international relations meaning essay

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction
• Between the two world wars
• The postwar ascendancy of realism
• The behavioral approach and the task of integration
• Foreign policy and international systems
• The general-system perspective
• Structures, institutions, and levels of analysis
• Constructivism
• International political economy
• Scholarship and policy

international relations

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• FHSU Digital Press - Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to Political Science - International Relations
• Biology LibreTexts - International Relations
• Table Of Contents

Recent News

international relations , the study of the relations of states with each other and with international organizations and certain subnational entities (e.g., bureaucracies , political parties, and interest groups). It is related to a number of other academic disciplines , including political science , geography , history , economics , law , sociology , psychology , and philosophy .

Historical development

The field of international relations emerged at the beginning of the 20th century largely in the West and in particular in the United States as that country grew in power and influence. Whereas the study of international relations in the newly founded Soviet Union and later in communist China was stultified by officially imposed Marxist ideology , in the West the field flourished as the result of a number of factors: a growing demand to find less-dangerous and more-effective means of conducting relations between peoples, societies, governments, and economies; a surge of writing and research inspired by the belief that systematic observation and inquiry could dispel ignorance and serve human betterment; and the popularization of political affairs, including foreign affairs. The traditional view that foreign and military matters should remain the exclusive preserve of rulers and other elites yielded to the belief that such matters constituted an important concern and responsibility of all citizens. This increasing popularization of international relations reinforced the idea that general education should include instruction in foreign affairs and that knowledge should be advanced in the interests of greater public control and oversight of foreign and military policy.

This new perspective was articulated by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (1913–21) in his program for relations between the Great Powers following a settlement of World War I . The first of his Fourteen Points , as his program came to be known, was a call for “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at” in place of the secret treaties that were believed to have contributed to the outbreak of the war . The extreme devastation caused by the war strengthened the conviction among political leaders that not enough was known about international relations and that universities should promote research and teaching on issues related to international cooperation and war and peace.

International relations scholarship prior to World War I was conducted primarily in two loosely organized branches of learning: diplomatic history and international law. Involving meticulous archival and other primary-source research, diplomatic history emphasized the uniqueness of international events and the methods of diplomacy as it was actually conducted. International law —especially the law of war—had a long history in international relations and was viewed as the source of fundamental normative standards of international conduct. The emergence of international relations was to broaden the scope of international law beyond this traditional focal point.

Chapter 1 – Introduction to International Relations

Resources to accompany ‘Introduction to International Relations’ by Stephen McGlinchey. Chapter 1 of Foundations of International Relations (2022).

Please Consider Donating

Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.

E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!

Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.

Free International Relations Essay Examples & Topics

The modern world is deeply interconnected. The relationships between nation-states, non-governmental organizations, and multinational corporations are quite complex. International relations (or IR for short) are exactly the study of those relationships. They are concerned with issues such as global politics and foreign policy, as well as many others.

To write an international relations essay, you should learn about different theoretical frameworks. These theories help understand the interactions between states, the purpose of policies, the history of international systems, etc. Some of the main types of international relations theories are as follows:

Realism deals with “real life.” It attempts to emphasize the importance of national and international security. The fields that are studied most within this theory are history, political science, and economics.

Constructivism analyzes constructed state identities. It is involved with cultural studies as well as sociology and social policy.

Finally, Marxism is the theory that mainly concerns itself with inequalities and socioeconomic imbalances. It is most critical of the international capitalist system and attempts to deconstruct class struggle and marginalization.

It is easy to see why international relations are important. With such a broad subject matter, it is also easy to get lost. That’s why our experts have compiled several international relations essay topics here. We have also collected useful advice and samples for you to study.

How to Pick an International Relations Essay Topic

An appropriate topic is a fundamental part of a successful international relations essay. Considering the possible ideas, selecting an area that is outside your expertise can be detrimental. Therefore, we have created a guide to making the right choice for your assignment.

To pick the right topic, try these steps:

• Brainstorm ideas.

One of the vital steps in writing any academic work is the first one. Before conducting any research, write down the ideas that are already present in your mind. Maybe you already have a particular area you want to talk about. For example, you can explore feminism or state sovereignty. Rely on what you know best and what interests you most.

• Check credible sources.

Once you have a general idea of what you want to focus on, it is time to find sources. Your best bet is to concentrate on works by established authors in the field of IR (e.g., Alexander Wendt). Of course, you may also rely on websites from well-known organizations. Look for reports and articles online. Check that the information you are acquiring is recent and up to date.

• Make sure your ideas aren’t too broad…

With IR being such a multidisciplinary field, it is easy to get swarmed by thoughts. Just remember that you still have a word limit to follow! Writing an essay on climate change and international relations may be way too extensive of a subject. Instead, focus on something feasible yet related – like the Green Theory.

• … But also not too specific!

At the same time, choosing a topic that is way too narrow could prove a challenge in its own right. You could encounter trouble in trying to find credible sources. You may find yourself at a loss for what to do for your next step. In this case, you might want to change the topic before it’s too late!

• Strive to research.

If you have an idea that is interesting to you, this step will not be a problem. You need to be motivated to find enough valuable sources and write a high-quality essay. It helps to look at authors with differing points of view. This way, you’ll create a compelling argument.

These recommendations should help you write your IR essay. If you still have trouble choosing the right idea, let our topic generator do that for you.

13 International Relations Topics for Essay

Now that you know how to select the perfect topic for your essay, we can begin to do just that. Below you will find a list of 13 international relations essay topics. They will prove helpful in your homework or exam writing practice.

You can use these ideas:

• Green Theory – environmental action in international relations.
• How liberalism in British politics led to Brexit.
• Idealism vs. realism in global diplomacy.
• Technology as the silent factor in international relations.
• Economic reasons for the start of World War II.
• The International Monetary Fund in political economy.
• The end of the Cold War through the perspective of realist theory.
• A brief assessment of the International Law.
• Regulation of international non-governmental organizations.
• The role of soft and hard power in current international relations.
• Modern diplomacy between the governments of Russia and China.
• Feminist theories in the study of international relations.
• A Marxist critique of globalization.

As it stands, this list could go on forever. We hope that we managed to illustrate just how diverse the ideas for an international relations essay could be.

5 International Relations Essay Questions

Even after reading through this step-by-step guide and all the topics, you may still find yourself hesitating. This isn’t surprising. The ideas that must be swirling in your head right now would overwhelm anyone!

Here you will find 5 international relations essay questions that will help direct your workflow:

1. What is the difference between classical realism and neorealism?

Introduce realist theory and outline its evolution. Explain the main ideas behind classical realism and neorealism. What were the reasons for the shift between theories?

2. What is the impact of Brexit on the European Union’s foreign policy?

Explain the concept of Brexit. Evaluate the relationship of the European Union with the UK before Brexit. Using literature, illustrate the difference between the EU foreign policy before and after Brexit.

3. Do multinational corporations exploit developing countries?

Outline what makes a corporation multinational. What makes a country developing? Evaluate the relative harms and benefits of a multinational corporation settling in a developing country. Refer to Marxist theory for that purpose. What do you think can be done to minimize the harm?

4. How useful is the distinction between absolute and comparative advantage?

Summarize the theory behind the terms. Compare and contrast the concepts of absolute and comparative advantage. In your opinion, how important is the difference between the two notions?

5. Is constructivism a valid theory in international relations?

Illustrate the ideas behind constructivism and the evolution of the theory. Contrast constructivism against other well-known frameworks. Justify whether you think it is useful.

We are not underestimating the importance of an international relations essay. It is an extensive and complicated field of study. Despite that fact, we still hope that you managed to find this guide useful! Now proceed to look through some international relations essay examples below.

Thank you for reading!

1134 Best Essay Examples on International Relations

Gaza-israel conflict: history and portents, neorealism: kenneth waltz ‘theory of international politics’, comparison between theories: realism vs. liberalism research paper.

• Words: 1895

Israel Palestine Conflict

• Words: 1503

International Peace and United Nations Essay

The israeli – palestinian conflict.

• Words: 2608

Do the Benefits of Globalization Outweigh the Costs?

• Words: 1056

Global Food Crisis: Political Economy Perspective

• Words: 1633

The Cold War and the Balance of Power Theory

• Words: 10690

United Nations Strengths and Weaknesses

• Words: 2763

“Clash of Ignorance” by Edward Said

• Words: 1128

United Nations and World Peace

Difference between weak and strong states by krasner, wilsonian idealism and its relevance in today’s us, nationalism in international relations.

• Words: 2842

The World’s Superpowers: Current, Former, Future

Balance of power concept in international relations.

• Words: 1352

Nuclear Weapons Should Be Abolished

• Words: 1095

Geopolitics: The Middle East Shatterbelt

The role of science and technology in international relations regarding climate change.

• Words: 2504

Indian Modernization and Westernization

• Words: 3322

Schools of Political Economy: Marxism, Liberalism and Mercantilism

Severe problem of congo, the vital role of diplomacy in international relations, peace and conflict resolution: external intervention, wars in the middle east, international security, its components and importance, functionalist and constructivist approaches to regionalism.

• Words: 1944

The United Nations Millennium Development Goals

• Words: 1432

Neorealism and Traditional Realism

Criticism of realism theory in international system, pakistan’s inter-service intelligence, the achievement of millennium development goals in india, power and interdependence, the international problem of hiv/aids in modern world.

• Words: 1374

World Food Program

• Words: 1105

How Is Globalization Impacting Citizenship?

• Words: 1995

A Brief History of the Conflict Between India and Pakistan

• Words: 1241

Maritime Piracy

Supra-state actors.

• Words: 2477

Visa-free Entry to all Countries

National interest is more significant than ideology in shaping foreign policy.

• Words: 4281

United States Foreign Policy

• Words: 1043

Human Safety and All-Round Personal Protection

Eu as a successful international organization.

• Words: 1668

International Security Case Studies’ Analysis

• Words: 1129

International Relations: Realism in the 21st Century

• Words: 2161

Canada-United States Border and Relations

• Words: 5098

Arrogance of Power

Balance vs. imbalance of power international relations, theories of international relation. “maria full of grace” film.

• Words: 2213

Foreign Policy and Politics

• Words: 4200

Globalization in Politics and on the World Peace

• Words: 4118

International Relations and the Changing Contemporary World of States

Why the uae didn’t deter turkey’s involvement in libya.

• Words: 1754

The Millennium Development Goals

• Words: 1357

Collective Security

• Words: 2062

Does the East Asian “Miracle” Invalidate Dependency Theory

• Words: 3534

Global Governance in the Twenty-First Century

• Words: 1146

Iran’s Influence on the Balance of Power in the Middle East

• Words: 4504

US in the Middle East

Article summary: “the false promise of international institutions”, international relations: globalization and state power.

