss and deal with the modern day
problems of global climate change, nuclear non-proliferation and so on. It is dealing with
the issues of regional and civil conflicts as well to prevent them from escalation. As has
been the case with Libya and Syria today where UN interfered to stop the wars.

Conclusion
From the origin of nation state system to the establishment of the League of Nations and
then its successor the United Nations, International Society is endeavoring in one way or
the other to infuse more rational ways to deal with the global problems and global crisis.
The community faces dilemmas and debacles in their efforts but overall prevent the world
system from disintegrating.

International Relations Theoretical Approaches

Theories are the academic basis of any discipline of social science. International
Relations being a discipline is studied in different theoretical approaches. It has varying
approaches because of different perspectives in which its subject matter is studied by the
scholars. All interpret the postulates of International Relations mostly not in a common
way. Among the theoretical approaches of the IR:

Liberalism or Idealism
Liberalism or Idealism comes first in terms of its formal origin.

Realism
Realism comes first in terms of its strong realistic postulates.

Neo-Realism
Neo-Realism comes as a refined form of the aboriginal Realism.

Neo - Liberalism
Neo - Liberalism takes re-birth years after the failure of idealism.

World System Theory

World System Theory advances itself from the traditional theories of International
Relations, and

Feminist Theory
Feminist Theory brings forth the new and utopian ideas related to suppressed role of
women in International Relations.

Liberalism and Idealism

What is Liberalism?
Liberalism as its name denotes, is a theory that defies the traditional and conservative
style of observing International Relations. It is a theory that basically emphasizes upon
the need of liberal thought and openness while maintaining international relations.

What is Idealism?
Idealism is nothing different from liberalism. It is part of the Liberal Approach which
denotes a specific period of time in the world history following the First World War when
the Liberals made an abortive effort to give this world an ideal system regulating the
international relations. Idealism is also called 'Utopianism'.

Proponents of Liberalism & Idealism

Among the classic and modern proponents of Idealism and liberalism come the
following names;

 Immanuel Kant
 Thomas Jefferson
 James Madison
 John Locke

These above mentioned names were of classic scholars. The modern scholars included;

 Alferd Zimmern
 Norman Angell
 Woodrow Wilson

Fundamental Points of Liberal Approach in IR

The fundamental principles devised by the Liberal Approach in International Relations
can be studied in following points;

 It is instinct of human being to cooperate for mutual welfare.

 Evil is an exceptional case in the Human nature.

States in a similar context tend to cooperate in international affairs as they are governed
by rational men.

War cannot be eradicated however with mutual cooperation it can be reduced to the
minimum possible level.

There shall be promoted international harmony with the help of a global institute working
to maintain the world peace.

Origin of Liberalism
 Liberalism was actually founded after the chaotic World War One. It was the wish
of the nation states to cooperate in order to eliminate war of this destructive level.
Former American President Woodrow Wilson gave his historic 14 points to bring
peace into the post - war world. He in the last of his points gave the idea of
establishing an international organization that was materialized in the form of the
'League of Nations'.

Criticism on Liberal & Ideal Approach

Liberalism and its more ambitious faction Idealism are criticized for utterly
rejecting the realist basis of international relations. They are criticized for forwarding
the utopian and impracticable schemes of regulating the relations between the states.

Failure of Liberalism?
Liberalism if not utterly failed then at least received a blow when the League met
failure and world plunged into World War Two. The utopian scheme could not
prevent the nationalistic tendencies of the League's former members from disrupting
the world order.

Conclusion
Liberalism is among the classic theoretical approaches of the International Relations.
The theory carries massive support for its liberal and peaceful modes of regulating
the international relations. However, it is criticized for its failure to prevent the world
from another great war with its utopian schemes.

Realism

Realism is the approach of International Relations that works as anti - thesis to Liberalism.
Realism focuses on the more realistic, power oriented and state centric principles that
play important role in international relations. Realism lays emphasis upon gaining
national power to pursue national interests at all costs.

Proponents of Realism Approach

Among the classic proponents of Realism, also regarded as its founders, following
names fall;

 Nicolo Machiavelli
 Thomas Hobbes
 Clausewitz

Modern scholars that favor Realism as a better approach in International Relations are;

 Hans Morgenthau
 George F. Kenan
 E. H. Carr

Origin of Realism as Approach of International Relations

Formal origin and incorporation of Realism as an approach in the International Relations
was seen at the end of the Second World War. Liberalism failed in all its utopian schemes
to bring peace to the world. States fought another Total War. Following that the approach
of Realism sought grounds. If seen in the distant past, Realism finds its origin in writings
of Machiavelli as well as Thomas Hobbes.

