Understanding International Relations (IR) - Essay Example

Understanding International Relations (IR) Understanding International Relations (IR) International relations concept (IR) is concerned with the relationships existing among countries, the roles of sovereign states and different organisations including multinational corporations. International relations has been explained widely using the sovereignty concept and the globalisation concept. This seeks to determine the concept that is most appropriate for understanding IR. Globalisation Concept and International Relations Globalisation is a relatively new concept that raises pertinent issues in as far as international relations is concerned. The understanding of globalisation is significant in establishing a connection of how it has influenced the development of international relations concept. A unidirectional understanding of globalisation is, however, difficult as the subject is marred by an ever-increasing controversy. Baylis, Smith and Owens (2010) argue that globalisation is a historical process and one that has helped in bringing distant communities together. Consequently, this has contributed towards the expansion of power politics across regions and continents. In essence, globalisation has condensed the world by making it an integrated economy; effectively diminishing geopolitical boundaries. Rose (1998) argues that globalisation closely relates to neo-liberalism and capitalism and, as such, there is doubt as to whether globalisation promotes wealth or greed as Marxists suggest. Modernisation is seen as being highly critical of globalisation. Following the innovation of such technologies like the Internet and mobile devices, and the modern means of communication like air travel, movement of information, transfer of goods and services is now quicker and efficient. The theory of interconnectedness within the globe has evolved and, as a result, led to convenience of conducting business across the globe while reducing costs (Rose, 1998). This clearly reflects that international relations concept should accommodate globalisation as it brings more people closer to wide areas. Globalisation has asserted pressure on state-centric theories is making them less relevant. An assessment of non-governmental organisations, for instance, European Union and Transnational corporations such as Coca-Cola operate globally with very high turnovers. As a result, they can influence policy largely due to their high-profit margins that is capable of benefitting the economy of the states in which they operate. Their influence, therefore, implies that the state-centric theories that have long been idolised are quickly losing their significance and paving way to globalisation to drive international relations. While realism postulates the significance of state-as-actors, it is becoming clear that states no longer have sovereign control over non-state actors capable of expanding and operating in different states. It is argued that the idea of the nation-state has lost significance in the wake of globalisation. Multinational organisations such as Coca Cola and transnational organisations, for instance, the United Nations have contributed immensely towards this loss. Accordingly, the state commands little power within the international system and, as such, one would critique theories such as constructivism having an influence in international relations theory. This serves to justify the claims that globalisation influences a state’s ability to make domestic decisions. In addition, the balance of power has been affected significantly by the forces of globalisation (Cynthia, 2013). The change in international relations concept following globalisation has seen the development and spread of liberalism and other western values across the world (Cynthia, 2013). Technology, in particular, has been quite instrumental in the promotion of those values, for example, through the media and internet channels. In addition, the continuing political changes going on in the world are all as a result of globalisation (Cynthia, 2013). For instance, globalisation has led to the spread of democracy across different continents with dictatorship quickly fall. Similarly, globalisation is seen to promote liberalism in the Middle East. Schmidt (2004) observes that the development of interdependence among different nations has been one of the key developments of international relations theory. In the course of globalisation, Schmidt (2004) says that Westphalian system characteristic of territorial states has seen a considerable decline whereas the interdependence has increased markedly. Whereas interdependence has its benefits, realists view it negatively due to their belief that states should be self-dependent. Accordingly, the realists regard inter-dependence among states as the cause of inequality since some states are seen to have power over others. As a result of their negative view of interdependence, they suggest the need for dominant power in international relations. For instance, in the introduction of the gold standard; the US was at the forefront in the international exchange of money (Schmidt, 2004). Sovereignty Concept and International Relations Burchill (2009) argues that a sovereign state needs to have four basic elements i.e. they need to have territoriality, control, Vatellian sovereignty and must recognise and be equally recognised by other states. The territoriality element of sovereignty dictates that a state’s governors must have a territory within which they exercise power. The territory is usually defined by the population governed. Accordingly, the territorial property of sovereignty helps in distinguishing a state and nations (Brown & Ainley, 2009). A nation in this perspective is used conventionally, is a term that raises lots of controversies. For instance, a state is