• Words: 1966

US – North Korean Relations Analysis

Problems facing the united nations.

• Words: 1186

Humanitarian Intervention in International Society

• Words: 1623

Is United Nations Organization Useful or not Useful Nowadays?

• Words: 4151

International Political Economy – World Systems Analysis

• Words: 2758

Main Motives for European Integration

• Words: 2052

Internet Governance Concept and Scope

• Words: 3065

United Arab Emirates and New Zealand Cooperation

• Words: 2494

Argumentative Essay: Uighur Genocide

• Words: 1645

EU-USA Relationship Analysis

• Words: 1383

TNC as an Important Actor in Global Politics Today

• Words: 1491

Accountability in the European Union

• Words: 1458

Truman’s Policy of Containment

Americanization effects on the middle eastern states.

• Words: 4034

International Relations: Events Shaping the View

Robert w. cox’ contribution in the international relation.

• Words: 1680

Land Grabbing Causes and Problems

The third world: concept and controversy.

• Words: 1131

Waltz’s three fundamental characteristics of the international system

The democratic peace theory: merits and demerits.

• Words: 2776

The role of Islam in Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy

• Words: 2878

Malta: Role in the EU

• Words: 1446

The Relationship Between the European Union and the United States

• Words: 1961

The Truman Doctrine

• Words: 1551

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

• Words: 2276

The US-China relations

Realist and liberal theories of international relations, peace in international relations, international cooperation can only be materialized through international institutions.

• Words: 2185

Political and Economic Consequences of EU Enlargement

• Words: 7060

The dispute about the Persian Gulf name

• Words: 1597

Bill Clinton’s Foreign Policies

Global conflict likelihood, william blackstone and u.s. foreign policy regarding the israeli issue.

• Words: 2142

Palestinian-Israeli Crisis and It Causes

• Words: 1497

The Arab League Failure Argument

Critical analysis of the recent developments in the world.

• Words: 1688

Hard or Soft Power in the Cold War’s End

• Words: 1429

Links Between East Asia and West Asia

• Words: 1661

World Bank and IMF

• Words: 1279

The Invention of Development

Nuclear suppliers group (nsg), regional integration: france and the eu, cold war and a bipolar world.

• Words: 1214

Does the American Government Bully the World?

• Words: 1449

Negotiation Between India and Pakistan

Nato’s border with russia news story and maslow theory, effect of european post-war instability on us leadership, liberal international order’s existence and future, discussion: definition of a great power, the gulf and the great powers: evolving dynamics. middle east policy analysis, saudi decision to support the mujahideen in afghanistan, international relations: theory, policy, and governance.

• Words: 1830

The UAE National Security: Impact of Growing US-China and US-Russia Tensions

• Words: 1763

The United States as a Hegemonic Country

The united nations security council’s challenges, public health amidst porous boarders.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Political Realism in International Relations

In the discipline of international relations there are contending general theories or theoretical perspectives. Realism, also known as political realism, is a view of international politics that stresses its competitive and conflictual side. It is usually contrasted with idealism or liberalism, which tends to emphasize cooperation. Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which are concerned with their own security, act in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for power. The negative side of the realists’ emphasis on power and self-interest is often their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states. National politics is the realm of authority and law, whereas international politics, they sometimes claim, is a sphere without justice, characterized by active or potential conflict among states, where ethical standards do not apply.

Not all realists, however, deny the presence of prescriptive ethics in international relations. The distinction should be drawn between classical realism—represented by such twentieth-century theorists as Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau—and radical or extreme realism. While classical realism emphasizes the concept of national interest, it is not the Machiavellian doctrine “that anything is justified by reason of state” (Bull 1995, 189). Nor does it involve the glorification of war or conflict. The classical realists do not reject the possibility of moral judgment in international politics. Rather, they are critical of moralism—abstract moral discourse that does not take into account political realities. They assign ethical value to successful political action based on prudence: the ability to judge the rightness of a given action from among possible alternatives on the basis of its likely political consequences.

Realism encompasses a variety of approaches and claims a long theoretical tradition. Among its founding fathers, Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes are the names most usually mentioned. Twentieth-century classical realism has today been largely replaced by neorealism, which is an attempt to construct a more scientific approach to the study of international relations. Both classical realism and neorealism have been subjected to criticism from IR theorists representing liberal, critical, and post-modern perspectives. The growing tensions among superpowers have revived the realist-idealist debate in the twenty-first century and have led to a resurgence of interest in the realist tradition.

1.1 Thucydides and the Importance of Power

1.2 machiavelli’s critique of the moral tradition, 1.3 hobbes’s anarchic state of nature, 2.1 e. h. carr’s challenge to utopian idealism, 2.2 hans morgenthau’s realist principles, 3.1 kenneth waltz’s international system, 3.2 objections to neorealism, 4. conclusion: the cautionary and changing character of realism, other internet resources, related entries, 1. the roots of the realist tradition.

Like other classical political theorists, Thucydides (c. 460–c. 400 B.C.E.) saw politics as involving moral questions. Most importantly, he asks whether relations among states to which power is crucial can also be guided by the norms of justice. His History of the Peloponnesian War is in fact neither a work of political philosophy nor a sustained theory of international relations. Much of this work, which presents a partial account of the armed conflict between Athens and Sparta that took place from 431 to 404 B.C.E., consists of paired speeches by personages who argue opposing sides of an issue. Nevertheless, if the History is described as the only acknowledged classical text in international relations, and if it inspires theorists from Hobbes to contemporary international relations scholars, this is because it is more than a chronicle of events, and a theoretical position can be extrapolated from it. Realism is expressed in the very first speech of the Athenians recorded in the History —a speech given at the debate that took place in Sparta just before the war. Moreover, a realist perspective is implied in the way Thucydides explains the cause of the Peloponnesian War, and also in the famous “Melian Dialogue,” in the statements made by the Athenian envoys.

1.1.1 General Features of Realism in International Relations

International relations realists emphasize the constraints imposed on politics by the nature of human beings, whom they consider egoistic, and by the absence of international government. Together these factors contribute to a conflict-based paradigm of international relations, in which the key actors are states, in which power and security become the main issues, and in which there is little place for ethical norms. The set of premises concerning state actors, egoism, anarchy, power, security, and ethics that define the realist tradition are all present in Thucydides.

(1) Human nature is a starting point for classical political realism. Realists view human beings as inherently egoistic and self-interested to the extent that self-interest overcomes moral principles. At the debate in Sparta, described in Book I of Thucydides’ History , the Athenians affirm the priority of self-interest over morality. They say that considerations of right and wrong have “never turned people aside from the opportunities of aggrandizement offered by superior strength” (chap. 1 par. 76).

(2) Realists, and especially today’s neorealists, consider the absence of government, literally anarchy , to be the primary determinant of international political outcomes. The lack of a common rule-making and enforcing authority means, they argue, that the international arena is essentially a self-help system. Each state is responsible for its own survival and is free to define its own interests and to pursue power. Anarchy thus leads to a situation in which power has the overriding role in shaping interstate relations. In the words of the Athenian envoys at Melos, without any common authority that can enforce order, “the independent states survive [only] when they are powerful” (5.97).

(3) Insofar as realists envision the world of states as anarchic, they likewise view security as a central issue. To attain security, states try to increase their power and engage in power-balancing for the purpose of deterring potential aggressors. Wars are fought to prevent competing nations from becoming militarily stronger. Thucydides, while distinguishing between the immediate and underlying causes of the Peloponnesian War, does not see its real cause in any of the particular events that immediately preceded its outbreak. He instead locates the cause of the war in the changing distribution of power between the two blocs of Greek city-states: the Delian League, under the leadership of Athens, and the Peloponnesian League, under the leadership of Sparta. According to him, the growth of Athenian power made the Spartans afraid for their security, and thus propelled them into war (1.23). Referring to this situation, Graham Allison has popularized the expression “Thucydides trap” to describe the danger which occurs when a rising power rivals an established one (2017).

(4) Realists are generally skeptical about the relevance of ethics to international politics. This can lead them to claim that there is no place for morality in the prescriptive sense in international relations, or that there is a tension between demands of morality and requirements of successful political action, or that states have their own morality that is different from customary morality, or that morality, if employed at all, is merely used instrumentally to justify states’ conduct. A clear case of the rejection of ethical norms in relations among states can be found in the “Melian Dialogue” (5.85–113). This dialogue relates to the events of 416 B.C.E., when Athens invaded the island of Melos. The Athenian envoys presented the Melians with a choice, destruction or surrender, and from the outset asked them not to appeal to justice, but to think only about their survival. In the envoys’ words, “We both know that the decisions about justice are made in human discussions only when both sides are under equal compulsion, but when one side is stronger, it gets as much as it can, and the weak must accept that” (5.89). To be “under equal compulsion” means to be under the force of law, and thus to be subjected to a common lawgiving authority (Korab-Karpowicz 2006, 234). Since such an authority above states does not exist, the Athenians argue that in this lawless condition of international anarchy, the only right is the right of the stronger to dominate the weaker. They explicitly equate right with might, and exclude considerations of justice from foreign affairs.

1.1.2 The “Melian Dialogue”—The First Realist-Idealist Debate

We can thus find strong support for a realist perspective in the statements of the Athenians. The question remains, however, to what extent their realism coincides with Thucydides’ own viewpoint. Although substantial passages of the “Melian Dialogue,” as well as other parts of the History support a realistic reading, Thucydides’ position cannot be deduced from such selected fragments, but rather must be assessed on the basis of the wider context of his book. In fact, even the “Melian Dialogue” itself provides us with a number of contending views.

Political realism is usually contrasted by IR scholars with idealism or liberalism, a theoretical perspective that emphasizes international norms, interdependence among states, and international cooperation. The “Melian Dialogue,” which is one of the most frequently commented-upon parts of Thucydides’ History , presents the classic debate between the idealist and realist views: Can international politics be based on a moral order derived from the principles of justice, or will it forever remain the arena of conflicting national interests and power?

For the Melians, who employ idealistic arguments, the choice is between war and subjection (5.86). They are courageous and love their country. They do not wish to lose their freedom, and in spite of the fact that they are militarily weaker than the Athenians, they are prepared to defend themselves (5.100; 5.112). They base their arguments on an appeal to justice, which they associate with fairness, and regard the Athenians as unjust (5.90; 5.104). They are pious, believing that gods will support their just cause and compensate for their weakness, and trust in alliances, thinking that their allies, the Spartans, who are also related to them, will help them (5.104; 5.112). Hence, one can identify in the speech of the Melians elements of the idealistic or liberal world view: the belief that nations have the right to exercise political independence, that they have mutual obligations to one another and will carry out such obligations, and that a war of aggression is unjust. What the Melians nevertheless lack are resources and foresight. In their decision to defend themselves, they are guided more by their hopes than by the evidence at hand or by prudent calculations.

