How Historical Perspectives Influence the International Relations - Case Study Example

1492 or 1648 or 1815: How Historical perspectives Influence the Analysis and Theories of International Relations. and must be inserted Date of Submission Abstract As the political landscape in the early twenty-first century unfolds, it is accepted that scholars analysing today’s international relations need to gain a historical perspective on contemporary events and behaviours. While the value of considering history in the development of an understanding of the modern world is recognised, it is not always clear how far back the scholar should look. As milestones, the dates 1492, 1648 and 1815 can be seen as accepted starting points for the historical development of the current political system. This paper discusses the nature of each of these milestones and comments on how taking them into account affects and influences modern thinking on international relations. It concludes that International Relations theories are highly influenced by how far into the past the scholar is able to look. Introduction It has long been accepted by scholars of history that 1492, with the opening of the New World to European influence, represents the beginning of the modern age. Social Sciences, among which International Relations can be counted, has also considered 1648 – the Peace of Westphalia and the formal recognition of statehood – to be a notable turning point in world history. Likewise, 1815 could be viewed as a point of fundamental change in the course of world events. Which of these dates, however, best serves the purposes of the current analyst of contemporary world events? Historical Overview -1492 With Portugal embarking on a period of exploration of the world, as yet unknown to Europeans, 1492 represents the beginning of European expansion until the influence of European culture and politics was felt worldwide. Monarchies ruled Europe, sultanates and empires existed throughout Asia, North Africa and parts of south and Central America. The influence of religion was enormous particularly in Europe, with the moral and military supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church very much in evidence. The lone voice proposing a more recognizable vision of statehood was Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). -1648 An explicit acknowledgement of statehood, with the Peace of Westphalia, occurred in 1648. (Anderson, 2004) Movement toward the erosion of monarchy in Europe had begun although monarchies, sultanates and empires, largely feudal in nature, still held sway. The colonial era introduced ever-expanding, influence-based European empires, fiercely competing for territory and resources. Boswell (1995) argues that 1648 saw the beginning of 300 years of core-periphery interaction between states, with core nation-states ruling over peripheral colonies. The birth of the Liberalist theory, mainly attributed to philosophy generated by Thomas Hobbes (1855-1679) and expanded on by Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, and evidenced by the establishment of the USA as the first liberalist state in 1789, may be considered to characterise this historical period. -1815 As challenges to colonial powers increased, from colonised populations, the age of decolonisation may be considered to have begun in 1815. Decolonisation saw an accelerated increase in the process of globalisation and market integration through the dissolution of market barriers. (Boswell, 1995) The formation of states as republican, rather than monarchic, was in full swing. Class-based revolution, in response to land pressure, saw peasant populations rebellion against large landowners. This phenomenon was not, of course, limited to this era. (see Goldstone, 2002) (For section timelines see Brink, Gibbs, Thotse & Verner, 2005) International Relations: Current and Traditional Schools of Thought Anticipation of future events and perhaps even appropriate preventative or avoidance strategies may be possible with an effective understanding of the current political situation. To this purpose, frameworks within which to analyse international relations have been developed. This section of the essay explores some of the broader approaches to study in the field, which allow scholars to arrive at more particular theories to explain modern politics. -The Positivist Approach Positivist thinkers, generally, aim at a traditionally scientific understanding, most easily explained as the methods usually employed by natural scientists. The logic applied in other sciences is also applied to the social sciences. Empirical evidence is arrived at by research through observation and a model, or theory, formulated for application to the situation at hand. -The Constructivist Approach By having expanded on a positivist approach, this approach takes into account the language and rhetoric of international relations and the social reality, as observed, is added to other empirical evidence. It is clearly acknowledged that the identities and interests of individual states are not always objective facts. In essence, all states, it is argued, are influenced by the subjective attitudes of