often regarded stateless when it lacks a territory upon which its governors exercise control. Control, on the other hand, can be described as the distinct ability of a state to take charge of its affairs including legislation and the political order within a demarcated geographical area. Max Webber, for instance, claimed that a state is at liberty to deploy violence within a given territory. Schmidt (2002) posits that in exercising control, a state can use all the means within its powers including violence (in extreme cases) in controlling its internal affairs. The control element of sovereignty allows a nation the power to take care of its boundaries and monitor the activities going on within the state. For instance; traffic of people and goods, exercising control over diplomatic activities within the nation, and other communication and immigration activities (Cynthia, 2013). Vatellian sovereignty is simply the ability of a country to exercise autonomy. The element of sovereignty of a nation is akin to the principle of non-intervention. The principle rules that a state is supposed to recognise and allow other states to exercise their internal affairs as they dim fitly without any interference (Burchill, 2009). Mutual recognition element of sovereignty dictates that states must respect one other and embrace a peaceful coexistence amongst them. This can, however, be possible in the event that they the states are accepted in the wider international society. Mutual recognition is vital and forms the bedrock of international relations (Brown & Ainley, 2009). It is a fact that states do exist following their acceptance into the international community of states; in the recognition, usually their sovereignty is observed. The recognition given to a state by the United Nations adds only adds to seal the nation’s sovereignty. Usually, the sovereignty of a state is recognised by other sovereign nations accepting that state into the international community of states (Cynthia, 2013). For instance, it is only recently that Eritrea was recognised as a sovereign state following acceptance by the international community. The same case applies to the dissolution of the Soviet Union that occurred recently. The theories of realists and neo-liberalists seem to insinuate that the political landscape of the planet is pegged basic entities that are defined as sovereign states. Operation of these entities is dependent on the representation of the government (Rose, 1998). While the two theories have significant differences, both are nevertheless based on the sovereign state model in which case the sovereign state remains the key factor. It is also important to note that the concept of the sovereign state is one of the things considered in the formation of the international community framework that comprises the community of states (Burchill, 2009). The international relations concept is pegged on the relationship that exists between the states and the international society. It has been argued that through the mutual agreements between states and the international community, somehow the international community has found a way of solving issues by member states despite their sovereignty. This has especially occurred during wars, invasions and even reason d’états (Burchill, 2009). Understanding of International Relations Following the above explanations, one can easily figure out that the globalisation concept explains international relations better than the sovereignty concept. For one, almost all the aspects of the modern day society seem to have been influenced either directly or indirectly by globalisation. In addition, globalisation in its entirety is all about intensifying cross-border relations/interactions. Moreover, it looks at the interdependence between countries; consequently, this has a major impact on the international system (Baylis, Smith & Owens, 2010). Globalisation concept demonstrates interconnectedness of different states in the modern international system. The interconnectedness includes bodies such as the International Federation of Stock Exchange whose decisions have, in one way or another, impacted states all over the globe and the world economy. Even more importantly, globalisation has facilitated the opening of national borders and the subsequent implementation of free trade. The consequence of this is cohesion between states and reduction of conflicts (Schmidt, 2004). In a nutshell, therefore, it can be argued that the globalisation concept is quite explicit in as much as international relations is concerned. The increase in the level of dependence among states and their interconnectedness that are key to understanding international relations are captured well globalisation. Globalisation has equally contributed towards the solving of international problems. Intergovernmental organisations in conjunction with other private sector bodies that are a product of globalisation have, in particular, assisted in solving global problems and also creating global economies (Cynthia, 2013). References Baylis, J., Smith S. & Owens, P., 2010. The Globalization of World Politics, London: Oxford University Press. Brown, C., & Ainley K., 2009. Understanding International Relations 4th edition, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Burchill, S. et al., 2009. Theories of International Relations 4th edition. London: Palgrave. Cynthia, W., 2013. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction London: Routledge. Jill, S., 2010. An Introduction to International Relations Theory. London: Routledge Rose, G., 1998. Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy’, World Politics 51(1); 144-172. Schmidt, B., 2002. Anarchy, World Politics and the Birth of a Discipline, International Relations 16(1): 9-31. Schmidt, B.C., 2004. Realism as Tragedy, Review of International Studies, 30(3), 427-441. Read More