3.

What assumptions about international politics are shared by neoliberals and

neorealists? What are the significant differences between these two theories?

Common assumptions
 States operate in an anarchic (disorderly) international system where there is no central authority
unlike what exists within states
 States are rational actors( capable of thinking in terms of costs and benefits) and unitary
actors( sole actors- no other force within state can substitute its position).
 States establish regimes, not private actors. Even regimes formed through the initiative of non-
state actors require the approval and support of the state.
 Regimes are a reflection of the extent of cooperation that exists in the int.system.
 Regimes promote international order.

The differences
neo-realists and neo-liberals agree that the international system is anarchic. The major point of contention
is that neo-liberals are sure such a system will not constrain the foreign policy options of the state to simple
survival, with neo-realists essentially believing the opposite (ibid). As neo-realists have the idea that man
by nature has a restless desire for power (Keohane 1986 pp. 211-212), cooperation becomes more difficult
to achieve, because in trying to gain power a state will upset another state in doing so. Neo-liberals agree
that states act in their own interests, but have a greater belief in cooperation, for the very reason that “it is
in the self-interest of each [actor] to cooperate” However, neo-realists are certain that cooperation “will
not happen unless states make it happen” (Baylis and Smith 2001, p. 190). It is unlikely that states will often
“make it happen” because, from the viewpoint of the state, involvement in international cooperation and a
strengthening of your own position rarely go hand in hand..
Additionally, following cooperation, we have the debate between the two theories about the importance
of absolute and relative gains, with focus on the latter proving a considerable obstruction to cooperation.
Neo-realists speak of how vital relative gains are in state considerations, or to put it another way, states
“are compelled to ask not “will both of us gain?” but “who will gain more?”” (Mingst 2004, p. 69) As
highlighted by Tim Dunne in a recent lecture, this neo-realist philosophy can be seen in mercantilist
economics. To illustrate this point, if a state adopted a mercantilist approach they would rather that their
own economic growth stood at 3% and rival states at 3%, than that their own economy grew by 5% and
their rivals’ by 6%. In other words, under neo-realist thought states simply want to gain a comparative
advantage, whatever that may be, ahead of performing very well along with other states Neo-liberals, on
the other hand, are sure states are happy to have any gain for themselves. This is a focus on absolute gains,
i.e. “state leaders will accept any accord that makes the state better off regardless of the gain achieved by
any other state” (www.ssc.upenn.edu). For example, the Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi happily
accepted that “we are better off… +without Saddam Hussein”, yet at the same time America probably gains
more from the democratisation of Iraq as “terrorists will suffer a dramatic defeat” (www.bbc.co.uk).
The next area of debate is of the respective importance of capabilities (essentially power) and interests.
Neo-realists “are likely to emphasise capabilities more than intentions” (Baldwin 1993, p. 7). Clearly, power
is of the utmost importance to neo-realists, as the fact that the US and the USSR were the two cold war
superpowers “explains the similarity in their behaviour [at the time]” (Baylis and Smith 2001, p. 185).. On
the other hand, any assertion about capability “begs two vital questions-“capability to get whom to do
what?”” (Baldwin 1993, p. 17) If these questions cannot be answered satisfactorily, then a dent in the
crucial neo-realist argument that capabilities help shape state behaviour can be found. Neo-liberals are
keen to say how vital intentions and interests are to state behaviour. The notable neo-liberal Stein argues
that “capabilities count only insofar as they affect the preferences and intentions of states” (Baldwin 1993,
p. 8). I feel that it is essential to point out that it is rather dangerous to assume that states always know
exactly what their capabilities are. Mingst describes power as “the ability to influence others” (Mingst
2004, p. 321). The clear potential for capabilities to affect the intentions of states supports this argument of
states and the neo-liberals. This conviction that capabilities are not important in themselves, only for
intentions and interests, is perhaps the most convincing of all the neo-liberal arguments,
Finally, we have somewhat different views on international institutions and regimes. With both of these,
there are a clear set of rules for state behaviour (Baylis and Smith 2001, p. 189). While neo-realists have
not exactly derided institutions and regimes, they believe that neo-liberals have overestimated their
importance and believe themselves that states only “work to establish these regimes and institutions if
they serve their interests” (Baylis and Smith 2001, p. 192), not if they do not. With regard to this neo-realist
argument, it is worth bearing in mind that the ordering principle of the international system is anarchy
(Baylis and Smith 2001, p. 185). Anarchy is defined as “a situation where nobody obeys laws or rules”
(Hanks 1993). This may be a somewhat simplistic definition, but it is clear nonetheless that institutions and
regimes cannot get round this dominance of anarchy in the international system. The fact that an
institution such as the UN could not stop the Iraq war would appear to support the neo-realist argument
very well. As I have touched upon earlier, neo-liberals believe institutions and regimes facilitate
cooperation, and that institutions “moderate state behaviour” (Mingst 2004, p. 85). Furthermore, neo-
liberals believe institutions “make it easier to punish cheaters” (Baldwin 1993, p. 124). This may be true
when they are effective, but unfortunately a lot of the time they are not. Not only were they ineffective
over Iraq, but going back in history, the League of Nations failed “to take assertive action against Japanese,
Italian, and German aggression in the 1930s” (Baylis and Smith 2001, p. 56).