Fundamental Postulates of Realism

Following were the fundamental postulates drafted by various scholars under the
umbrella of Realism;

 There exists international anarchy.

 States are the principal actors in international relations.
 States pursue national interests.
 States tend to accumulate national power.
 States strengthen the means of their survivals.
 National power and national interests determine the relations between states.
 States need to compete each other for seeking relative gains in the international
realm.
 War is an option in the international relations.

Realism and Six Principles of Hans Morgenthau

Hans Morgenthau's Six principles of Realism are taken as eminent work in this field of
International Relations. His six principles give the ideas of;

 National power
 State centrism
 National interests
 Autonomy
 Survival
 Beyond morality approach of state

Criticism on Realism as Theoretical Approach of International Relations

Realism is criticized for its extreme emphasis on state centrism, power grabbing and
national interests at the costs of world peace. The theory is realistic but leads the world
states into an anarchic position where everyone is at war against the other. It does not
eliminate war as an option in the international relations.

Conclusion
 International Relations seeks Realism as among the influential classical approaches.
Realism talks about the aboriginal and realistic basis of international relations. It is
criticized for its extreme version but the theory completely rejects the utopian postulates
of idealism. Realism does not take cooperation as an option because according to its
proponents, world is anarchic where intense competition is inevitable to maintain national
power.

Neo-Realism

'Neo' means new or the latest. Neo-Realism is more refined and advanced strand of
Realism. Neo-Realism unlike the original Realism is more moderate form in International
Relations.

Origin of Neo-Realism
Neo-Realism originated in latter part of 1970s. It was the reactionary product of
Neo-Liberalism which once again posed serious threat to the Realist idea of state
centrism. It was the work of Kenneth Waltz with the title of 'Theory of International
Politics' which gave birth to neo-realism.

Exponent of Neo-Realism
Among the modern exponents of neo-realism the name of Kenneth Waltz echoes. He is
regarded as founder of this theoretical approach in the International Relations. Waltz
sticking to the traditional ideas of Realism, infuses a new spirit in this approach by not
utterly rejecting the possibilities of cooperation among the states of the world.

Postulates of Neo-Realism
Postulates of new-realism are the same as that of realism. They differ in a few points
which are explained as following;

There exists international anarchy which serves as basis of international relations rather
than the Human nature of violence.

World states follow the idea of self - help to empower themselves and act in international
relations.

There exists Security Dilemma in international relations. States accumulate power for
their security and survival which leads most of them into a race of armament and
militarization.

Possibilities of cooperation between the states need not to be overlooked when they are
serving the interests of a state.
It is not the cooperation however but the 'Balance of Power' that actually prevent the
states from large scale war.

Criticism on Neo-Realism Theory of International Relations

Neo-Realism is criticized on the account of following points;

Still the theory is extreme and regards state as the sole actors of international relations.

It admits cooperation now but it has not yet rejected war as an option.

Focuses on national power and national interests of a state which actually undermine the
possibilities for cooperation.

The theory of Neo-Realism gives a mixed vision not a clear cut one. It is not inclined on a
single side.

Conclusion
Neo-Realism is actually the reaction to the action posed by Neo-Liberalism. The theory
has not given up the basic postulates of Realism but it is still moderate as compared to its
original version. Neo-Realism is brainchild of Kenneth Waltz who believed neither in
extreme liberalism not in extreme realism. As a consequence, he devised a middle way to
meet the ideals in international relations.

Neo-Liberalism

Neo-liberalism emerged to be the modern strand of liberalism in the realm of theoretical

International Relations. This approach just like its previous aboriginal strand believes in
rationality of human nature and international cooperation. But unlike its aboriginal form,
neo-liberalism is moderate and less extreme.

Origin of Neo-Liberalism as Theoretical Approach in IR

Origin of neo-liberalism in International Relations was both the result of changing world
circumstances and need of the evolving discipline of International Relations. Even more
than these two points, neo-liberalism originated to revive the dead approach of liberalism.

It was 1960s which is seen as the decade when neo-liberalism took birth. Its origin was
catalyzed by the declining oomph of realism.