The Athenian argument is based on key realist concepts such as security and power, and is informed not by what the world should be, but by what it is. The Athenians disregard any moral talk and urge the Melians to look at the facts—that is, to recognize their military inferiority, to consider the potential consequences of their decision, and to think about their own survival (5.87; 5.101). There appears to be a powerful realist logic behind the Athenian arguments. Their position, based on security concerns and self-interest, seemingly involves reliance on rationality, intelligence, and foresight. However, upon close examination, their logic proves to be seriously flawed. Melos, a relatively weak state, does not pose any real security threat to them. The eventual destruction of Melos does not change the course of the Peloponnesian War, which Athens will lose a few years later.

In the History , Thucydides shows that power, if it is unrestrained by moderation and a sense of justice, brings about the uncontrolled desire for more power. There are no logical limits to the size of an empire. Drunk with the prospect of glory and gain, after conquering Melos, the Athenians engage in a war against Sicily. They pay no attention to the Melian argument that considerations of justice are useful to all in the longer run (5.90). And, as the Athenians overestimate their strength and in the end lose the war, their self-interested logic proves to be very shortsighted indeed.

It is utopian to ignore the reality of power in international relations, but it is equally blind to rely on power alone. Thucydides appears to support neither the naive idealism of the Melians nor the cynicism of their Athenian opponents. He teaches us to be on guard “against naïve-dreaming on international politics,” on the one hand, and “against the other pernicious extreme: unrestrained cynicism,” on the other (Donnelly 2000, 193). If he can be regarded as a political realist, his realism nonetheless prefigures neither realpolitik , in which prescriptive ethics is rejected, nor today’s scientific neorealism, in which moral questions are largely ignored. Thucydides’ realism, neither immoral nor amoral, can rather be compared to that of Hans Morgenthau, Raymond Aron, and other twentieth-century classical realists, who, although sensible to the demands of national interest, would not deny that political actors on the international scene are subject to moral judgment.

Idealism in international relations, like realism, can lay claim to a long tradition. Unsatisfied with the world as they have found it, idealists have always tried to answer the question of “what ought to be” in politics. Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero were all political idealists who believed that there were some universal moral values on which political life could be based. Building on the work of his predecessors, Cicero developed the idea of a natural moral law that was applicable to both domestic and international politics. His ideas concerning righteousness in war were carried further in the writings of the Christian thinkers St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In the late fifteenth century, when Niccolò Machiavelli was born, the idea that politics, including the relations among states, should be virtuous, and that the methods of warfare should remain subordinated to ethical standards, still predominated in political literature.

Machiavelli (1469–1527) challenged this well-established moral tradition, thus positioning himself as a political innovator. The novelty of his approach lies in his critique of classical Western political thought as unrealistic, aiming too high, and in his separation of politics from ethics. He thereby lays the foundations for modern politics focussed on self-interest. In chapter XV of The Prince , Machiavelli announces that in departing from the teachings of earlier thinkers, he seeks “the effectual truth of the matter rather than the imagined one.” The “effectual truth” is for him the only truth worth seeking. It represents the sum of the practical conditions that he believes are required to make both the individual and the country prosperous and strong. Machiavelli replaces the ancient virtue (a moral quality of the individual, such as justice or self-restraint) with virtù , ability or vigor. As a prophet of virtù , he promises to lead both nations and individuals to earthly glory and power.

Machiavellianism is a radical type of political realism that is applied to both domestic and international affairs. It is sometimes called realpolitik , and is a doctrine which denies the relevance of ethics in politics, and claims that all means (moral and immoral) are justified to achieve certain political ends. Although Machiavelli never uses the phrase ragione di stato or its French equivalent, raison d’état , what ultimately counts for him is precisely that: whatever is good for the state, rather than ethical scruples or norms

Machiavelli justified immoral actions in politics, but never refused to admit that they are evil. He operated within the single framework of traditional morality. It became a specific task of his nineteenth-century followers to develop the doctrine of a double ethics: one public and one private, to push Machiavellian realism to even further extremes, and to apply it to international relations. By asserting that “the state has no higher duty than of maintaining itself,” Hegel gave an ethical sanction to the state’s promotion of its own interest and advantage against other states (Meinecke 357). Thus he overturned the traditional beliefs about morality. The good of the state was perversely interpreted by him as the highest moral value, with the extension of national power regarded as a nation’s right and duty. Then, referring to Machiavelli, Heinrich von Treitschke declared that the state was power, precisely in order to assert itself as against other equally independent powers, and that the supreme moral duty of the state was to foster this power. He considered international agreements to be binding only insofar as it was expedient for the state. The idea of an autonomous ethics of state behavior and the concept of realpolitik were thus introduced. Traditional, customary ethics was denied and power politics was associated with a “higher” type of morality. These concepts, along with the belief in the superiority of Germanic culture, served as weapons with which German statesmen, from the eighteenth century to the end of the Second World War, justified their policies of conquest and extermination.

Machiavelli is often praised for his prudential advice to leaders (which has caused him to be regarded as a founding master of modern political strategy) and for his defense of the republican form of government. There are certainly many aspects of his thought that merit such praise. Nevertheless, it is also possible to see him as the thinker who bears foremost responsibility for the de-moralization of Europe. The argument of the Athenian envoys presented in Thucydides’ “Melian Dialogue,” that of Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic , or that of Carneades, to whom Cicero refers—all of these challenge the ancient and Christian views of the unity of politics and ethics. However, before Machiavelli, this amoral or immoral mode of thinking had never prevailed in the mainstream of Western political thought. It was the force and timeliness of his justification of resorting to evil as a legitimate means of achieving political ends that persuaded so many of the thinkers and political practitioners who followed him. The effects of Machiavellian ideas, such as the notion that the employment of all possible means was permissible in war, would be seen on the battlefields of modern Europe, as mass citizen armies fought against each other to the bitter end without regard for the rules of justice. The tension between expediency and morality lost its validity in the sphere of politics. The concept of a double ethics that created a further damage to traditional morality, was invented. The doctrine of raison d’état ultimately led to the politics of Lebensraum , two world wars, and the Holocaust.

Perhaps the greatest problem with realism in international relations is that it has a tendency to slip into its extreme version, which accepts any policy that can benefit the state at the expense of other states, no matter how morally problematic the policy is. Even if they do not explicitly raise ethical questions, in the works of Waltz and of many other of today’s neorealists, a double ethics, public and private, is presupposed, and words such realpolitik no longer have the negative connotations that they had for classical realists, such as Hans Morgenthau.

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1683) was part of an intellectual movement whose goal was to free the emerging modern science from the constraints of the classical and scholastic heritage. According to classical political philosophy, on which the idealist perspective is based, human beings can control their desires through reason and can work for the benefit of others, even at the expense of their own benefit. They are thus both rational and moral agents, capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and of making moral choices. They are also naturally social. With great skill Hobbes attacks these views. His human beings, extremely individualistic rather than moral or social, are subject to “a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceases only in death” ( Leviathan XI 2). They therefore inevitably struggle for power. In setting out such ideas, Hobbes contributes to some of the basic conceptions fundamental to the realist tradition in international relations, and especially to neorealism. These include the characterization of human nature as egoistic, the concept of international anarchy, and the view that politics, rooted in the struggle for power, can be rationalized and studied scientifically.

One of the most widely known Hobbesian concepts is that of the anarchic state of nature, seen as entailing a state of war—and “such a war as is of every man against every man” (XII 8). He derives his notion of the state of war from his views of both human nature and the condition in which individuals exist. Since in the state of nature there is no government and everyone enjoys equal status, every individual has a right to everything; that is, there are no constraints on an individual’s behavior. Anyone may at any time use force, and all must constantly be ready to counter such force with force. Hence, driven by acquisitiveness, having no moral restraints, and motivated to compete for scarce goods, individuals are apt to “invade” one another for gain. Being suspicious of one another and driven by fear, they are also likely to engage in preemptive actions and invade one another to ensure their own safety. Finally, individuals are also driven by pride and a desire for glory. Whether for gain, safety, or reputation, power-seeking individuals will thus “endeavor to destroy or subdue one another” (XIII 3). In such uncertain conditions where everyone is a potential aggressor, making war on others is a more advantageous strategy than peaceable behavior, and one needs to learn that domination over others is necessary for one’s own continued survival.

Hobbes is primarily concerned with the relationship between individuals and the state, and his comments about relations among states are scarce. Nevertheless, what he says about the lives of individuals in the state of nature can also be interpreted as a description of how states exist in relation to one another. Once states are established, the individual drive for power becomes the basis for the states’ behavior, which often manifests itself in their efforts to dominate other states and peoples. States, “for their own security,” writes Hobbes, “enlarge their dominions upon all pretences of danger and fear of invasion or assistance that may be given to invaders, [and] endeavour as much as they can, to subdue and weaken their neighbors” (XIX 4). Accordingly, the quest and struggle for power lies at the core of the Hobbesian vision of relations among states. The same would later be true of the model of international relations developed by Hans Morgenthau, who was deeply influenced by Hobbes and adopted the same view of human nature. Similarly, the neorealist Kenneth Waltz would follow Hobbes’ lead regarding international anarchy (the fact that sovereign states are not subject to any higher common sovereign) as the essential element of international relations.

By subjecting themselves to a sovereign, individuals escape the war of all against all which Hobbes associates with the state of nature; however, this war continues to dominate relations among states. This does not mean that states are always fighting, but rather that they have a disposition to fight (XIII 8). With each state deciding for itself whether or not to use force, war may break out at any time. The achievement of domestic security through the creation of a state is then paralleled by a condition of inter-state insecurity. One can argue that if Hobbes were fully consistent, he would agree with the notion that, to escape this condition, states should also enter into a contract and submit themselves to a world sovereign. Although the idea of a world state would find support among some of today’s realists, this is not a position taken by Hobbes himself. He does not propose that a social contract among nations be implemented to bring international anarchy to an end. This is because the condition of insecurity in which states are placed does not necessarily lead to insecurity for their citizens. As long as an armed conflict or other type of hostility between states does not actually break out, individuals within a state can feel relatively secure.

The denial of the existence of universal moral principles and norms in the relations among states brings Hobbes close to the Machiavellians and the followers of the doctrine of raison d’état . His theory of international relations, which assumes that independent states, like independent individuals, are enemies by nature, asocial and selfish, and that there is no moral limitation on their behavior, is a great challenge to the idealist political vision based on human sociability and to the concept of the international jurisprudence that is built on this vision. However, what separates Hobbes from Machiavelli and associates him more with classical realism is his insistence on the defensive character of foreign policy. His political theory does not put forward the invitation to do whatever may be advantageous for the state. His approach to international relations is prudential and pacific: sovereign states, like individuals, should be disposed towards peace which is commended by reason.