4. Write an essay on Marxist theories of international relations.

Marxist international relations theories are paradigms which reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict

or cooperation, instead focusing on the economic and material aspects.
According to Marxism, capitalism is a mode of production of a specific historical period- after slavery and
feudalism. In capitalism everything is commoditized and has an exchange value. One cannot understand
world politics without understanding the hidden workings of global capitalism. The powerful and the
wealthy prosper at the expense of the poor and powerless. This has been proven by the rise in inequalities
after globalization.
The following are the four Marxist theories:
1. World system theory:
World system theory was mainly developed by Immanuel Wallerstein in the 70s and 80s.
World-system refers to the international division of labor, which divides the world into core countries,
semi-periphery countries and the periphery countries. Core countries focus on higher skill, capital-intensive
production, and the rest of the world focuses on low-skill, labor-intensive production and extraction of raw
materials.
Two types of world systems exist- world empires and world economies. In the first, a centralized political
system uses its power to redistribute resources from peripheral areas to central core area. In the latter,
resource redistribution is done by the market. But in both the cases, resources are transferred from the
periphery to the core.
All social institutions are continually adapting and changing in tune with the dynamic world-system.
Spatially, different regions play different roles- core, periphery and semi-periphery with characteristics of
both the core and the periphery playing an intermediary role. It supplies labor to the core, prevent wage
rise and provides home for industries that cannot function profitably in the core. It plays a stabilizing role.
Temporally, capitalist world economy passes through recurrent periods of expansion and contraction. It
also experiences contradictions like under consumption. If workers wages are reduced, so also their
purchasing power as they are also consumers. Wallerstein also talks about crisis in capitalism that will lead
to the emergence of a new system that is more equitable.
2. Gramscianism:
This has emerged from the work of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci from his remarkable Prison Notebooks.
The key question which animated Gramsci’s theoretical work was why had it proven to be so difficult to
promote revolution in Western Europe the answer to which revolves around his use of the concept of
Hegemony. It describes the most powerful state of the international system.
Gramsci adopts power as a centaur, half beast, half man: a mixture of coercion and consent. Marxists had
concentrated exclusively on the coercive practices and capabilities of the state. The fear of coercion kept
the exploited and alienated society from rising up and overthrowing the system that was cause of their
suffering.
Gramsci said it applies to the developing world, but not to the developed where it was maintained also
through consent. Consent comes from hegemony, by which the moral, cultural and political values are
assimilated by the subordinate groups as their own. According to him, dominant ideologies become
sedimented in society to the extent that they take on the status of unquestioned common sense. Consent
is manufactured through civil society-media, educational institutions, churches, voluntary organizations
For Gramsci, one has to take the superstructure seriously, not only matter as the foundation, but the
interaction between socio-economic relations and political and cultural practices (historic bloc).
If the hegemony of the ruling class is a key element in the perpetuation of its dominance, then society can
only be transformed if that hegemonic position is successfully challenged which entails a counter
hegemonic struggle in civil society.
3. Critical theory:
It has developed out of the work of Frankfurt School.
It grew out of attempts from within the Marxist tradition to understand why the optimism of an earlier
generation, who have believed in the inevitability of emancipatory transformation, had proven to be
disastrously misplaced.
It concentrated on questions relating to culture, bureaucracy, the social basis and the nature of
authoritarianism, and the structure of the family, and on exploring such concepts as reason and rationality
theories of knowledge, etc. The critical theory is almost entirely super structural.
They say that workers cannot change their conditions as they have been absorbed by the capitalist system-
one dimensional man and society to which vast majority simply cannot begin to conceive an alternative.
They are mainly concerned with emancipation that fully reckons with human capacities and capabilities.
New technologies are new forms of domination.
They called for the un-Marxian doctrine of reconciliation with nature- man’s domination over nature and
domination over other men inter-related.
Habermas who is influenced by them Frankfurt theoreticians says the route to emancipation lies through
communicative action- a form of radical, deliberative democracy.
Andrew Linklater drew on Habermas- calls for a moral order in which the citizens share the same duties
and obligations towards the non-citizens as they towards their fellow citizens. He equates emancipation
with the process in which the borders of the sovereign state lose their ethical and moral significance.
Cox says that hegemony also works internationally. The dominant powers have exercised their hegemony
and have imposed a world order that is maintained through a combination of coercion and consent.
4. New Marxism:
This is the work of writers who derive their ideas more directly for Marx’s own writings.
Bill Warren focused on imperialism and the rise of third world capitalism. He deploys Marx’s analysis of
capitalism and colonialism to criticize some of the central ideas of dependency and world system theorists.
Capitalism according to him was fulfilling its historic role in the periphery by rapidly developing the means
of production and, crucially for a future transition to socialism, facilitating the emergence of urban working
class. He argues that we should not be anti capitalist in situations where capitalist development is
increasing levels of productivity and making material improvements to living standards.
Justin Rosenberg focused on capitalism and global social relations. He seeks to develop an alternate
approach which understands historical change of world politics as a reflection of transformations in the
prevailing relations of production. For him, sovereignty and anarchy reflect particular features of capitalist
era.
Common Features:
• The social world should be analyzed as a totality, not in fragments. Start from the simplest of social
relations and build on them to grasp complexity.
• Processes of historical changes are reflection of economic changes in society, especially the tension
between the means of production and the relations of production.
• Society is characterized by class conflict- between the capitalists and the workers.
• Commitment to emancipation, not pure scholarship. Knowledge for action.

6. Feminist contributions to IR
IR was a latecomer to the humanities and social science disciplines that have been profoundly affected by
feminist interventions since the 1960s. In 1988 the concerns of feminist interventions into the discipline
were largely of two kinds: first, to demonstrate the gender bias inherent in the mainstream theoretical
approaches and research agendas within the study of international politics; second, to demonstrate how
bringing women and gender into analysis of the international shifted conceptual boundaries and altered
preconceptions about what was relevant to understanding, explaining and judging international affairs.