Since after the collapse of liberalism as first hand approach of international relations,
realism was holding firm grip on the world order. Neo-Liberalism defied the system of
state centrism and intense competition bringing forth cooperation as the best option in
economic and political terms.
Various Aspects of Neo - Liberalism
Neo-Liberalism can be understood in various aspects it brought. These are explained
below;

A. Neo Liberal Internationalism

The core assumption of this aspect of neo-liberalism is that the liberal democratic states
of the world don't war against each other. This ensures peace and prosperity at global
level.

B. Neo-Liberal Institutionalism
This strand of neo-liberal institutionalism though believes in cooperation but in one
aspect it shares commonality with the Realism. It concurs to the point of realism that
states are the principal actors and institutions in the international relations.

But instead of seeing this thing in terms of competition in anarchic world, neo-liberal
institutionalism focuses on ensuring prospects of cooperation.

Neo-Liberalism and Idealism

Neo-Liberalism gives a different scheme to regulate the international affairs as
compared to idealism. The theory of idealism that took birth after the First World War
was taken as utopian way to deal with international relations. It was impracticable.

Neo-Liberalism does not represent utopian and impracticable schemes. It accepts the
primary role of states in world affairs but suggests them to work with cooperation.

Criticism on Neo-Liberalism
Realists attack neo-liberalism again with the traditional mantra of not being a realistic
approach in understanding the global affairs. For the proponents of Feminism this is again
among the theories that carry nothing remarkable to ensure women empowerment.
Marxists consider it as a tool of the Western powers being exploited to deal both the
developing and the developed states under the same but unfair mechanisms.

World System Theory

World System Theory, unlike the classic theories of Realism and Liberalism, is one
dimensional approach to study the situation of dependency of a part of the world upon the
other. The central point of the theory emphasizes on the point that the unhealthy
economic condition of the developing countries is due to continuous dependence on and
unending exploitation by the developed states of the world.
Origin of World System Theory
World System Theory is believed to have its root in the works of Lenin - the
revolutionary founder of the communist USSR. Lenin wrote 'Imperialism - The Highest
Stage of Capitalism'. In this book he blamed capitalistic developed states responsible for
exploitation and backwardness of the developing states.

Explanation of World System Theory

World system theory explains the imperialistic styles of the world hegemons. It simply
divides the world into two tiers. One of the 'Core' which is based on economically and
politically advance countries i.e. European nations, USA. The other is 'Periphery' which
consists of the developing countries of Asia, Africa and South America.

The theory propounds that the Periphery world is dependent upon the Core world. This
dependence can be interpreted in terms of economy, politics and technological
advancement. The reasons behind the dependence are not only backwardness and
depravity of the Periphery but also continuous exploitation of these states by the Core
states. This exploitation is carried out by various tools that can be laws, institutions or any
other form.

Historical Dependence of the Periphery

The theory goes deep in the history of the world order. It states that it was Periphery that
provided the Core with cheap labor, natural resources and raw material. Most of the
Periphery states were colonized and exploited to bring advancement and development in
the Core states. This led to historical dependence of the Periphery states on the Core
states.

The situation worsened when the Core states reached high levels of industrialization and
technology but they did not share this advancement with the periphery states.

Conclusion
The approach of World System is criticized for being not a theory in real sense. It is
single dimensional perspective that explains how developing states are dependent upon
the developed states. The theory did not carry enough weightage in the theoretical realm
of International Relations.

Feminist Theory

Feminism is a non-traditional and modern theory of International Relations. The theory

highlighted the aspects of international relations from the point of view of women of the
world. The theory propounds how this gender has been sidelined in deciding international
relations despite being its direct victim every time. Feminism is the broadest example of
an effort for women empowerment.
Origin of Feminism as Theory of International Relations
Origin of Feminism is actually the consequence of several world conferences convened
to empower women across the globe. Some of the prominent conferences that played role
in this regard are;

 Mexico Women's Conference 1975

 Copenhagen Women's Conference 1980
 Nairobi Women's Conference 1985
 Convention on Elimination of All Kinds of Discriminations against Women 1979

These conferences highlighted the rights of women along with the need to empower them
and give them a share in deciding international affairs.

International Endorsement of Women's Rights

Following the conferences mentioned above, international community endorsed the
rightful demands of women. The United Nations declared the years from 1976 to 1985 as
'Decade for Women'. Similarly, the year 1975 was marked as the 'International Women's
Year'.