What Waltz and other neorealist readers of Hobbes’s works sometimes overlook is that he does not perceive international anarchy as an environment without any rules. By suggesting that certain dictates of reason apply even in the state of nature, he affirms that more peaceful and cooperative international relations are possible. Neither does he deny the existence of international law. Sovereign states can sign treaties with one another to provide a legal basis for their relations. At the same time, however, Hobbes seems aware that international rules will often prove ineffective in restraining the struggle for power. States will interpret them to their own advantage, and so international law will be obeyed or ignored according to the interests of the states affected. Hence, international relations will always tend to be a precarious affair. This grim view of global politics lies at the core of Hobbes’s realism.

2. Twentieth Century Classical Realism

Twentieth-century realism was born in response to the idealist perspective that dominated international relations scholarship in the aftermath of the First World War. The idealists of the 1920s and 1930s (also called liberal internationalists or utopians) had the goal of building peace in order to prevent another world conflict. They saw the solution to inter-state problems as being the creation of a respected system of international law, backed by international organizations. This interwar idealism resulted in the founding of the League of Nations in 1920 and in the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 outlawing war and providing for the peaceful settlements of disputes. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, scholars such as Norman Angell, Alfred Zimmern, and Raymond B. Fosdick, and other prominent idealists of the era, gave their intellectual support to the League of Nations. Instead of focusing on what some might see as the inevitability of conflict between states and peoples, they chose to emphasize the common interests that could unite humanity, and attempted to appeal to rationality and morality. For them, war did not originate in an egoistic human nature, but rather in imperfect social conditions and political arrangements, which could be improved. Yet their ideas were already being criticized in the early 1930s by Reinhold Niebuhr and within a few years by E. H. Carr. The League of Nations, which the United States never joined, and from which Japan and Germany withdrew, could not prevent the outbreak of the Second World War. This fact, perhaps more than any theoretical argument, contributed to the development of the realist theory. Although the United Nations, founded in 1945, can still be regarded as a product of idealist political thinking, the discipline of international relations was profoundly influenced in the initial years of the post-war period by the works of “classical” realists such as John H. Herz, Hans Morgenthau, George Kennan, and Raymond Aron. Then, during the 1950s and 1960s, classical realism came under challenge of scholars who tried to introduce a more scientific approach to the study of international politics. During the 1980s it gave way to another trend in international relations theory—neorealism.

Since it is impossible within the scope of this article to introduce all of the thinkers who contributed to the development of twentieth-century classical realism, E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau, as perhaps the most influential among them, have been selected for discussion here.

In his main work on international relations, The Twenty Years’ Crisis , first published in July 1939, Edward Hallett Carr (1892–1982) attacks the idealist position, which he describes as “utopianism.” He characterizes this position as encompassing faith in reason, confidence in progress, a sense of moral rectitude, and a belief in an underlying harmony of interests. According to the idealists, war is an aberration in the course of normal life and the way to prevent it is to educate people for peace, and to build systems of collective security such as the League of Nations or today’s United Nations. Carr challenges idealism by questioning its claim to moral universalism and its idea of the harmony of interests. He declares that “morality can only be relative, not universal” (19), and states that the doctrine of the harmony of interests is invoked by privileged groups “to justify and maintain their dominant position” (75).

Carr uses the concept of the relativity of thought, which he traces to Marx and other modern theorists, to show that standards by which policies are judged are the products of circumstances and interests. His central idea is that the interests of a given party always determine what this party regards as moral principles, and hence, these principles are not universal. Carr observes that politicians, for example, often use the language of justice to cloak the particular interests of their own countries, or to create negative images of other people to justify acts of aggression. The existence of such instances of morally discrediting a potential enemy or morally justifying one’s own position shows, he argues, that moral ideas are derived from actual policies. Policies are not, as the idealists would have it, based on some universal norms, independent of interests of the parties involved.

If specific ethical standards are de facto founded on interests, Carr’s argument goes, there are also interests underlying what are regarded as absolute principles or universal moral values. While the idealists tend to regard such values, such as peace or justice, as universal and claim that upholding them is in the interest of all, Carr argues against this view. According to him, there are neither universal values nor universal interests. He claims that those who refer to universal interests are in fact acting in their own interests (71). They think that what is best for them is best for everyone, and identify their own interests with the universal interest of the world at large.

The idealist concept of the harmony of interests is based on the notion that human beings can rationally recognize that they have some interests in common, and that cooperation is therefore possible. Carr contrasts this idea with the reality of conflict of interests . According to him, the world is torn apart by the particular interests of different individuals and groups. In such a conflictual environment, order is based on power, not on morality. Further, morality itself is the product of power (61). Like Hobbes, Carr regards morality as constructed by the particular legal system that is enforced by a coercive power. International ethical norms are imposed on other countries by dominant nations or groups of nations that present themselves as the international community as a whole. They are invented to perpetuate those nations’ dominance.

Values that idealists view as good for all, such as peace, social justice, prosperity, and international order, are regarded by Carr as mere status quo notions. The powers that are satisfied with the status quo regard the arrangement in place as just and therefore preach peace. They try to rally everyone around their idea of what is good. “Just as the ruling class in a community prays for domestic peace, which guarantees its own security and predominance, … so international peace becomes a special vested interest of predominant powers” (76). On the other hand, the unsatisfied powers consider the same arrangement as unjust, and so prepare for war. Hence, the way to obtain peace, if it cannot be simply enforced, is to satisfy the unsatisfied powers. “Those who profit most by [international] order can in the longer run only hope to maintain it by making sufficient concessions to make it tolerable to those who profit by it least” (152). The logical conclusion to be drawn by the reader of Carr’s book is the policy of appeasement.

Carr was a sophisticated thinker. He recognized himself that the logic of “pure realism can offer nothing but a naked struggle for power which makes any kind of international society impossible” (87). Although he demolishes what he calls “the current utopia” of idealism, he at the same time attempts to build “a new utopia,” a realist world order ( ibid .). Thus, he acknowledges that human beings need certain fundamental principles or beliefs that are shared across different cultures, and contradicts his own earlier argument by which he tries to deny universality to any norms or values. To make further objections to his position, the fact, as he claims, that the language of universal values can be misused in politics for the benefit of one party or another, and that such values can only be imperfectly implemented in political institutions, does not mean that such values do not exist. There is a deep yearning in many human beings, both privileged and unprivileged, for peace, order, prosperity, and justice. The legitimacy of idealism consists in the constant attempt to reflect upon and uphold these values. Idealists fail if in their attempt they do not pay enough attention to the reality of power. On the other hand, in the world of “pure realism,” in which all values are made relative to interests, life turns into nothing more than a power game and is unbearable.

The Twenty Years’ Crisis touches on a number of universal ideas, but it also reflects the spirit of its time. While we can fault the interwar idealists for their inability to construct international institutions strong enough to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War, this book indicates that interwar realists were likewise unprepared to meet the challenge. Carr frequently refers to Germany under Nazi rule as if it were a country like any other. He says that should Germany cease to be an unsatisfied power and “become supreme in Europe,” it would adopt a language of international solidarity similar to that of other Western powers (79). The inability of Carr and other realists to recognize the perilous nature of Nazism, and their belief that Germany could be satisfied by territorial concessions, helped to foster a political environment in which the latter was to grow in power, annex Czechoslovakia at will, and be militarily opposed in September 1939 by Poland alone.

A theory of international relations is not just an intellectual enterprise; it has practical consequences. It influences our thinking and political practice. On the practical side, the realists of the 1930s, to whom Carr gave intellectual support, were people opposed to the system of collective security embodied in the League of Nations. Working within the foreign policy establishments of the day, they contributed to its weakness. Once they had weakened the League, they pursued a policy of appeasement and accommodation with Germany as an alternative to collective security (Ashworth 46). After the annexation of Czechoslovakia, when the failure of the anti-League realist conservatives gathered around Neville Chamberlain and of this policy became clear, they tried to rebuild the very security system they had earlier demolished. Those who supported collective security were labeled idealists.

Hans J. Morgenthau (1904–1980) developed realism into a comprehensive international relations theory. Influenced by the Protestant theologian and political writer Reinhold Niebuhr, as well as by Hobbes, he places selfishness and power-lust at the center of his picture of human existence. The insatiable human lust for power, timeless and universal, which he identifies with animus dominandi , the desire to dominate, is for him the main cause of conflict. As he asserts in his main work, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace , first published in 1948, “international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power” (25).

Morgenthau systematizes realism in international relations on the basis of six principles that he includes in the second edition of Politics among Nations . As a traditionalist, he opposes the so-called scientists (the scholars who, especially in the 1950s, tried to reduce the discipline of international relations to a branch of behavioral science). Nevertheless, in the first principle he states that realism is based on objective laws that have their roots in unchanging human nature (4). He wants to develop realism into both a theory of international politics and a political art, a useful tool of foreign policy.

The keystone of Morgenthau’s realist theory is the concept of power or “of interest defined in terms of power,” which informs his second principle: the assumption that political leaders “think and act in terms of interest defined as power” (5). This concept defines the autonomy of politics, and allows for the analysis of foreign policy regardless of the different motives, preferences, and intellectual and moral qualities of individual politicians. Furthermore, it is the foundation of a rational picture of politics.

Although, as Morgenthau explains in the third principle, interest defined as power is a universally valid category, and indeed an essential element of politics, various things can be associated with interest or power at different times and in different circumstances. Its content and the manner of its use are determined by the political and cultural environment.

In the fourth principle, Morgenthau considers the relationship between realism and ethics. He says that while realists are aware of the moral significance of political action, they are also aware of the tension between morality and the requirements of successful political action. “Universal moral principles,” he asserts, “cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but …they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place” (9). These principles must be accompanied by prudence for as he cautions “there can be no political morality without prudence; that is, without consideration of the political consequences of seemingly moral action” ( ibid .).

Prudence, the ability to judge the rightness of a given action from among possible alternatives on the basis of its likely political consequences, and not conviction of one’s own moral or ideological superiority, should guide political decisions. This is stressed in the fifth principle, where Morgenthau again emphasizes the idea that all state actors, including our own, must be looked at solely as political entities pursuing their respective interests defined in terms of power. By taking this point of view vis-à-vis its counterparts and thus avoiding ideological confrontation, a state would then be able to pursue policies that respected the interests of other states, while protecting and promoting its own.

Insofar as power, or interest defined as power, is the concept that defines politics, politics is an autonomous sphere, as Morgenthau says in his sixth principle of realism. It cannot be subordinated to ethics. However, ethics does still play a role in politics. “A man who was nothing but ‘political man’ would be a beast, for he would be completely lacking in moral restraints. A man who was nothing but ‘moral man’ would be a fool, for he would be completely lacking in prudence” (12). Political art requires that these two dimensions of human life, power and morality, be taken into consideration.