• Tickner argued that Morgenthau’s principles privileged masculinity by giving priority to the terms in
the binary divisions that have been traditionally associated with masculine attributes and values.
• Also, the abstraction and idealization involved in the reduction of the meaning of international
politics to the pursuit of national interest in terms of power, did not allow any recognition of the
ways in which gendered relations of power might play a part in the international arena
• In this vein, feminists argued for a reformulation of conceptions of the state, power, interest and
security in ways that were neither trapped into hierarchical binary divisions nor assumed to be
objective. For example, the traditional sharp distinction between inter-state and intra-state politics
confined the relevance of social and economic structures to the internal politics of states. In the
context of the international realm, states were considered as sui generis creatures, operating
according to a logic dictated by anarchy regardless of their internal constitution. The idea of a
sharp distinction between state as opposed to inter-state politics was undermined by work which
traced the ways in which gendered relations of power enabled practices of diplomacy and war,
supposedly specific to the international domain, for instance in the roles of diplomats’ wives, or of
prostitutes in the Philippines servicing American military bases
• Tickner reformulated Morgenthau’s principles to include a conception of power as enabling and
not only as power over. Sylvester rethought security/insecurity through a focus on women’s
peace activism at Greenham and women’s cooperatives in Zimbabwe, arguing for the need for a
more flexible understanding which encompassed economic and family domains as well as the
realm of inter-state politics
• 1988- bringing women in
• 1998- intersectionality and compexity of gender. Intersectional analysis involves the concurrent
analyses of multiple, intersecting sources of subordination/oppression, and is based on the
 premise that the impact of a particular source of subordination may vary, depending on its
combination with other potential sources of subordination (or of relative privilege).
• 2008 - Men and masculinity
Contributions
• Feminists have successfully demonstrated how the lives of sex workers, domestic servants, home-
based workers and those who work at unremunerated caring and reproductive labor, are intertwined
with global politics and the global economy
• They have also suggested that the security of states is sometimes dependent on rendering insecure the
lives of certain, often marginalized, people
• They also demonstrated how the Global capitalist economy could not function without unremunerated
and under-remunerated labor, the majority of which is performed by women.
• IR feminists have also pointed to the inadequacies of social scientific methodologies for answering
many of the questions they want to ask. For example, IR feminists are drawn to ethnographic
fieldwork and linguistic text analysis, methodologies that are rarely used in social scientific IR.
• Indeed IR itself (in its traditional un- or non-gendered form) is also so identified and critiqued. Hooper’s
Manly States argues that the two world politics as a power ridden and violent process, and IR itself as a
lens through which it is studied construct each other in ongoing dialogue and representation.
• Barry Buzan & Lene Hansen (2009) note that the first glimmer of concern with women and security
within international relations and peace studies was a site of tension: in the 1970s and into the 1980s,
women were not on the agenda of international relations at all. Peace theorists embraced the
concept of structural violence but also excluded women from their discussions. There are now new
inclusion/exclusion tensions within feminist international relations and its security wing. In this article
I address two tensions: (1) concern to maintain the stance that security is a peace issue as some
venture systematically into feminist war studies, and (2) a tendency to issue harsh judgments of
feminists whose views challenge the accommodation of cultural difference. I briefly consider examples
of these two tensions and suggest ways to work with and beyond the structure of international
relations to evolve (feminist) security studies further. That is, although militarization, militarized
masculinity, women in the armed forces and the effects of war on women have been considered,
feminism has positioned itself outside war, above it, and in ethical belligerence to it, despite also
expressing commitment to gender- and women-inclusive research. A new generation of feminist
security thinking is exposing the tensions around studying war by bringing once-neglected women
into security research: women who participate in the political violence of war.

7. What is International Law? What jurisdictions and immunities are recognised in

international law?
International law is a body of laws, regulations, and accepted practices by which different nations
throughout the world interact with each other as well as with their own citizens and citizens of other
countries. There are two basic categories of International Law, public International Law and
private International Law, although the two tend to overlap frequently. Public International Law deals with
relationships between different nations or between a nation and persons from another country.
Private International Law generally deals with individual concerns, such as civil or human rights issues, not
only between a government and its own citizens but also in how its citizens are treated by other nations.

International law is developed and agreed upon by those that make up the international system, but not
every nation state is a member or has a part in the process. Most nations are said to comply
with International Law, but that appears questionable considering the number of human rights violations
still occurring around the world. While the international community does attempt to hold all nations
to International Law, it is not always feasible. Force may be necessary in order to ensure compliance, and
the international community is generally against the use of force except in the dire circumstances.

There are also cultural issues that play a part in acceptance of and compliance with International Law.
Some nations have a theocratic, or religious, government rather than a secular one and feel more bound to
the tenets of their faith than to man-made law. In some cases, what most of the world views as human
rights violations according to International law, may be viewed by some nations as acceptable actions or
punishments prescribed by religion. This can create very sensitive situations.

The United Nations (UN) is probably the most well recognized of all international institutions. It has

influence over the world community as a whole as well as individual nation. The UN is supposed to
establish and protect peace and cooperation between nations and to ensure that people are treated
humanely by their own as well as by other governments and groups.

While many nations have agreed to the UN Charter, they still retain sovereignty. Few would agree to live
completely under UN rule, especially in light of recent scandals and the inability of the institution to
achieve its goals. The United Nations has unfortunately been plagued by scandals and perceived
incompetence over the years. Critics give the Oil for Food program and the ineffectiveness in protecting
human rights in the Rwanda genocide and more recently the Darfur region of Sudan, as examples.

As the world seems to grow smaller, with people interacting on a global scale, International Law seems to
make sense. However, it must continue to evolve and it must be applied even-handedly. It is also necessary
for those with the duty to enforce it to be seen as being up to the task.