people within individual states. -The Liberalist Approach The scholar employing this approach considers state preferences not the resources or capabilities of the state, as the dominant influence in determining the behaviour of individual states. Since states interact on both political and economic levels, the belief is that the international system can provide opportunities for co-operation and positive interaction. Although the general descriptions above provide an outline of traditional approaches, critiques of these approaches have prompted refinements and alternatives to scholars. Some thinkers apply a rationalist approach, employing reason and deductive logic in their analyses. Others, of the school of Realism and neo-Realism, consider that a basic component of human nature is to gain power and dominance. Hence, international institutions have no influence on the behaviours of states. But, the anarchic structures which determine relationships between states, and the need for self-preservation within states, actually direct international relations. (See the IR Theory Homepage) Constructivist thinkers, such as Max Weber, proposed that the units of study for study in this field should be: a) theoretically relevant, b) independent of each other, and c) neither indivisible nor combinable. (Weber, 1996 (1905)) Analysis of the economic, political and social change within individual states was accepted as a valid methodology to arrive at theories to explain international relations. (Hopkins, 1982) Thus, in light of such thinking on statehood, this essay must consider: 1492, 1648, 1815? Traditionally, the time-based starting point of an analysis is highly influential in the formulation of theoretical frameworks. -1648 and 1815 Thomas Hobbes is accepted as the initiator of the “social contract theory”. His argument that rational, free and equal persons would be able to reach fair agreement could be seen as the precursor to the liberalist theories. For Hobbes, a treaty among equals, such as at that arrived at by delegates at the Treaty of Westphalia, would serve to illustrate that, naturally, states would arrive at the best solution, where all states would benefit from the peace brought about by commonly held respect for sovereignty and national integrity. But Hobbes also, perhaps in contradiction of his own beliefs, suggested that states should be rule by authorities, such as monarchies, so that control could be maintained, since individuals were, he believed, self-centred and violent. It may, consequently, be argued that 1648 was a turning point in world history. The Peace of Westphalia replaced aristocracies, trade networks, feudal arrangements, even the Roman Catholic Church, with states as a means of control and regulation. (Anderson, 2004) The mechanism of states spread across the world in the last four centuries, until by the early twentieth century, the whole world was defined in terms of state or mandated territory by the League of Nations. Each nation would, then, continue to interact internationally as Hobbes proposed – in a natural order of agreement, to guarantee the best interests of all states. John Locke, the English philosopher extended on the premise of liberalism, by claiming that no-one should harm anyone else, insofar as life, health, freedom or possessions are concerned. But world history rolled out along a different path. By 1815, the Congress of Vienna (November 1814 to June 1815) had to be convened, in order to settle the disputes, borders and newly recognisable states, after the French Revolutionary Wars, the Napoleonic Wars and the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire. Hence, the formation of states had not proceeded in a mutually beneficial way at all. A Liberalist view may now have to be superseded by that of the realists, or even the neo-realists. As mentioned earlier in this essay, the argument proposed by realism is that states (and people) act in their own interest only. Only an unpredictable and anarchic structure, based on self-preservation and gain by states determines international relations. The current political structure of Europe was almost completely determined by the agreements reached at the Congress of Vienna, but the conflict and war leading to these arrangements may be evidence of the view, also proposed by Hobbes, that humans are selfish and war-like, unless the conditions exist for them to behave differently. Subsequent history may also support the realist viewpoint. The theorist examining the period from 1815 to the outbreak of the First World War, may be tempted to argue that world politics is dominated by states aggressively seeking to expand their own interests, and states protecting themselves. The world may remain as it is only because an uneasy balance is maintained between states. Only the fear of the power of another state prevents expansion and invasion. States are equal only insofar as they are able to maintain a balance of power between them. All international relations are determined, according to realists, by constant changes and adjustments in the international balance of power. The conditions for co-operation between states, such as Liberalism