While Morgenthau’s six principles of realism contain repetitions and inconsistencies, we can nonetheless obtain from them the following picture: Power or interest is the central concept that makes politics into an autonomous discipline. Rational state actors pursue their national interests. Therefore, a rational theory of international politics can be constructed. Such a theory is not concerned with the morality, religious beliefs, motives or ideological preferences of individual political leaders. It also indicates that in order to avoid conflicts, states should avoid moral crusades or ideological confrontations, and look for compromise based solely on satisfaction of their mutual interests.

Although he defines politics as an autonomous sphere, Morgenthau does not separate ethics from politics. The act of protecting one’s country has for him a deep moral significance. Ultimately directed toward the objective of national survival, it involves prudence that is related to choosing the best course of action. The effective protection of citizens’ lives from harm in case of an international armed conflict is not merely a forceful physical action; it also has prudential and moral dimensions.

Morgenthau regards realism as a way of thinking about international relations and a useful tool for devising policies. However, some of the basic conceptions of his theory, and especially the idea of conflict as stemming from human nature, as well as the concept of power itself, have provoked criticism.

International politics, like all politics, is for Morgenthau a struggle for power because of the basic human lust for power. But regarding every individual as being engaged in a perpetual quest for power—the view that he shares with Hobbes—is a questionable premise. Human nature cannot be revealed by observation and experiment. It cannot be proved by any empirical research, but only disclosed by philosophy, imposed on us as a matter of belief, and inculcated by education.

Morgenthau himself reinforces the belief in the human drive for power by introducing a normative aspect of his theory, which is rationality. A rational foreign policy is considered “to be a good foreign policy” (7). But he defines rationality as a process of calculating the costs and benefits of all alternative policies in order to determine their relative utility, i.e. their ability to maximize power. Statesmen “think and act in terms of interest defined as power” (5). Only intellectual weakness of policy makers can result in foreign policies that deviate from a rational course aimed at minimizing risks and maximizing benefits. Hence, rather than presenting an actual portrait of human affairs, Morgenthau emphasizes the pursuit of power and the rationality of this pursuit, and sets it up as a norm.

As Raymond Aron and other scholars have noticed, power, the fundamental concept of Morgenthau’s realism, is ambiguous. It can be either a means or an end in politics. But if power is only a means for gaining something else, it does not define the nature of international politics in the way Morgenthau claims. It does not allow us to understand the actions of states independently from the motives and ideological preferences of their political leaders. It cannot serve as the basis for defining politics as an autonomous sphere. Morgenthau’s principles of realism are thus open to doubt. “Is this true,” Aron asks, “that states, whatever their regime, pursue the same kind of foreign policy” (597) and that the foreign policies of Napoleon or Stalin are essentially identical to those of Hitler, Louis XVI or Nicholas II, amounting to no more than the struggle for power? “If one answers yes, then the proposition is incontestable, but not very instructive” (598). Accordingly, it is useless to define actions of states by exclusive reference to power, security or national interest. International politics cannot be studied independently of the wider historical and cultural context.

Carr and Morgenthau concentrate primarily on international relations. However, their political realism can also be applied to domestic politics. To be a classical realist is in general to perceive politics as a conflict of interests and a struggle for power, and to seek peace by recognizing common interests and trying to satisfy them, rather than by moralizing. Bernard Williams and Raymond Geuss, influential representatives of the new political realism, a movement in contemporary political theory, criticize what they describe as “political moralism” and stress the autonomy of politics against ethics. However, political theory realism and international relations realism seem like two separate research programs. As noted by several scholars (William Scheuerman, Alison McQueen, Terry Nardin. Duncan Bell), those who contribute to realism in political theory give little attention to those who work on realism in international politics.

3. Neorealism

In spite of its ambiguities and weaknesses, Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations became a standard textbook and influenced thinking about international politics for a generation or so. At the same time, there was an attempt to develop a more methodologically rigorous approach to theorizing about international affairs. In the 1950s and 1960s a large influx of scientists from different fields entered the discipline of International Relations and attempted to replace the “wisdom literature” of classical realists with scientific concepts and reasoning (Brown 35). This in turn provoked a counterattack by Morgenthau and scholars associated with the so-called English School, especially Hedley Bull, who defended a traditional approach (Bull 1966).

As a result, the discipline of international relations has been divided into two main strands: traditional or non-positivist and scientific or positivist (neo-positivist). At a later stage the third strand: post-positivism has been added. The traditionalists raise normative questions and engage with history, philosophy and law. The scientists or positivists stress a descriptive and explanatory form of inquiry, rather than a normative one. They have established a strong presence in the field. Already by the mid-1960s, the majority of American students in international relations were trained in quantitative research, game theory, and other new research techniques of the social sciences. This, along with the changing international environment, had a significant effect on the discipline.

Notwithstanding their methodological differences, realists’ assumption is that the state is the key actor in international politics, and that competitive and conflictual relations among states are the core of actual international relations. However, with the receding of the Cold War during the 1970s, one could witness the growing importance of other actors: international and non-governmental organizations, as well as of multinational corporations. This development led to a revival of idealist thinking, which became known as neoliberalism or pluralism. While accepting some basic assumptions of realism, the leading pluralists, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, have proposed the concept of complex interdependence to describe this more sophisticated picture of global politics. They would argue that states could effectively cooperate with each other for mutual benefit and there can be progress in international relations, and that the future does not need to look like the past.

The realist retort came most prominently from Kenneth N. Waltz, who reformulated realism in international relations in a new and distinctive way. In his book Theory of International Politics , first published in 1979, he responded to the liberal challenge and attempted to cure the defects of the classical realism of Hans Morgenthau with his more scientific approach, which has become known as structural realism or neorealism. Whereas Morgenthau rooted his theory in the struggle for power, which he related to human nature, Waltz made an effort to avoid any philosophical discussion of human nature, and set out instead to build a theory of international politics using microeconomics as a model. In his works, he argues that states in the international system are like firms in a domestic economy and have the same fundamental interest: to survive. “Internationally, the environment of states’ actions, or the structure of their system, is set by the fact that some states prefer survival over other ends obtainable in the short run and act with relative efficiency to achieve that end” (93).

Waltz maintains that by paying attention to the individual state, and to ideological, moral and economic issues, both traditional liberals and classical realists make the same mistake. They fail to develop a serious account of the international system—one that can be abstracted from the wider socio-political domain. Waltz acknowledges that such an abstraction distorts reality and omits many of the factors that were important for classical realism. It does not allow for the analysis of the development of specific foreign policies. However, it also has utility. Notably, it assists in understanding the primary determinants of international politics. To be sure, Waltz’s neorealist theory cannot be applied to domestic politics. It cannot serve to develop policies of states concerning their international or domestic affairs. His theory helps only to explain why states behave in similar ways despite their different forms of government and diverse political ideologies, and why, despite their growing interdependence, the overall picture of international relations is unlikely to change.

According to Waltz, the uniform behavior of states over centuries can be explained by the constraints on their behavior that are imposed by the structure of the international system. A system’s structure is defined first by the principle by which it is organized, then by the differentiation of its units, and finally by the distribution of capabilities (power) across units. Anarchy, or the absence of central authority, is for Waltz the ordering principle of the international system. The units of the international system are states. Waltz recognizes the existence of non-state actors, but dismisses them as relatively unimportant. Since all states want to survive, and anarchy presupposes a self-help system in which each state has to take care of itself, there is no division of labor or functional differentiation among them. While functionally similar, they are nonetheless distinguished by their relative capabilities (the power each of them represents) to perform the same function.

Consequently, Waltz sees power and state behavior in a different way from the classical realists. For Morgenthau power was both a means and an end, and rational state behavior was understood as simply the course of action that would accumulate the most power. In contrast, neorealists assume that the fundamental interest of each state is security and would therefore concentrate on the distribution of power. What also sets neorealism apart from classical realism is methodological rigor and scientific self-conception (Guzinni 1998, 127–128). Waltz insists on empirical testability of knowledge and on falsificationism as a methodological ideal, which, as he himself admits, can have only a limited application in international relations.

The distribution of capabilities among states can vary; however, anarchy, the ordering principle of international relations, remains unchanged. This has a lasting effect on the behavior of states that become socialized into the logic of self-help. Trying to refute neoliberal ideas concerning the effects of interdependence, Waltz identifies two reasons why the anarchic international system limits cooperation: insecurity and unequal gains. In the context of anarchy, each state is uncertain about the intentions of others and is afraid that the possible gains resulting from cooperation may favor other states more than itself, and thus lead it to dependence on others. “States do not willingly place themselves in situations of increased dependence. In a self-help system, considerations of security subordinate economic gain to political interest.” (Waltz 1979, 107).

Because of its theoretical elegance and methodological rigor, neorealism has become very influential within the discipline of international relations. In the eyes of many scholars, Morgenthau’s realism has come to be seen as anachronistic—“an interesting and important episode in the history of thinking about the subject, no doubt, but one scarcely to be seen as a serious contribution of the rigorously scientific theory” (Williams 2007, 1). However, while initially gaining more acceptance than classical realism, neorealism has also provoked strong critiques on a number of fronts.

In 1979 Waltz wrote that in the nuclear age the international bipolar system, based on two superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union—was not only stable but likely to persist (176–7). With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent disintegration of the USSR this prediction was proven wrong. The bipolar world turned out to have been more precarious than most realist analysts had supposed. Its end opened new possibilities and challenges related to globalization. This has led many critics to argue that neorealism, like classical realism, cannot adequately account for changes in world politics.

The new debate between international (neo)realists and (neo)liberals is no longer concerned with the questions of morality and human nature, but with the extent to which state behavior is influenced by the anarchic structure of the international system rather than by institutions, learning and other factors that are conductive to cooperation. In his 1989 book International Institutions and State Power , Robert Keohane accepts Waltz’s emphasis on system-level theory and his general assumption that states are self-interested actors that rationally pursue their goals. However, by employing game theory he shows that states can widen the perception of their self-interest through economic cooperation and involvement in international institutions. Patterns of interdependence can thus affect world politics. Keohane calls for systemic theories that would be able to deal better with factors affecting state interaction, and with change.

Critical theorists, such as Robert W. Cox, also focus on the alleged inability of neorealism to deal with change. In their view, neorealists take a particular, historically determined state-based structure of international relations and assume it to be universally valid. In contrast, critical theorists believe that by analyzing the interplay of ideas, material factors, and social forces, one can understand how this structure has come about, and how it may eventually change (Cox 1986). They contend that neorealism ignores both the historical process during which identities and interests are formed, and the diverse methodological possibilities. It legitimates the existing status quo of strategic relations among states and considers the scientific method as the only way of obtaining knowledge. It represents an exclusionary practice, an interest in domination and control.