Core Points of Feminism as a Theory

Feminism laid down following reservations upon the contemporary world order;

 World order is in fact male dominated.

 National interest is always multi-dimensional but is defined by masculinity.
 Women have always remained hidden in international relations.
 Women are direct victims of male dominated decision making in international
relations.
 War is decided by men but women suffer.

Efficacy of Feminism
Feminism is right in its reservations but it is utopian scheme. It is not practicable to
secure the share for women in international relations in a way as demanded. Feminism
just like World System Theory explains one dimensional aspect of international relations.
Though there is a vast change observable today in the status of women in world. They
have been empowered greatly. But there are cultural, social and historical barriers to
enhance their role in international relations that are difficult to overcome.

Another point which proves that women are now more active in international relations
more than they were in the past is that they can be seen as heads of the states, chief
diplomats, ambassadors, head of delegations at UN.
Conclusion
Feminist theory is more a reservation than an explanation how international relations are
regulated. It rarely gives any clear cut mechanism to regulate international relations. It
has however helped in empowering women.

Power & Elements of National Power

National Power is fundamentally a mantra given by and believed in by the Realist school
of thought in International Relations. Having assumed this world as anarchic, the realists
emphasize upon accumulation of power by a state as inevitable. As far as the parameters
of measuring the national power is concerned, realists do measure it in relative terms. The
criterion set to determine national power is a collection of different elements that
collectively assess it.

What is Power?
In simplest terms of understanding, power is the capacity to get a thing done from
someone who would not have done this otherwise.

What is National Power?

National power refers to the capacity of a state to use its influence, force or authority
upon another state.

Realists' View of National Power

Realist school of thought view national power as ultimate as well as the immediate goal
of a state. According to them a state must never give up accumulating national power
after all it is in competition with friends as well as foes.

Elements of National Power

Elements of national power are the factor which determine the power of a state. Status
of these elements is basically the parameter that may enhance or decline the national
power of a state. Some of the major elements have been elaborated below;

A. Geography
Geography does not only include the size and location of a state which determine
national power but also strategic position, climate, topography etc. Role of geography can
be seen in terms that the USSR and the USA had been super powers of the world and both
carried vast territories. But that is not always the case. Britain has small territory of its
own but its control on seas empowered it to rule over the world.

B. Economy
In the contemporary world order, the thing which matters the most is the powerful and
stable economy of a state. China is a clear example which due to its economy emerges out
to be the next world super power. Even the USA which is super power now has a vibrant
economy.

C. Military
With economy, military might be also essential to enhance national power. China might
be an economic giant but it has limited military capacity as compared to the US. Thus the
USA surpasses it in national power.

D. Technology
Technological advancement emerges out to be another modern element of national
power. Technology is something that is shared in every field whether it is military,
science, agriculture or another department of state. A state technologically advance shares
superiority over the other. For instance, during the Cold War, the USA shared
technological superiority over the USSR.

E. Natural Resources
Natural resources are another element of national power. What matters in real is not the
presence of natural resources but it is their exploitation. If exploited to the maximum
benefit, natural resources can be helpful in enhancing national power.

F. National Unity and Population

Population type and its skills determine national power. And if the population of a nation
is united, it empowers the nation better.

G. Ideology
Ideology is traditional element of national power. It matters less but still matters to
determine national power. This is because of the reason that ideology plays role in
determining structure of state.

National Interest

National interest is a tricky topic of modern International Relations. It is something taken

as an impetus behind every state action relative to another state. National Interest serves
as the determinant of state's foreign policy along with depicting the nature and policies of
political government ruling the state.

Defining National Interest

It is a common perception that national interest has no concrete and definite words that
can define it absolutely. It is a fluid aspect of International Relations. The definition of
national interest lacks universality because the national interest is not shared common by
all states. Secondly, there are the factors which determine national interest of a state for a
specific period of time. These factors also vary from state to state.

But in a very safe and simplest attempt to define national interest following words can
be used; "National Interest is the name of those goals and objectives of a state which are
pursued to seek the maximum benefit in a given set of circumstances".

Fluidity of National Interest

National interest lacks definite outlook. The variables which prevent national interest
from seeking a concrete shape are following;

 Varying circumstances
 Different state ideologies
 Major changes in the World Order

These variables make states to review their national interests from time to time and alter
their course of action then.