Jurisdiction
• power of a State to prescribe and enforce criminal and regulatory laws - ordinarily based on the
territorial principle,
• also claim jurisdiction based upon the nationality principle, even when in outside territory
• There is also a very narrow category of crimes – including genocide and war crimes - over which
States may assert jurisdiction based upon the universality principle, which gives all States
jurisdiction irrespective of nationality or location of the offence.
• Almost all States claim jurisdiction under the protective principle, over acts committed outside their
territory that are prejudicial to its security, such as treason, espionage, and certain economic and
immigration offences.
• Controversially, very few States have applied the passive personality principle, which establishes
jurisdiction based on the nationality of the victim. States have asserted jurisdiction over terrorist
acts outside their territory directed against their nationals, thereby basing jurisdiction on a
combination of the protective and passive personality principles.
• A person who is alleged to have committed the offence established in the treaty (e.g, hijacking of
an aircraft) is present in their territory, a State Party to the treaty is under an obligation to take the
persons into custody, and to either prosecute them or extradite them to another State Party that
has jurisdiction over the offence. If two or more States have jurisdiction over a particular offence,
they are said to have concurrent jurisdiction. In such cases the State which is most likely to
prosecute the offender is the State which has custody over him.
• No jurisdiction within the territorial sovereignty of another State
 • The police of State A cannot enter the territory of State B to arrest a person who has committed a
crime in State A. if a crime takes place in the territorial sea of a coastal State, no State other than
the coastal State my intercept and arrest the ship carrying the offenders.
• Bilateral treaties for the extradition of alleged offenders. Sending them without such treaties is
known as rendition
• The high seas and outer space are outside the territorial jurisdiction of any State. ships, aircraft and
spacecraft are subject to the jurisdiction of the “flag State”, or State of registration and cannot be
boarded without consent- the only exception piracy.
Immunities
• Official representatives of one State should not be subject to the jurisdiction of another State-law
of the sea provides that warships are subject only to the jurisdiction of the flag State. If they violate
the innocent passage principle, you can only escort them out of your territorial area
• Foreign sovereigns/ diplomats immune from criminal jurisdiction of the host state.
• immunity belongs to the sending State and not to the diplomat, it can be waived by the sending
State
• right to expel any diplomatic agent from its country by declaring them persona non grata, but
cannot enter embassy premises without consent even in emergencies
8. Why do we need regimes? Distinguish between the realist and liberal-
institutional approaches to regime formation.
Definition: Stephen D. Krasner defined International Regimes as “Implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules
and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of
international relations”.
Principles: beliefs of fact, causation or rectitude
Norms: standards of behaviour- rights & obligations of states
Rules: designed to clarify resolve conflicts between principles and norms
Decision-making procedures: prescriptions for behaviour
Need for Regimes:
 Regimes stand for rule-governed activity in our complex world in different issue-specific areas.
 If International relations are characterized by anarchy it is the existence of regimes that minimizes
the bad effects of anarchy.
 Regimes serve crucial functional needs in international relations. Powerful regimes are considered
by some scholars as independent actors in international politics.
 Although ultimately states create and sustain regimes, regimes can exert influence in world
politics that is independent of state sovereignty.
 In cases where they are organized by means of treaties among countries, regimes provide an
important source of formal international law. Regimes themselves can also be subjects of
international law.
 In cases where they shape the behavior of states, the most influential regimes can also be a source
of customary international law. In this light, some liberal scholars see in regimes the early seeds of
peaceful world governance, likephilosopher Immanuel Kant's idea of perpetual peace through a
federation of world's states.
Liberal-institutional approaches to regime formation:
 It is an interest-based approach - neutral and most dominant in regime theory.
 It de-emphasizes the role of power in regime formation- less worried about cheating – free riding.
 Adopts a problem-solving approach.
 Transaction cost reduction- multilateral regimes better than bilateral ones on that count.
  When all states expect the other participants to cooperate, the probability of sustaining
cooperation increases dramatically.
 They focus more on environmental, trade and communication regimes.
Neoliberals believe that realists neglect the degree to which countries share interests and the iterative
nature of state relations.
 Realists err by implicitly modeling the world using the classic single-play prisoner's dilemma, in
which the payoff structure makes defection a dominant strategy for both players.
 The difference between this model and reality is that states are not like prisoners, states must
continually cooperate whereas prisoners will never see one another again.
 One's decisions today, then, have future consequences. Mutual cooperation is thus rational: the
sum of relatively small cooperative payoffs over time can be greater than the gain from a single
attempt to exploit your opponent followed by an endless series of mutual defections.
In the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, the actors' behavior is determined by the following assumptions:
1. States are rational, unitary, gain maximizing actors, living in anarchy and ridden by the security dilemma.
2. There are future consequences for present actions. The prisoner's dilemma is not a one-shot event.
Thus;
3. It is in the interest of states to cooperate in the present because, in the future, other states will defect on
them (Tit-for-Tat strategy). Thus;
4. The theory presupposes that states are concerned with absolute gains, that is, states do not consider the
gains or losses of other states in their utility analysis. In contrast, neorealists argue that states are
concerned with relative gains. That is, states are concerned with the advantages they gain versus the
advantages of other states in the anarchic system.
Probably the most famous neoliberal IR theorist Robert Keohane argues that international regimes can
increase probability of cooperation by:
A. Providing information about the behavior of others by monitoring the behavior of members and
reporting on compliance.
 Regimes clearly define what constitutes a defection and often clearly prescribe punishments for
defection.
 This reduces the fear that the state is being exploited by other members of the regime and
minimizes the chance for misunderstanding. Prescribing sanctions reduces the incentive to secretly
defect.
B. Reducing transaction costs.
 By institutionalizing cooperation, regimes can reduce the cost of future agreements. By reducing
the cost of reaching an agreement, regimes increase the likelihood of future cooperation.
C. Generating the expectation of cooperation among members.
 By creating iteration and the belief that interaction will continue for the foreseeable future,
regimes increase the importance of reputation and allow for the employment of complex
strategies.
Realist approaches to regime formation
 Power is the main factor behind regime formation and efficiency
 Regimes generate differential benefit for states, mainly in favour of states dominating the
international system (relative gains).
 Therefore Realists argue that regimes are only efficient if they serve the interests of the hegemony.
 The main purpose of regimes is they promote a world order in the international system.
 Regimes are an instrument for states to deal with the anarchy, especially in areas in which
unilateral action will not lead to a positive outcome (like the battle of sexes).
  Realists and liberals differ over the nature of international cooperation and how much of a role
international institutions play.
 Liberals believe regimes (cooperation) comes about through a convergence of state interests, and
that international institutions help create that synthesis of interests, while realists believe that
regimes simply reflect the distribution of power in the international system.
 Powerful states create regimes to serve their security and economic interests. Regimes have no
independent power over states, particularly great powers. As such, regimes are simply intervening
variables between the real independent variable (power) and the observed outcome (cooperation).
 Realists focus on security regimes and diplomacy.

9. Trace the evolution of modern Diplomacy. Briefly state the functions of modern
diplomats.
Diplomacy refers to the ability or skill to negotiate. Negotiate between groups but is applied more exactly
to negotiations on the international scene between nations or groups of nations. Diplomacy is engaged in
by diplomats representing the views or interests of their nations.
Diplomacy is a communication process between international actors to prevent conflicts or resolve them
through nonviolent means.