While realists are concerned with relations among states and national security, the focus for critical theorists is human security and social emancipation. They focus on social, economic and environmental security for the individual and the group. Despite their differences, critical theory, postmodernism and feminism all take issue with the notion of state sovereignty and envision new political communities that would be less exclusionary vis-à-vis marginal and disenfranchised groups. Critical theory argues against state-based exclusion and denies that the interests of a country’s citizens take precedence over those of outsiders. It insists that politicians should give as much weight to the interests of foreigners as they give to those of their compatriots and envisions political structures beyond the “fortress” nation-state. Postmodernism questions the state’s claim to be a legitimate focus of human loyalties and its right to impose social and political boundaries. It supports cultural diversity and stresses the interests of minorities. Feminism argues that the realist theory exhibits a masculine bias and advocates the inclusion of woman and alternative values into public life.

Since critical theories and other alternative theoretical perspectives question the existing status quo, make knowledge dependent on power, and emphasize identity formation and social change, they are not traditional or non-positivist. They are sometimes called “reflectivist” or “post-positivist” (Weaver 165) and represent a radical departure from the neorealist and neoliberal “rationalist” or “positivist” international relation theories. For critical security theorists, security is not an objective phenomenon. It is essentially social, socially constructed and serves a political agenda. It legitimizes and imposes a political program on society that serves the dominant group. According to the critical securitization theory, the securitizing actor, who could be a politician or the governing party, “encodes a subject or a group as an existential threat to the reference object” (Ari 147). The object could be a state or a non-state group. Such a discursive practice defines threat and danger.

Constructivists, such as Alexander Wendt, try to build a bridge between these two approaches, positivist and post-positivist, by on the one hand, taking the present state system and anarchy seriously, and on the other hand, by focusing on the formation of identities and interests. Countering neorealist ideas, Wendt argues that self-help does not follow logically or casually from the principle of anarchy. It is socially constructed. Wendt’s idea that states’ identities and interests are socially constructed has earned his position the label “constructivism”. Consequently, in his view,“self-help and power politics are institutions, and not essential features of anarchy. Anarchy is what states make of it” (Wendt 1987 395). There is no single logic of anarchy but rather several, depending on the roles with which states identify themselves and each other. Power and interests are constituted by ideas and norms. Wendt claims that neorealism cannot account for change in world politics, but his norm-based constructivism can.

A similar conclusion, although derived in a traditional way, comes from the non-positivist theorists of the English school (International Society approach) who emphasize both systemic and normative constraints on the behavior of states. Referring to the classical view of the human being as an individual that is basically social and rational, capable of cooperating and learning from past experiences, these theorists emphasize that states, like individuals, have legitimate interests that others can recognize and respect, and that they can recognize the general advantages of observing a principle of reciprocity in their mutual relations (Jackson and Sørensen 167). Therefore, states can bind themselves to other states by treaties and develop some common values with other states. Hence, the structure of the international system is not unchangeable as the neorealists claim. It is not a permanent Hobbesian anarchy, permeated by the danger of war. An anarchic international system based on pure power relations among actors can evolve into a more cooperative and peaceful international society, in which state behavior is shaped by commonly shared values and norms. A practical expression of international society are international organizations that uphold the rule of law in international relations, especially the UN.

An unintended and unfortunate consequence of the debate about neorealism is that neorealism and a large part of its critique (with the notable exception of the English School) has been expressed in abstract scientific and philosophical terms. This has made the theory of international politics almost inaccessible to a layperson and has divided the discipline of international relations into incompatible parts. Whereas classical realism was a theory aimed at supporting diplomatic practice and providing a guide to be followed by those seeking to understand and deal with potential threats, today’s theories, concerned with various grand pictures and projects, are ill-suited to perform this task. This is perhaps the main reason why there has been a renewed interest in classical realism, and particularly in the ideas of Morgenthau. Rather than being seen as an obsolete form of pre-scientific realist thought, superseded by neorealist theory, his thinking is now considered to be more complex and of greater contemporary relevance than was earlier recognized (Williams 2007, 1–9). It fits uneasily in the orthodox picture of realism he is usually associated with.

In recent years, scholars have questioned prevailing narratives about clear theoretical traditions in the discipline of international relations. Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and other thinkers have become subject to re-examination as a means of challenging prevailing uses of their legacies in the discipline and exploring other lineages and orientations. Morgenthau has undergone a similar process of reinterpretation. A number of scholars (Hartmut Behr, Muriel Cozette, Amelia Heath, Sean Molloy) have endorsed the importance of his thought as a source of change for the standard interpretation of realism. Murielle Cozette stresses Morgenthau’s critical dimension of realism expressed in his commitment to “speak truth to power” and to “unmask power’s claims to truth and morality,” and in his tendency to assert different claims at different times (Cozette 10–12). She writes: “The protection of human life and freedom are given central importance by Morgenthau, and constitute a ‘transcendent standard of ethics’ which should always animate scientific enquiries” (19). This shows the flexibility of his classical realism and reveals his normative assumptions based on the promotion of universal moral values. While Morgenthau assumes that states are power-oriented actors, he at the same time acknowledges that international politics would be more pernicious than it actually is were it not for moral restraints and the work of international law(Behr and Heath 333).

Another avenue for the development of a realist theory of international relations is offered by Robert Gilpin’s seminal work War and Change in World Politics . If this work were to gain greater prominence in IR scholarship, instead of engaging in fruitless theoretical debates, we would be better prepared today “for rapid power shifts and geopolitical change ”(Wohlforth, 2011 505). We would be able to explain the causes of great wars and long periods of peace, and the creation and waning of international orders. Still another avenue is provided by the application of the new scientific discoveries to social sciences. The evidence for this is, for example, the recent work of Alexander Wendt, Quantum Mind and Social Science . A new realist approach to international politics could be based on the organic and holistic world view emerging from quantum theory, the idea of human evolution, and the growing awareness of the role of human beings in the evolutionary process (Korab-Karpowicz 2017).

Realism is thus more than a static, amoral theory, and cannot be accommodated solely within a positivist interpretation of international relations. It is a practical and evolving theory that depends on the actual historical and political conditions, and is ultimately judged by its ethical standards and by its relevance in making prudent political decisions (Morgenthau 1962). In place of the twentieth-century Cold War ideological rivalry, the main competition in the twenty-first-century is between the ideologies justifying the expansion of the US-dominated unipolar world and those supporting the reestablishment of a multipolar one (Müllerson 2017). Consequently, the growing tensions among superpowers have contributed to the revival of the idealist-realist debate and have caused a resurgence of interest in realism. John Mearsheimer is an important thinker in this respect, known for his pessimistic concept of offensive realism, which assumes that powerful states, such as the United States, would aim at the maximization of power and domination over others (Mearsheimer 2001). His late work, The Liberal Delusion (Mearsheimer 2019), in which he presents realist arguments against a liberal position, can already be considered a classic of the theory of international relations.

As the current revival of interest proves, realism is a theory for difficult times, when security becomes a real issue. This happens when countries face the danger of an armed conflict. In such situations, realism performs a useful cautionary role. It warns us against progressivism, moralism, legalism and other orientations that lose touch with the reality of self-interest and power. It is a necessary corrective to an overoptimistic liberal belief in international cooperation and change resulting from interdependence, as well as to a critical theory claim that our insecurity is merely a result of securitization.

Nevertheless, when it becomes a dogmatic enterprise, by focusing on conflict alone, realism fails to perform its proper function as a theory of international relations. By remaining stuck in a state-centric and excessively simplified “paradigm” such as neorealism and by denying the possibility of any progress in interstate relations, it turns into an ideology. Its emphasis on power politics and national interest can be misused to justify aggression. It has therefore to be supplanted by theories that take better account of the dramatically changing picture of global politics. To its merely negative, cautionary function, positive norms must be added. These norms extend from the rationality and prudence stressed by classical realists; through the vision of multilateralism, international law, and an international society emphasized by liberals and members of the English School; to the cosmopolitanism and global solidarity advocated by many of today’s writers.