Link Between National Interest and Foreign Policy

National interest is closely linked to the foreign policy of a state. As foreign policy is
determined and drafted keeping in view the national interest. Relations of one state with
another state are nothing more than their interests attached to each other's. In Foreign
policy a state pursues its national interest.

Determinants of National Interest

Along with the variables mentioned above, national interest is determined by following
elements;

 State's geo - strategic position

 Political traditions
 Goals and manifestoes of political parties
 History of the state

Survival - The Chief Aim of National Interest

Among the several aims and goals of the national interest of a state, survival stands to be
the first one. All other interests come after a state has ensured survival. Other aims of
national interest can be economic, political and diplomatic oriented.

Ways to Pursue National Interest

National interest is pursued through different ways. In the modern world of the nation -
state system, national interest is pursued chiefly by 'Diplomacy'. It is the legitimate art of
forwarding state's foreign policy towards other states. In this way actually national
interest is pursued.

Ways to pursue other than diplomacy can be use of influence, making alliances,
concluding agreements and treaties. Illegitimate ways might include the use of force
against the other state or interfering in its internal matters with the help of non - state
actors.

Conclusion
National interest is understood in wider sense. It is mostly long term policy. The reason
behind the presence of complexity in understanding national interest is also that we take it
in shorter term as something imminently achievable and based on unchangeable
principles. But in fact it is contrary to that.

Sovereignty

Sovereignty is a modern day aspect of the International Relations. It is actually linked

with the aboriginal concept of the nation - state system. Before the origin of the nation
state system, the idea of sovereignty was vague. Later it evolved gradually to assume the
contemporary manifestation.

Defining Sovereignty
Sovereignty is defined in terms of 'unrestricted and unlimited authority of a state within
its territory and on its population'. In another meaning of sovereignty, it is taken as the
supremacy of state. This supremacy is meant to control and command everything inferior
to it.

Sovereignty as Element of State

Modern nation state has four essential elements as defined in the 'Montevideo
Convention on Duties and Rights of States';

 Population
 Territory
 Government
 Sovereignty

Sovereignty as an element of state is the most important one in abstract sense. Without
sovereignty the idea of population and territory can be perceived but the idea of
government control on both these things remains impossible. So, sovereignty is actually
the name of that control as well which government being the working agency of state
exercise over its people.

Various Dimensions of Sovereignty

 Sovereignty is understood in different dimensions or types. Some are explained below;

A. Domestic Sovereignty
Domestic sovereignty means that the state is sovereign to rule over and decide for all the
internal matters within its territory or related to its population.

B. Interdependence Sovereignty
Interdependence sovereignty means that state shall have control the international
boundaries it shares with the neighboring states. No one is permitted to cross the borders
of the state without due permission.

C. International Legal Sovereignty

This sovereignty is linked to the recognition of other sovereign states which have
fulfilled the criteria of being the nation states.

Exclusivity and Absoluteness in Sovereignty

Exclusiveness and Absoluteness are two important features of sovereignty. Exclusivity
means that the state is sovereign excluding all other agents that may tend to exercise
control. In simple terms it excludes these agents from sharing state's sovereignty.

Absoluteness of sovereignty of state means that the supremacy and authority of state is
absolute and final. It will govern not only all the geographical parts of the country but
also decide for the people. This feature makes the modern nation state as central institute
of power.

Internal & External Sovereignty

Internal sovereignty deals with the internal affairs of a state. This idea is most of the
time also linked with the concept of legitimacy of government. The way in which a
government is elected to exercise internal sovereignty is an important aspect.

External sovereignty is the name of maintaining relations of a sovereign power with the
other states of the world. It is not the supremacy of one state over another but the way in
which relations between states are to be maintained on equal footing.

Conclusion
Sovereignty is an abstract element of state which is also the most important one.
Sovereignty is the actual thing which works as the soul of modern nation state

Balance of Power

Balance of power is the classical realist concept that preserved peace of the pre - world
wars world. It is concept that marks its practical implementation in 18th century. In the
contemporary world, balance of power theory has little role to play but it cannot be
ignored utterly due to its historic role. Even during the Cold War, a balance of power was
present between the two Super Powers which prevented from escalation of any conflict to
the total war.

Defining Balance of Power

It has been noted that unlike most of the topics of international relations which lack
concrete definitions, 'Balance of Power' is actually the one which has multiple
interpretations. In simple terms, Balance of Power refers to 'the mechanism which the
states adopt in order to maintain a certain level of equilibrium in their relative powers'.