Evolution of Diplomacy:
• The first modern diplomats were merchants who established commercial branches abroad. These
merchants collected information about the social and political life in the host countries and even
conducted negotiations with the political leaders of these host countries.

• Modern diplomacy's origins are often traced to the states of Northern Italy in the early
Renaissance, with the first embassies being established in the thirteenth century. Milan played a leading
role, especially under Francesco Sforza who established permanent embassies to the other cities states of
Northern Italy. The practice spread from Italy to the other European powers.
• As the diplomatic profession gained prominence and prestige, political leaders started to appoint
relatives and supporters for diplomatic posts.
• Francois de Cailleres, On the Manner of Negotiating with Princes, published in 1713 is perhaps the
first textbook on Diplomacy. This book included a list of qualities considered crucial for competent
performance of the tasks of diplomacy. These qualities included:
1. Natural qualities: agreeable character, intelligence, sense of humor, good looks, patience, self-control
2. Acquired qualities: Knowledge and understanding of history and society, languages, experience and
understanding of negotiations, etc.
• The elements of modern diplomacy slowly spread to Eastern Europe and arrived in Russia by the
early eighteenth century.
• The 18th and 19th centuries were the golden age of diplomacy.
• People like Talleyrand of France, Meternich of Austria-Hungary, Bismarck of Germany, D’Israeli of
Great Britain, and Thomas Jefferson of the United States have made their mark on the profession, making it
second in importance only to absolute monarchs.
• In the 20th century, The July-August 1914 crisis was a major test of traditional diplomacy, as
diplomats on all sides tried to find a way to avoid war.
• However, the domination of military considerations over diplomatic ones were responsible to the
outbreak of World War I, a war that nobody wanted and all sides tried to prevent.
• The scope and destructiveness of the war brought about some important new ideas about the
practice of diplomacy. President Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen points, which formed the platform for US
joining the war emphasized two important principles that were to guide diplomats following the war.
• The principle of public diplomacy and transparent agreements
• The formation of an international organization—the League of Nations—that is intended to help states
resolve conflicts peacefully
• Wilson’s principles helped shape the postwar agreements and influenced international diplomatic
practices in the 1920s. The 1920s were again a good era for diplomacy. Many disputes and conflicts were
managed through the use of negotiation and in some cases the League of Nations proved instrumental in
settling disputes between states. However, the rise of Hitler to power in Germany in February of 1933
introduced a new style of aggressive diplomacy into the European arena.
• Some of Woodrow Wilson’s ideas re-emerged in the negotiations leading up to the termination of
World War II, including the focus on public diplomacy and the formation of the United Nations.
• The diplomatic effort of the two superpowers centered on mobilizing allies to their respective
camps and on preventing existing allies from defecting to the opponent

Functions of Modern Diplomats

A diplomat is a person appointed by a state to conduct diplomacy with another state or international
organization.
The main functions of a modern diplomat are:
1. Representing the sending State in the receiving State;
2. Protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and its nationals, within the
limits permitted by international law;
3. Negotiations with the government of the receiving state;
4. Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving state, and reporting
thereon to the Government of the Sending State;
5. Promote friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their
economic, cultural and scientific relations.

 The main functions of diplomats revolve around the representation and protection of the interests
and nationals of the sending state, as well as the promotion of information and friendly relations.
• Diplomats in posts collect and report information that could affect national interests, often with
advice about how the home country government should respond. Then, once any policy response has
been decided in the home country's capital, posts bear major responsibility for implementing it.
• In this way, diplomats are part of the beginning and the end of each loop in the continuous process
through which foreign policy is made.

A brief description of a diplomat’s functions :

Advocacy
The home country will usually send instructions to a diplomatic post on what foreign policy goals to pursue,
but it is the diplomats overseas who need to take decisions on tactic :
• who needs to be influenced,
• what will best persuade them,
• who are potential allies and adversaries,
• and how it can be done.
In this operation, the intelligence, integrity, cultural understanding and energy of individual diplomats are
critical. Ideally, over their years of service, diplomats will have developed relationships grounded in trust
and mutual understanding with influential members of the country in which they are accredited. They will
have worked hard to understand the motives, thought patterns and culture of the other side.

Negotiation
The diplomat should be an excellent negotiator but, above all, a catalyst for peace and understanding
between peoples. The role is the principal element in the peaceful relations between states because its
scope ends when the fighting starts war and could, at best, act simultaneously.

Q 15. What is terrorism? How does it affect international politics?