proposes, are limited by how powerful each state feels in relation to other states. Colonial expansion and the competition for colonies certainly support this view. But, should the student of international politics consider the disintegration of colonial empires, also beginning from 1815, theory explaining current Third World dependency on First World nations may result. Interdependence and Dependence Theory, currently in use, do rely on historical data from this period. (Little-brown, 1989) With understanding of this era, Marxists could, thus, conclude that globalism is a function of “... Capitalist relations of dominance and exploitation ...” (Gill, 1998) Core-periphery theories have been formulated, again to explain the dependence of the ex-colonies on the core nation-states. The slow development of modern democracy is observable in this period. In formulating the Democratic Peace theory, (for example, Doyle, 2004) this history may allow for conclusions relating to the harmonious future of the world. Boswell (1995) argues that with decolonisation, the increase in the pace and degree of world integration accelerated rapidly. Market barriers between countries are rapidly disappearing, and this erodes the validity of traditional territorial or political boundaries. The state is no longer an appropriate unit to examine in isolation. This is one of many criticisms a view limited to 1648, and the close examination of states’ development, as a starting point for analysis. (see: Denemark, 1999 and Alekseev, 1997) -1492 Modelski (1996) proposed that Portugal, already by 1515, exercised a high degree of world leadership: it maintained a sophisticated global political system. Others argue that, from 1492, Systemic Cycles of Accumulation and Financial Hegemonies have dominated world politics. So, from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries, a Genoese/Iberian cycle dominated; a Dutch cycle from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries; the British cycle to the early twentieth century; and from the late nineteenth century to the present-day, a USA-led cycle. (Xi, Lao & Zhu, 2007) Should an International Relations scholar ascribe to the view that the contemporary world is a capitalist system, not restricted by nationally-based capitalist economies, this accumulation cycle model is highly acceptable. Machiavelli implies in his novel The Prince that the state held all authority. His belief that not even the church at the time (the all-powerful Holy Roman Empire of the day) was authorised to rule over the state explicitly argues that all morality, power and natural law should be controlled by the rulers of the state, in the interests of national security and the continuance of the rulers’ power. Certainly, his views can be seen as similar to those of neo-realists, who propose that no organization outside of the state exists which can have extensive influence on the actions of the state. Hence, modern international organizations such as the UNO do not influence the behaviour of individual states to a marked degree. This even as far back as 1500, thinkers such as Machiavelli were promoting the concept of the sovereign state, and there is little doubt that belief in sovereignty continues to influence world politics today. In addition, it may be argued, the rulers of states would, even today, protect their own power despite the international movements and morality of democratisation and humanitarianism. A Wider History According to Boswell, (1995) the formulation of theoretical models for International Relations study can be significantly enhanced by masses of historical information on a particular era, analytically handled. Historical processes should be refined into necessary and sufficient causes to provide relevant current theories. He argues that, historically, individual states have held dominance over the world economy: Since 1492, the Dutch Mercantile revolution; the British Industrial revolution; and the second Industrial revolution led by the USA. And thus that something other than the state itself is causal in world politics – rather it is a geographical concentration of leading economic sectors, sparked by innovation or technological discovery. Denemark (1999) and others have proposed that processes, not just within states, are the basis of human development. While the sixteenth century may be a convenient starting point, thanks to a newly-formed capitalism, theorists claim that core-periphery structures and economic and political cycles can be traced back 5000 years. Denemark cites Frank and Gills who argue that the start of analysis should begin with the start of writing; or Wilkinson, who prefers civilizations as a unit of study, and hence, considers 3000 years ago to be an appropriate point of historical reference. In short, modern theorists may need a view which is not bound by the state, or by localised political points of view, or by the exact dates accepted generally as pivotal in the formation of current conditions. The Difficulties of Current Analysis The world today faces challenges perhaps not easily analysed and understood through reliance on narrow models or single-disciplinary approaches. For