Balance of Power as a General Social Principle

International Relations' Realist Morgenthau see the 'Balance of Power' as a general
social principle. According to this perspective, 'Balance of Power' exists among states just
as it exists among individuals in society to maintain the social peace and equilibrium.

Pre - Requisites of 'Balance of Power'

Balance of power requires following essentials;

 Multiple nation states

 International anarchy
 Varying degrees of powers distributed among the states
 Requirement for bringing an equilibrium

Tools of 'Balance of Power'

Balance of power is not naturally present in the world order. It has to be achieved by the
world states utilizing one or the other method. Some major tools or techniques of
achieving balance of power are elaborated as following;

A. Alliances & Counter Alliances

This is the chief way to maintain or bring balance of power. In the 18th century world
and also during the Cold War, balance of power was kept by establishing Alliances. A
common example is 'NATO' & 'Warsaw' during the Cold War. Both the alliances, each led
by rival superpower, maintained a level of balance between them.

B. Buffer States
These are the states which geographically work as barrier between two or more rivals.
For instance, Afghanistan has been a buffer state between British held Indian colony and
the Soviet Union. Similarly, Tibet served as buffer states between India and China.
C. Armament and Militarization
Armament and militarization by one nation leads the rival states to do the same. This
maintains balance of power between them. India and Pakistan present this type of case.
Both the states maintain a level of deterrence through militarization and nuclear
armament.

D. Disarmament
During Cold War, particularly in its later part, rapid disarmament agreements were
concluded between the US and the USSR. These agreements were like SALT, NPT at
global level, etc. These helped to restore balance of power by reducing dreadful arms.

E. Intervention
Intervention is also an option to bring balance of power. The US & USSR' interventions
in Korean war, Vietnam war are its examples. Both the powers maintained balance of
power between them by fighting proxy wars at foreign lands.

Conceptualization of Security in 21st Century

Balance of Power is anachronism in the 21st century which is dominated by the nation
states that see their national interests and national powers as chief aims. Thus, intense
competition exists in anarchic world. Balance of power was not appropriate to bring
peace to the 21st century world. Due to its inadequacy and uncertainty it was needed to
be replaced by something more reliable.

Perceiving the Idea of Security in 21st Century

21st century is witnessing the nation states in their evolved shapes. International
community is stronger than ever before in the chaotic world history. But the risks of
conflicts among states are never eliminated absolutely. It is part of realistic world. In 21st
century these risks might be less but dangerous than ever. This is because international
community is strong but several states have weaponized themselves with weapons of
mass destruction. Thus, maintaining peace in this scenario is critical and needs proper
mechanisms.

'Collective Security' as Core Concept of World Peace in 21st Century

The idea of 'Collective Security' replaced 'Balance of Power' in 21st century. This core
concept of security is different from its preceding formula.

A. What is Collective Security?

Collective Security can be defined as the 'the collective or joint mechanisms adopted
and pursued by the international community to fight aggression and the aggressor in order
to maintain international peace'.
B. Principle behind the Concept of Collective Security
The principle behind the concept of Collective Security is that 'all the states must be
joining hands to fight against the aggression. Attack against one states shall be taken as an
attack against all states'.

C. How to Achieve Collective Security?

Collective security can be achieved by pursuing the ways mentioned below;

 Aggressor state is needed to be identified in a combat

 All other states shall work jointly to contain or defeat the aggressor
 Aggressor shall be either made to surrender or defeated
 Arrangements shall be made in future to bring the aggressor state into mainstream

Effectiveness of Collective Security

Effectiveness of 'Collective Security' depends completely upon the eagerness of states to
play their respective roles in this regard. More the willing states would be the more
effective Collective Security can be perceived.

Collective Security & The League of Nations

League of Nations established on the principle of collective security failed in its mission
due to inappropriate and nationalistic approach of certain states like Germany, Italy,
France. It carried the principles to preserve the world peace which collapsed after the
Great Depression and finally led world to Second Great War of the century.

Collective Security & the UN

UN succeeded the League. In its very first Article, the UN Charter pledges to maintain
international peace. Chapter 7 of the charter further clarifies the course of action that
states need to adopt in cases of Breach of Peace.

Conclusion
Collective Security is the idea that works as the concept of security in 21st century. This
concept is working contemporarily along with several flaws it carries.