There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. Common definitions of
terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a
religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants
(civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.
Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal
organizations for protection of rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism
though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group.
The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of
providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”. The concept of
terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to de-legitimize political or
other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use
of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).
Terrorism has occurred throughout history, but today the world is experiencing a global rebirth of attacks.
Today it no longer affects only small societies, such as isolated third world countries who fell victim to
regular terrorist attacks, but the whole world is becoming more familiar with Arab and Muslim names. The
terrorist violence that is on the rise today has informed citizen all over the world about different types of
terrorism. Also with the resurgence the world is experiencing of terrorism, the Nation's have been to do
what they can to eliminate terrorism.
After the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks against the US, the very discourse of international relations and global
politics has been transformed. Prior to Sept. 11th, the dominant issues were geo-economic in nature.
Globalization and humanitarian issues occupied the agendas of international summits and international
organizations. But now geopolitics and security concerns have once again become the central issue and
the “old language and institutions” of the cold war are shaping our thinking about global politics.
When we consider the ways that terrorism has impacted foreign relations, it becomes obvious that
terrorism rarely achieves the goals set out for it. In the 1970s Dan Rather reported on the CIA terrorist plot
to air-drop African swine fever, a devastating pathogen for pigs, onto the island of Cuba. The well-known
goal of the CIA was to destabilize Castro's government by destroying Cuba's primary source of meat.
While initially successful at making life harder for Cubans, the plan backfired. Castro used the terrorist
action as an opportunity to gain domestic support for locking up political dissidents. Despite logic, the CIA
continued its efforts to terrorize the Cuban people with more predictable results, including closer ties
between the USSR and Cuba, which served to heat up the Cold War.
Osama likewise had foreign policy goals in mind on September 11, 2001. He sought to destabilize the US
government, hoping it would abandon military bases in Saudi Arabia, stop supporting Israeli occupation of
Palestine, and end economic sanctions against Iraq. What actually happened is well-known as typical of
terrorist efforts. Radical neo-conservatives used the opportunity to deepen US involvement in the Islamic
world and roll back civil liberties at home. These are but two examples of the tendency of terrorism to lend
credibility to radical politicians of the left and right.
When radical politicians gain the support of their countrymen, always through fear or hate, domestic and
international laws fall from the radar. President Bush could never have ordered the invasion of Iraq without
the support of Americans afraid of Iraq's WMD. Castro could never have jailed and exiled all the dissidents
over the years without the support of the Cuban people afraid of CIA-sponsored terrorism carried out by
sleeper cells. Both of these instances are clear violations of the UN Charter agreement and international
human rights treaties.
The weakening of international law has the undesirable effect of strengthening the position of belligerent
politicians the world over. The weakening of international law makes us all less safe, including business.
The only safe investments in Iraq and Afghanistan right now is for private security firms. The collective
punishment of societies already containing terrorists makes the people's lives worse instead of better, thus
strengthening terrorist movements.
While we can only guess at the intentions of terrorist organizations, the results speak for themselves.
Despite this rare instance of sanity, the effects of terrorism on foreign relations follows a clear pattern.
Terrorism strengthens extremist politicians who then act unilaterally against other nations and heir own
people in violation of international laws and human rights. As a result foreign relations become more tense
and unpredictable, which further strengthens extremist politicians and the appeal of terrorist
organizations.

17)Write an essay on the evolution of development, poverty and hunger as central

issues in international politics highlighting the major debates in the field.
Ans.) IR and Marginalization of Third World Issues
 Traditionally security and development were kept separate. They were always considered as two
independent departments.
 Global underdevelopment neglected by realist and liberal scholars
 Dependency theorists highlighted North-South inequalities, but to no avail
 During the nineties debate on related areas- environment, gender, int. pol. Economy.
 In the nineties- contributions of post-colonial theorists, human security approach and greater focus
on development
 At the beginning of 21st century- greater attention to these issues – especially the uneven impact of
globalization – increasing inequalities within and between states as a result of liberalization and structural
adjustment policies
POVERTY
 The dominant Western view of poverty as synonymous with lack of enough cash to buy food –
feature of the Third World - Western conception of development as economic growth.
 Feminization of poverty describes a phenomenon in which women represent disproportionate
percentages of world’s poor. This concept is not only a consequence of lack of income, but is also the result
of the deprivation of capabilities and gender biases present in both societies and governments. This
includes the poverty of choices and opportunities, such as the ability to lead a long, healthy, and creative
life, and enjoy basic rights like freedom, respect, and dignity. Women’s increasing share of poverty is
related to the rising incidence of lone mother households.
 Solution to poverty- further integration of the world economy and women
 Alternative view-not lack of money, but spiritual values, community ties and availability of common
resources
 Western model of development on man and environment- E F Schumacher- Small is Beautiful
(1973).
 The redefinition of poverty by UNDP: income poverty (material) and human poverty (human
dignity, agency, opportunities and choices)
 Millennium Development Goals
IDEAS OF DEVELOPMENT
 Western dominant paradigm: Poverty is viewed as lack of cash-development which is synonymous
with growth within a free market international economy- evolution of a subsistence economy to modern
commodified ones- which provide unlimited growth idea and stages of economic growth which eventually
lead to exploitation of nature.
 Indicators are growth rate, per capita GDP etc.
 Process- top down, based on expert knowledge- large scale- advanced technology- expansion of
private sector
 Alternative View: poverty- lack of ability to meet needs (including non-material) through own
effort
 Belief in human well-being through sustainable procedures, keeping in mind the inherent value of
nature, cultural diversity, community ownership of commons, self-reliance and participation by the
marginalized
 Indicators: meeting material and non-material needs, environment protection – political
empowerment of the marginalized
 Process- bottom up, participatory, local knowledge and technology, small scale & protection of
commons
HUNGER
• Orthodox explanation of Hunger- Malthus in his Essay on the Principle of Population (1798)
focused on human population growth and food supply( population growth geometric – 2, 4, 8 & food
production arithmetic -2,3,4. Hence population growth is the cause of hunger
• Society focused explanation- It’s concern is with food distribution and not about enough food
• Third world produces food , but those who consume it are in the first world – per capita grain
consumption in the West very high compared to India and China
• Amartya Sen’s 1981 book – Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlements and Deprivation says
hunger is due to people not having the entitlement to eat rather than absence of enough to eat. He found
that famines like the Bangladesh Famine of 1974 had occurred even when there was high food production.
Those without purchasing power will go hungry- two groups are most vulnerable, namely landless laborers
in South Asia and pastoralists in SS Africa. In the feudal system the landless laborers had the possibility of
growing their own food, but now in a commercial economy they are vulnerable without any social security.
The entitlement debate also brings in the greater vulnerability of certain races ( eg. blacks) and people
( eg. disabled ) to hunger
In sum globalization can contribute to increased food production and increased hunger. What is the
answer? Globalization with a human face?