example, firstly, the movement of people – migrants, asylum seekers, victims of trafficking – (Doyle, 2004) beyond state boundaries is certainly unprecedented. Secondly, the current world population, 6 billion approximately, is so vast as to be incomparable to that of previous ages. (Modelski, 2000) Thirdly, the declining influence of the state must be taken into account. Regional organisations, international non-governmental organisations or movements, multinational companies and even criminal organisations effectively are independent of state boundaries and often national laws. Fourthly, identity is being formed by norms, values and cultures internationally, not necessarily confined to national identities. Religious, ethnic, cultural and even gender identities form international communities not confined to states. (Anderson, 2004) These and other current conditions not noted in this essay, all exert an influence on the parameters within which the scholar of international relations must work. Further, a methodological challenge is presented: collecting data world-wide, and considering it both within and without nations states, under the influence of economic movements, human rights perspectives, regional organisations or alliances and the myriad other factors which may influence analyses. An evolutionary framework, for example, may have to ignore the boundaries of dates – 1492 or 1648 or 1815 – in favour of study to include any historical processes contributing to the building of current world structure, global organisation and global leadership. Or an adherent of Constitutional Order theory (Bobbit, 2002) may argue that transition from nation-state to market-state, defines current international conditions completely, without historical precedent. Hence political and military power-balancing and competition would become less relevant in such an analysis. A world-systems history analyst would, instead, propose that the period from 1492 to the present, displays three hegemonic cycles, allowing world-dominance by one nation-state, and would predict that the decline of the current hegemonic state needs to be acknowledged. This theory would extend to predict that the world is about to move into a period of rough balance between shifting powers and frequent major wars. (Boswell, 1995) Conclusion It is clear that historical perspective adds value to the formulation of current international relations analysis. The extent of that value is, however, dependent on the degree to which current conditions have a precedent in the history of world development. In the formation of a theoretical framework to explain contemporary world politics, the scholar cannot be restricted to a particular historical period. Rather, aspects of many historical events and processes should be evaluated for the contribution to further understanding of current international relations. References Anderson, L. (2004) Antiquated Before They Can Ossify: States that Fail Before They Form Journal of International Affairs Vol. 58 No.1 New York: Columbia University Alekseev, M. (1997) Without Warnings: Threat Assessment, Intelligence and Global Struggle New York: St Martin’s Press Bobbit, P. (2002) The Shield of Achilles New York: Columbia University Boswell, T. (1995) Hegemony and Bifurcation Points in World History Atlanta: Emory University Brink, E., Gibbs, K., Thotse, L. & Verner, J. (2005) History for All Johannesburg: Macmillan South Africa Denemark, R. (1999) World System History: From Traditional Politics to the Study of Global Relations in Prospects for International Relations” Conjectures about the Next Millennium Bobrow, D. (Ed) Malden MA: Blackwell Doyle, M.W. (2004) The Challenge of Worldwide Migration in Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 57 No. 2 New York: Columbia University Gill, S. (1998) New Constitutionalism, Democratisation and Global Political Economy in Pacifica Review Vol. 10, No. 1 Goldstone, J.A. (2002) Population and Security: How Demographic Change Can Lead to Violent Conflict in Journal of International Affairs Vol. 6 No. 1 New York: Columbia University Hopkins, T.K. (1982) The Study of the Capitalist World-Economy: Some Introductory Statements in World-Systems Analysis: Theory and Methodology Hopkins, T.K & Wallerstein, I. (Eds) Beverly Hills: Sage IR Theory Homepage at http://irtheory.com/know.htm Li, M., Xiao, F. & Zhu, A. (2007) Long Waves, Institutional Changes, and Historical Trends: A Study of the Long-term Movement of the Profit Rate in the Capitalist World Economy in Journal of World-Systems Research Vol. XIII, No.1 Little-Brown, J. (1989) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (2nd Edition) Modelski, G. (1996) Portuguese Sea Power and the Evolution of Global Politics: Lecture delivered to the Academia de Marinha, Lisbon on October 15, 1996 Wallerstein, I. (1991) Geopolitics and Geoculture: Essays on the Changing World System New York: Cambridge Wallerstein, I. (1995) The Modern World System and Evolution in Journal of World-Systems Research Vol. 1, No. 19 Weber, M. (1996 [1905]) the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Colonialism Los Angeles: Roxburg Publishing Company Read More