• Allison, Graham T., 2017. Destined for War: Can American and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? , Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Ari, Tayyar (ed.), 2022. Critical Theories in International Relations , Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Lexington Books.
• Aron, Raymond, 1966. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations , trans. Richard Howard and Annette Baker Fox, Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
• Ashley, Richard K., 1986. “The Poverty of Neorealism,” in Neorealism and Its Critics , Robert O. Keohane (ed.), New York: Columbia University Press, 255–300.
• –––, 1988. “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique,” Millennium , 17: 227–262.
• Ashworth, Lucian M., 2002. “Did the Realist-Idealist Debate Really Happen? A Revisionist History of International Relations,” International Relations , 16(1): 33–51.
• Behr, Hartmut, 2010. A History of International Political Theory: Ontologies of the International , Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Behr, Hartmut and Amelia Heath, 2009. “Misreading in IR Theory and Ideology Critique: Morgenthau, Waltz, and Neo-Realism,” Review of International Studies , 35(2): 327–349.
• Beitz, Charles, 1997. Political Theory and International Relations , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Bell, Duncan (ed.), 2008. Political Thought in International Relations: Variations on a Realist Theme , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2017. “Political Realism and International Relations,” Philosophy Compass , 12(2): e12403.
• Booth, Ken and Steve Smith (eds.), 1995. International Relations Theory Today , Cambridge: Polity.
• Boucher, David, 1998. Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to the Present , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Brown, Chris, 2001. Understanding International Relations , 2nd edition, New York: Palgrave.
• Bull, Hedley, 1962. “International Theory: The Case for Traditional Approach,” World Politics , 18(3): 361–377.
• –––, 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 1995. “The Theory of International Politics 1919–1969,” in International Theory: Critical Investigations , J. Den Derian (ed.), London: MacMillan, 181–211.
• Butterfield, Herbert and Martin Wight (eds.), 1966. Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Carr, E. H., 2001. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to Study International Relations , New York: Palgrave.
• Cawkwell, George, 1997. Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War , London: Routledge.
• Cox, Robert W., 1986. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” in Neorealism and Its Critics , Robert Keohane (ed.), New York: Columbia University Press, 204–254.
• Cozette, Muriel, 2008. “Reclaiming the Critical Dimension of Realism: Hans J. Morgenthau and the Ethics of Scholarship,” Review of International Studies , 34(1): 5–27.
• Der Derian, James (ed.), 1995. International Theory: Critical Investigations , London: Macmillan.
• Donnelly, Jack, 2000. Realism and International Relations , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Doyle, Michael W., 1997. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism , New York: Norton.
• Galston, William A., 2010. “Realism in Political Theory,” European Journal of Political Theory , 9(4): 385–411.
• Geuss, Raymond, 2008. Philosophy and Real Politics , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Gustafson, Lowell S. (ed.), 2000. Thucydides’ Theory of International Relations , Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
• Guzzini, Stefano, 1998. Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold , London: Routledge.
• Harbour, Frances V., 1999. Thinking About International Ethics , Boulder: Westview.
• Herz, Thomas, 1951, Political Realism and Political Idealism: A Study of Theories and Realities , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Hobbes, Thomas, 1994 (1660), Leviathan , Edwin Curley (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Hoffman, Stanley, 1981. Duties Beyond Borders: On the Limits and Possibilities of Ethical International Politics , Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
• Jackson, Robert and Georg Sørensen, 2003. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kennan, George F., 1951. Realities of American Foreign Policy , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph Nye, 1977. Power and Independence: World Politics in Transition , Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• ––– (ed.), 1986. Neorealism and Its Critics , New York: Columbia University Press.
• –––, 1989. International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory , Boulder: Westview.
• Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian, 2006. “How International Relations Theorists Can Benefit by Reading Thucydides,” The Monist , 89(2): 231–43.
• –––, 2012. On History of Political Philosophy: Great Political Thinkers from Thucydides to Locke , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2017. Tractatus Politico-Philosophicus: New Directions for the Development of Humankind , New York: Routledge.
• Lebow, Richard Ned, 2003. The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests and Orders , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Linklater, Andrew, 1990. Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations , Basingstoke: Macmillan.
• Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1531. The Discourses , 2 vols., trans. Leslie J. Walker, London: Routledge, 1975.
• –––, 1515. The Prince , trans. Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1985.
• Mansfield, Harvey C. Jr., 1979. Machiavelli’s New Modes and Orders: A Study of the Discourses on Livy , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 1996. Machiavelli’s Virtue , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Maxwell, Mary, 1990. Morality among Nations: An Evolutionary View , Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Mearsheimer, John J., 1990. “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War,” International Security , 19: 5–49.
• –––, 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics , New York: Norton.
• –––, 2018. The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Meinecke, Friedrich, 1998. Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d’État in Modern History , trans. Douglas Scott. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
• Molloy, Seán, 2003. “Realism: a problematic paradigm,” Security Dialogue , 34(1): 71–85.
• –––, 2006. The Hidden History of Realism. A Genealogy of Power Politics , Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Morgenthau, Hans J., 1946. Scientific Man Versus Power Politics , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1951. In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examination of American Foreign Policy , New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• –––, 1954. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace , 2nd ed., New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• –––, 1962. “The Intellectual and Political Functions of a Theory of International Relations,” in Politics in the 20th Century , Vol. I, “The Decline of Democratic Politics,” Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1970. Truth and Power: Essays of a Decade, 1960–1970 , New York: Praeger.
• Müllerson, Rein, 2017. Dawn of a New Order. Geopolitics and the Clash of Ideologies , London: L. B. Tauris.
• Nardin, Terry and David R. Mapel, 1992. Traditions in International Ethics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nardin, Terry, 2017. “The New Realism and the Old,” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , first online 01 March 2017; doi:10.1080/13698230.2017.1293348
• Niebuhr, Reinhold, 1932. Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study of Ethics and Politics , New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons.
• –––, 1944. The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of Its Traditional Defense , New York: Charles Scribner & Sons.
• Pocock, J. G. A., 1975. The Machiavellian Movement: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Political Tradition , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Rosenau, James N. and Marry Durfee, 1995. Thinking Theory Thoroughly: Coherent Approaches to an Incoherent World , Boulder: Westview.
• Russell, Greg, 1990. Hans J. Morgenthau and the Ethics of American Statecraft , Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
• Sleat, Matt, 2010. “Bernard Williams and the possibility of a realist political theory,” European Journal of Political Philosophy , 9(4): 485–503.
• –––, 2013. Liberal Realism: A Realist Theory of Liberal Politics , Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Smith, Nicholas Ross, Grant Dawson, 2022. “Mearsheimer, Realism, and the Ukraine War,” Analyse & Kritik: Journal of Philosophy and Social Theory , 44(2): 175–200.
• Smith, Steve, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), 1996. International Theory: Positivism and Beyond , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Scheuerman, William, 2011. The Realist Case for Global Reform , Cambridge: Polity.
• Thompson, Kenneth W., 1980. Masters of International Thought , Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
• –––, 1985. Moralism and Morality in Politics and Diplomacy , Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War , trans. Rex Warner, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972.
• –––. On Justice, Power, and Human Nature: The Essence of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War , Paul Woodruff (ed. and trans.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993.
• Vasquez, John A., 1998. The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Waltz, Kenneth, 1979. Theory of International Politics , Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
• Walzer, Michael, 1977. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations , New York: Basic Books.
• Wendt, Alexander, 1987. “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization , 46: 391–425.
• –––, 1999. Social Theory of International Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Weaver, Ole, 1996. “The Rise and the Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate,” in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond , Steven Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 149–185.
• Wight, Martin, 1991. International Theory: Three Traditions , Leicester: University of Leicester Press.
• Williams, Bernard, 1985. Ethics and the Limit of Philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2005. “Realism and Moralism in Political Theory,” in In the Beginning was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument , ed. G. Hawthorn, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1–17.
• Williams, Mary Frances, 1998. Ethics in Thucydides: The Ancient Simplicity , Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Williams, Michael C., 2005. The Realist Tradition and the Limit of International Relations , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2007. Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wohlforth, William C., 2008. “Realism,” The Oxford Handbook of International Relations , Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2011. “Gilpinian Realism and International Relations,” International Relations , 25(4): 499–511.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Political Realism , entry the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
• Political Realism , entry in Wikipedia .
• Melian Dialogue , by Thucydides.
• The Prince , by Machiavelli.
• The Twenty Years’ Crisis (Chapter 4: The Harmony of Interests), by E.H. Carr.
• Principles of Realism , by H. Morgenthau.
• Peace and War , by Raymond Aron.
• Globalization and Governance , by Kenneth Waltz.

egoism | ethics: natural law tradition | game theory | Hobbes, Thomas: moral and political philosophy | justice: international distributive | liberalism | Machiavelli, Niccolò | sovereignty | war

Copyright © 2023 by W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz < sopot_plato @ hotmail . com >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident . Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.

An Introduction to International Relations

Chapter 20: diplomacy.

• Library eCollections
• Add to bookmarks
• Add bookmark
• Cambridge Spiral eReader

Introduction

This chapter makes three main arguments. First, ideas and practices of diplomacy have a multi-millennial history – much longer than is generally thought. Second, this long history has been characterised by both continuity and change. As a result, diplomacy has been as much adaptive as resistant to change. Third, diplomacy is not diminishing in importance and both it and the diplomats who carry it out should be regarded as evolving and as important to the theory and practice of international relations. To assess these claims, the chapter first addresses the issue of defining diplomacy, before examining the evolution of diplomacy in terms that may be characterised broadly as pre-modern, modern and postmodern . The relationship between diplomacy and the study of international relations (IR) is then evaluated.

BOX 20.1: TERMINOLOGY

Some definitions of diplomacy

Diplomacy is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent states, extending sometimes also to their relations with vassal states; or, more briefly still, the conduct of business between states by peaceful means. (Satow 1979 [1917]: 1)

Diplomacy is the management of international relations by negotiation; the method by which these relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys; the business or art of the diplomatist. (Harold Nicolson 1969 [1939]: 4–5)

[Diplomacy is] the conduct of relations between states and other entities with standing in world politics by official agents and by peaceful means. (Bull 1977: 162)

Diplomacy is concerned with the management of relations between states and other actors. From a state perspective diplomacy is concerned with advising, shaping and implementing foreign policy. (Barston 1988: 1)

Diplomacy is the conduct of international relations by negotiation rather than by force, propaganda, or recourse to law, and by other peaceful means (such as gathering information or engendering goodwill) which are either directly or indirectly designed to promote negotiation. (Berridge 2015: 1)

Diplomacy is the peaceful conduct of relations amongst political entities, their principals and accredited agents. (Hamilton and Langhorne 2011: 1)

Diplomacy is conventionally said to refer to the processes and institutions by which states [and others with standing] represent themselves and their interests in the conduct of their relations with one another. (Sharp 2019: 1)

About the book

• Chapter DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316855188.022
• Book DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316855188
• Subjects International Relations and International Organisations, Politics and International Relations, Politics: General Interest
• Publication date: 30 November 2017
• ISBN: 9781316631553
• Publication date: 21 June 2018
• ISBN: 9781316855188
• Find out more details about this book

Access options

Review the options below to login to check your access.

Personal login

Log in with your Cambridge Higher Education account to check access.

Purchase options

Have an access code.

To redeem an access code, please log in with your personal login.

If you believe you should have access to this content, please contact your institutional librarian or consult our FAQ page for further information about accessing our content.

International Relations Essay: Definition, Outline, and a Step-by-Step Writing Guide

When it comes to writing an essay on international relations theories or a similar topic, it's all about striking the right balance between depth and clarity. In this article, we'll dive into the key steps of how to write an international relations essay on global issues. From doing thorough research to presenting your arguments effectively, we'll walk you through the process step by step. In case you need a rapid hands-on solution to an ongoing problem with a particular assignment, we can write essay for money tailored to all your needs.

What Is International Relations Essay?

International relations essays are scholarly compositions that explore and analyze various aspects of interactions between countries and the broader global community. These essays delve into diplomacy, conflict resolution, international organizations, global governance, and geopolitical dynamics. They often require rigorous research, critical analysis, and the synthesis of multiple perspectives to offer insights into complex global issues. This essay international relations students write pretty often aims to deepen their understanding of global affairs, shed light on key challenges, and propose potential solutions or interpretations of events.

How to Write an International Relations Essay?

Writing an international relations essay fosters understanding and dialogue about global issues. By examining complex international dynamics, these essays help individuals comprehend the interconnectedness of nations and the factors shaping international affairs. They provide platforms for discussing pressing global challenges such as conflict, climate change, human rights, and economic inequality, encouraging critical thinking and informed debate. Moreover, the importance of international relations essay is contributing to the development of diplomatic skills and promoting cross-cultural understanding, essential in a world increasingly defined by interdependence and diversity. Use these international relations essay tips to take your writing prowess to the next level.

Carefully Study the Essay Prompt

Before diving into writing, it's crucial to grasp the essay prompt thoroughly. Take time to dissect and interpret the international politics essay prompt, identifying its central themes, questions, or directives. Look for any specific instructions regarding the essay's scope, focus, or structure. Highlight key terms or concepts that will guide your analysis and argumentation. Understanding the prompt sets the foundation for a focused and relevant essay, ensuring that your writing addresses your instructor's or academic institution's core requirements and objectives.