18. What is the ‘Tragedy of the Commons” and how can it be overcome? Illustrate
your answer with the help of examples.
The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals and
communities, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete
a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to
happen. This dilemma was first described in an influential article titled "The Tragedy of the Commons,"
written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968.
In brief, this notion shows how it is possible that rational individual actions can lead to irrational collective
practices resulting in catastrophic over exploitation of common resources. When access to a common
resource is open and unregulated, each user continues to have an individual interest in exploiting it to the
maximum. Each user gains the extra benefit of further resource extraction, while the cost of over
exploitation is shared by all of the communities that use the resources.
The notion of tragedy of the commons can be explained using a parable - of the use of common fish
resources. Consider a sea or a large lake on which many local fishing communities depend as a source of
food and income. Each fisher has an immediate interest in making as large a catch of fish as he/she can sell
or eat, in order to improve his or her standard of living. For centuries, this arrangement has worked
satisfactorily. Human population was sufficiently low and fishing technologies were sufficiently primitive,
that there was no over fishing. Gradually, living conditions improved and human populations grew,
increasing the number of people fishing and also the demand for the fish. At the same time, fishing
technologies improved. In recent years, the sea or lake has been fished at unsustainable levels, ant the
total fish stock is falling.
In spite of this, each fisher continues have an interest in maintaining or improving their catch. Each
fisher gains the full extra benefit of catching additional fish, but bears only a small part of the extra cost of
fishing a depleted fish stock because this cost is shared throughout the whole community. Even concerned
and environmentally aware fishers may be sorely tempted to continue to make large catches: they know
that even if they desist, others are likely to continue to maximize their own catches while they can. The
tragedy of the commons, in this parable is that this process continues until the fish stock is destroyed along
with the fishing communities that depended on it.
The tragedy of commons is that this depletion of ‘open access’ common resources can continue
remorselessly to its destructive conclusion, even if each user involved is well intentioned, well informed,
and exercising only its traditional and legal rights. Unilateral acts of public spirited restraint are insufficient
to tackle the problem. Many environmental problems of industrial society have a similar structure. The
owners of a factory have an interest in continuing to produce goods in the cheapest way, even if that
involves dispersing untreated pollutants into the rivers or atmosphere. The costs of pollution are
externalized, since the polluters do not have to include them in its production cost.

Overcoming tragedy of the commons:

One traditional response is to ‘exploit and move on’. This has been the approach taken by the ‘slash and
burn’ agricultural communities in the tropical forests, cattle herdsmen in Africa and some international
timber companies. Increasingly, however, this is no longer an option. The environment cannot recover and
there are few places to move on to.
Another type of response is ‘privatization’, giving the new owner an incentive to enforce its sustainability.
Hardin himself drew the conclusion that the solution to tragedy of the commons was a change in property
rights, arguing that the problem of the commons is that they are owned by everyone and that no one in
particular had the authority or the interest in managing them sustainably. Thus, in relation to the over
grazing of the common land, for example if the ownership of the common grazing land were divided among
the herd keepers, each of these would have a direct interest in maintaining the value of his/her own land
by gazing it at sustainable levels. Each would bear the full costs of any unsustainable practices, and each
would have the ability to control how his or her land was managed.
The third type of approach is to establish systems of ‘governance’ to prevent unsustainable or damaging
practices. This tackles the problem by regulating access to shared resources rather than by changing
patterns of ownership. It is applicable to widest range of problems. But it is clear that establishing any
norms, rules regulations, or taxes to tackle environmental problems is bound to be controversial,
particularly when traditional rules of access have to be made more restrictive. Nevertheless, the prospects
of overcoming them and establishing effective management could be expected to be greatly improved if
there is a strong hierarchical authority capable of taking decisions and enforcing them on dissenting
groups.
Liberal institutionalists tend to see wider scope for developing robust environmental regimes and
emphasize their potential role in establishing collective environmental governance to tackle problems like
tragedy of the commons involving collaboration among states that fear free riding or defection by
competitors.
The "Coasian" solution to the problem is also a popular one, whereby the people formerly using the
common each gain their own individual part of it instead - so it is no longer a common - and do not have to
support one another so as not to deplete the resource.

20. Are Democracies Intrinsically Peaceful and Do Not

Fight Each Another?
Do democracies really tend to maintain a mutual peace? Or is this a delusion that will
endanger any nation so foolish as to trust it? Democratic peace theorists have discovered a powerful
empirical generalization: Democracies rarely go to war or engage in militarized disputes with one
another. Although there have been several attempts to challenge these findings, the correlations
remain robust. There are quite a considerable number of wars which have been fought between
democracies. But some point out that those countries weren’t democratic, not really and then the
argument gets into who was or was not democratic. Let us consider few wars which may or may
not have been fought between two democracies
Franco-American Naval War, 1797-1799
 Democracies : United States vs. France
 Rebuttal : Historians call it a Quasi War, it was little more than a trade war.
 Counter-Rebuttal : According to the official Navy statistics, the US lost 20 sailors and
marines in the Quasi war. Compared to the numbers involved in the Gulf War, it was
bloodier

Franco-Roman War, 1849

 Democracies : Roman Republic vs. France
 Rebuttal : Both democratic regimes were less than a year old, and therefore don't count as
stable democracies.
 Counter-Rebuttal : It’s clear that terms are redefined in order to exclude an exception.

Occupation of Veracruz, 1861-62

 Democracies : Great Britain vs. Mexico
 Rebuttal : Britain assisted France and Spain in seizing Veracruz from democratic Mexico
(Juarez had been properly elected.), but this was achieved without fighting.
 Counter-Rebuttal : An invasion is war, even if the defenders don't fight back.
First Indo-Pak War, 1947-49
 Democracies : India Vs. Pakistan
 Rebuttal : These regimes hadn't been around long enough to qualify as a stable
democracies.

Fourth Indo-Pak War (Kargil War), 1999

 Democracies : India vs. Pakistan
 Rebuttal : Those weren't Pakistanis. They were independent, volunteer guerrilla forces
operating out of Pakistan, not regular troops.
 Counter-Rebuttal : According to CNN it was supported by Pakistani artillery firing over the
border into the neighboring democracy of India. The nations' air forces raided back and
forth regularly.

Peloponnesian War
 Democracies : Athens vs. Sparta
 Rebuttal : They were both actually slave states and so not true democracies( so was the Us
until about 150 years ago). They were independent, volunteer guerrilla forces operating out
of Pakistan, not regular troops.
 Counter-Rebuttal : The argument behind the democratic peace is that the people doing the
fighting are also the ones doing the ruling and so don't want to bear the costs of warfare. In
Athens and Sparta citizens, not slaves did the fighting.

Defining Democracy
Basically it all depends on how “Democracy” is defined. If it is defined as a system of
government in which policy is set by unpunished, unrestricted debate among the citizens of a nation
and put into action by their elected representatives, then all of the above nations are democratic. On
the other hand, if you start narrowing the definitions, then obviously you'll get fewer democracies
to work with, so of course you're going to have fewer wars between democracies.
 If slavery and democracy are to be mutually exclusive, then no major power was a
democracy until the French Revolution, and the United States passed nearly its entire first
century without being a proper democracy.
 If it is insisted that a democracy must be free from all corruption, bribery, vote fraud etc
then even a fine old democracy like the United States fails the test as its 1960 and 1972
presidential elections had enough questionable activities.
 Some would avoid labeling a nation democratic until after the first peaceful, orderly transfer
of power to the opposition following an electoral defeat. This makes little sense as one can't
be sure whether the elections are real or just for show, until ruling elite steps down. Under
this rule USA didn't become a democracy until 1801, a quarter century after the Declaration
of Independence. West Germany didn't become a democracy until 1969, 20 years after the
Allied occupation ended.
  If women's suffrage is also considered to be an essential component of democracy, then no
nation was a democracy until the 20th Century. Switzerland didn't pass this criteria until
1971 (and at the local level until 1990). France fought two World Wars without being a
proper democracy.

If all the above conditions are imposed on democracy, it significantly trims the number of
democracies in the world at any given time.

Democratic Peace Theory

Democratic peace theory claims that democracies rarely, or even never fight one another
democracy. It does not assert that democratic states are less war-prone than non-democracies; they
are not. Several explanations have been offered why democracies rarely fight with each other: that
democratic leader must answer to the voters for war, and therefore have an incentive to seek
alternatives; that such statesmen have practice settling matters by discussion, not by arms, and do
the same in foreign policy; that democracies view non-democracies as threatening, and go to war
with them over issues which would have been settled peacefully between democracies ; and that
democracies tend to be wealthier than other countries, and the wealthy tend to avoid war, having
more to lose.

The term "democratic peace theory" is used because it is a convenient shorthand term.
However, strictly speaking, the claim that democracies do not fight democracies is a proposition, or
hypothesis, rather than a theory. Democratic peace "theory" proposes a causal relationship between
an independent variable (democratic political structures) and the dependent variable (the absence of
war between democratic states).However; it is not a true theory because the causal relationship
between the independent and dependent variables is not proven.
Normative Logic
According to normative logic one argues that one important effect of democracy is to
socialize political elites to act on the basis of democratic norms whenever possible. In essence,
these norms mandate nonviolent conflict resolution and negotiation in a spirit of live-and-let-live.
Because democratic leaders are committed to these norms they try, as far as possible, to adopt them
in the international arena. This in turn means that democracies both trust and respect one another
when a conflict of interest arises between them. Sentiments of respect derive from a conviction that
the other state adheres to the same norms and is therefore just and worthy of accommodation. Trust
derives from the expectation that the other party to the dispute is also inclined to respect a fellow
democracy. Together these two causal mechanisms:
 Norm externalization and
 Mutual trust and respect

-make up the normative logic and explain why democracies rarely fight one another.

Institutional Logic
According to the institutional logic, democratic institutions and processes make leaders
accountable to a wide range of social groups that may, in a variety of circumstances, oppose war.
Accountability derives from the fact that political elites want to remain in office, that there are
opposition parties ready to capitalize on unpopular policies, and that there are regular opportunities
for democratic publics to remove elites who have not acted in their best interests. Moreover, several
features of democracies, such as freedom of speech and open political processes, make it fairly easy
for voters to rate a government’s performance. In short, monitoring and sanctioning democratic
leaders is a relatively straightforward matter.Because they are conscious of their accountability,
democratic leaders will only engage in large-scale violence if there is broad popular support for
their actions.

Flaws in the Normative Logic

Norm Externalization
Democratic norms narrowly circumscribe the range of situations in which democracies can
justify the use of force. They have fewer reasons for waging war, but it doesn’t mean that they will
go to war less often compared to other states. Another justification for the use of force is
intervention in the affairs of other states or peoples, either to prevent blatant human rights
violations or to bring about conditions in which liberal values can take root.
Trust and Respect
There are cases which suggest that democracies do not have a powerful inclination to treat
each other with trust and respect when their interests clash. Instead, they tend to act like any other
pair of states, bargaining hard, issuing threats, and, if they believe it is warranted, using military
force. American interventions( in the cold war interventions) to destabilize fellow democracies in
the developing world provide good evidence that democracies do not always treat each other with
trust and respect when they have a conflict of interest.
Flaws in Institutional Logic
The institutional logic rests on the claim that democratic institutions make leaders
accountable to various groups that may, for one reason or another, oppose the use of force. Now the
question is whether democratic leaders are more accountable than their autocratic counterparts? If
autocrats and democrats are equally accountable or autocrats are more accountable than democrats,
then there are good reasons to believe that accountability does not exert the effect that democratic
peace theorists have suggested.
A leader’s accountability is determined by the consequences as well as the probability of
losing office for adopting an unpopular policy. This being the case, there is no a priori reason to
believe that a leader who is likely to lose office for fighting a losing or costly war, but unlikely to be
exiled or killed in the process, should feel more accountable for his policy choices than a leader
who is unlikely to lose office but can expect to be punished severely in the unlikely event that he is
in fact removed.
Mathematical Probability of Interdemocratic war
By pure mathematics, we wouldn't expect too many interdemocratic wars anyway. The odds
of an event happening (a democracy going to war) are considerably higher than the odds of that
same event happening twice (two democracies going to war). For example in 1967 there were 126
sovereign nations (considerably big enough) among them 33 democracies of the same minimum
size. The odds of
 Two democracies going to a war = 6.8%
 Two non-democracies going to a war = 54.4%
 One democracy and One non-democracy going to war = 38.7%
Summary
Democratic Peace Theory is just a hypothesis (the validity of which may be checked by
considering history) and may not be true all the time but it provides a reasonably good explanation
mostly because of its normative logic and institutional logic and also as odds of interdemocratic war
is quite low.