Carry Out Research

Once you understand what’s required to do in an essay on international relations, undertake comprehensive research to gather relevant information and insights. Utilize various credible sources, including academic journals, books, government publications, and reputable websites. Take thorough notes, organizing your research materials systematically to facilitate later analysis and synthesis. Be discerning in evaluating sources, prioritizing those that offer rigorous analysis and empirical evidence. Effective research provides the foundation for constructing well-informed arguments and developing a nuanced understanding of the topic.

Cogitate a Thesis Statement

With a solid grasp of the prompt and research findings, craft a clear and concise international relation essay thesis statement. This statement should encapsulate the main argument or perspective that your essay will explore. It serves as the guiding principle for your writing, providing direction and focus for your analysis. A strong thesis statement is specific, debatable, and relevant to the topic, offering a compelling stance or interpretation that you will substantiate throughout the essay. Take time to refine your thesis statement, ensuring that it effectively captures the essence of your argument and sets the stage for a coherent and persuasive essay. ‘What if I write my essay online ?’ That would be wise if your energy levels are depleted and you need a good night’s sleep.

Outline the Essay Structure

Once you have a clear thesis, outline the structure of your essay. Divide it into an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. In the introduction, provide context for your topic, introduce your thesis, and outline the main points you will discuss. Each body paragraph should focus on a single aspect or argument supported by evidence and analysis. Transition smoothly between paragraphs to maintain coherence. Finally, in the conclusion, summarize your main points, restate your thesis, and offer insights or suggestions for further research. A well-organized structure enhances readability and helps convey your ideas effectively.

Write and Revise

With your outline in hand, begin drafting your essay on politics. Write concise sentences and paragraphs, ensuring coherence and logical flow between ideas. Support your arguments with evidence and analysis, citing sources properly. After completing the first draft, take time to revise and refine your work. Check for clarity, coherence, and consistency of argumentation. Edit for grammar, punctuation, and style errors. Consider feedback from peers or instructors to strengthen your essay further. Revision is crucial in polishing your essay and ensuring it meets academic standards. You can hire an essay writer to polish your draft in and out.

Cite Sources and Format the Text

Properly cite all sources used in your essay to avoid plagiarism and give credit to the original authors. Follow the citation style specified by your instructors or academic institution, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago. Double-check the accuracy of citations and bibliography entries. Pay attention to formatting details such as font size, spacing, and margins, adhering to academic guidelines. Consistent and accurate citation and formatting enhance the professionalism and credibility of your essay.

International Relations Essay Structure

The international relations essay outline typically includes an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The introduction sets the stage by providing context for the topic, presenting a clear thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective of the essay, and previewing the key points to be discussed. The body paragraphs delve into specific aspects of the topic, each focusing on a single argument or idea supported by evidence and analysis. Transition smoothly between paragraphs to maintain coherence and logical flow. Use evidence from credible sources to substantiate your claims and provide depth to your analysis. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the main points discussed, restates the thesis, and offers insights or suggestions for further research or consideration, leaving the reader with a lasting impression of the topic's significance. Aim for the optimal international relations essay length of 1500-3000 words.

International Relations Essay Introduction

The introduction is the gateway to your essay, setting the stage for what follows. Here, you provide context for your topic, engage the reader's interest, and present your thesis statement. Start with a compelling hook to grab the reader's attention, such as a relevant quote, statistic, or anecdote. Then, gradually transition to the broader topic, providing background information and explaining its significance in international relations. Finally, conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement outlining your essay's main argument or perspective. This statement should be debatable, specific, and relevant to the topic, offering a roadmap for what the reader can expect to encounter in the subsequent sections of the essay. If you need instant academic relief, shop for essays for sale on our website.

The main body of your international relations essay is where you present and develop your arguments in detail. Each international relations essay paragraph of the main body should focus on a single aspect or argument related to your thesis statement. Begin each paragraph with a topic sentence introducing the main idea, followed by supporting evidence, analysis, and examples to substantiate your argument. Use a logical structure to organize your paragraphs, transitioning smoothly between ideas to maintain coherence and flow. Ensure that credible sources support your arguments and that you critically engage with different perspectives on the topic. Additionally, consider using subheadings to help organize your ideas and guide the reader through complex essay sections.

Conclusion of International Relations Essay

Think of an international relations essay conclusion as your opportunity to leave a lasting impression on the reader and reinforce the significance of your arguments. Begin by summarizing the main points discussed in the essay, highlighting the key findings and insights that have emerged. Then, restate your thesis statement, emphasizing how your analysis has contributed to a deeper understanding of the topic. Finally, offer some reflections or suggestions for further research, demonstrating the broader implications of your findings and leaving the reader with something to ponder. Avoid introducing new information or arguments in the conclusion; instead, focus on providing a concise and compelling synthesis of your essay's main ideas. Sounds like mission impossible? Then pay for paper and consider the assignment as good as ready!

International Relations Essay Topics

Below, you will find a diverse range of compelling topics in the field of international relations designed to inspire critical thinking and thoughtful analysis. From examining diplomatic relations between nations to exploring pressing global challenges, these international relations topics for essay provide fertile ground for insightful and engaging essays.

• Diplomatic negotiations and global peace.
• Climate change and international cooperation.
• Economic globalization's impact on developing nations.
• Humanitarian interventions in conflict zones.
• Cybersecurity threats in the digital age.
• Refugee crises and international response.
• Nuclear proliferation and disarmament efforts.
• Regional integration and its challenges.
• Terrorism and counterterrorism strategies.
• Gender inequality in international development.
• Environmental degradation and transboundary pollution.
• The role of international organizations in crisis management.
• Sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea.
• Ethnic conflict and reconciliation processes.
• Migration policies and human rights.
• The impact of social media on global politics.
• Energy security and resource competition.
• Human trafficking and international law enforcement.
• Cultural diplomacy and soft power projection.
• Health diplomacy and pandemic preparedness.
• Arms trade regulations and arms control agreements.
• International trade disputes and tariffs.
• Religious extremism and interfaith dialogue.
• Space exploration and international collaboration.
• Water scarcity and interstate conflicts.
• Maritime piracy and maritime security measures.
• Diaspora communities and their role in international relations.
• Indigenous rights and self-determination movements.
• Climate refugees and displacement challenges.
• Economic sanctions and their effectiveness in achieving policy goals.

Another interesting and simple topic is why I want to study international relations essay. It allows students to articulate their motivations, aspirations, and personal connections to the field. This topic encourages self-reflection and provides insight into the individual's interests and potential contributions to the study and practice of international relations.

International Relations Essay Examples

Examples of international relations essays can be incredibly beneficial for students as they provide practical illustrations of effective argumentation, research techniques, and writing styles within the discipline. By studying these examples, students can learn how to structure their essays, develop coherent arguments, and effectively incorporate scholarly sources to support their points. Additionally, analyzing diverse examples exposes students to manifold topics and perspectives, enriching their understanding of international relations issues and approaches.

Working on an interpersonal relationship essay allows students to explore human connections, communication, and interaction dynamics. These essays provide an opportunity to delve into the complexities of relationships within various contexts, including personal, familial, romantic, professional, and societal. By examining factors such as trust, empathy, conflict resolution, and social influence, students gain insights into the intricacies of building and maintaining meaningful connections with others. Moreover, interpersonal relationship essays often encourage reflection on one's experiences, attitudes, and behaviors, fostering self-awareness and emotional intelligence. throughout their lives. To hone your skills, you can also consider reading the guide on what is gender equality essay and how to write it well.

Frequently asked questions

What are some good international relations essay questions, how to explain the constructivism international relations essay, what are the implications of positivism for the study of international relations essay.

She was flawless! first time using a website like this, I've ordered article review and i totally adored it! grammar punctuation, content - everything was on point

This writer is my go to, because whenever I need someone who I can trust my task to - I hire Joy. She wrote almost every paper for me for the last 2 years

Term paper done up to a highest standard, no revisions, perfect communication. 10s across the board!!!!!!!

I send him instructions and that's it. my paper was done 10 hours later, no stupid questions, he nailed it.

Sometimes I wonder if Michael is secretly a professor because he literally knows everything. HE DID SO WELL THAT MY PROF SHOWED MY PAPER AS AN EXAMPLE. unbelievable, many thanks

You Might Also Like

New Posts to Your Inbox!

Stay in touch

• Foreign Affairs
• CFR Education
• Newsletters

• Israel-Hamas

Climate Change

Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland December 5, 2023 Renewing America

• Defense & Security
• Diplomacy & International Institutions
• Energy & Environment
• Human Rights
• Politics & Government
• Social Issues

Myanmar’s Troubled History: Coups, Military Rule, and Ethnic Conflict

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland January 31, 2022

• Europe & Eurasia
• Global Commons
• Middle East & North Africa
• Sub-Saharan Africa

How Tobacco Laws Could Help Close the Racial Gap on Cancer

Interactive by Olivia Angelino, Thomas J. Bollyky , Elle Ruggiero and Isabella Turilli February 1, 2023 Global Health Program

• Backgrounders
• Special Projects

Lost Decade

Book by Robert D. Blackwill and Richard Fontaine June 11, 2024 Asia Program

• Centers & Programs
• Books & Reports
• Independent Task Force Program
• Fellowships

Oil and Petroleum Products

Academic Webinar: The Geopolitics of Oil

Webinar with Carolyn Kissane and Irina A. Faskianos April 12, 2023

• State & Local Officials
• Religion Leaders
• Local Journalists

A Conversation With John Kerry

Virtual Event with John F. Kerry and Michael Froman March 1, 2024

• Lectureship Series
• Webinars & Conference Calls
• Member Login

Introduction to International Relations

The course consists of 28 classes or units, approximating a normal semester or trimester in which a class would meet two times per week. Classes can be expanded or combined to fit the available time. Each class or unit in the course includes readings to be done (as well as videos, documentaries, and interactives to be viewed and podcasts, speeches, and radio programs to be listened to) beforehand along with suggested study questions, which can also be used for classroom discussion or for essay/ examination questions.

Full Syllabus:   View  | PDF  | Word Educators:  Access  Teaching Notes  for  The World .

Student Learning Objectives

Upon the successful completion of this course, students will have a better grasp of how the world we live in came to be, how it works, and why it matters. In particular, they will be able to:

• Describe the historical evolution of the international system from 1648 to the present;
• Analyze the major issues and problems in each region of the world;
• Understand the principal global challenges of this era, including but not limited to climate change, global health, trade, cyberspace, proliferation, terrorism, and development;
• Evaluate the role global governance can play in addressing the major problems in the contemporary world;
• Discuss world order and describe factors that contribute to order and those that detract from order.

Required Books

This course is built around The World: A Brief Introduction (Penguin Press, 2020), with each of the book’s chapters comprising one class and one chapter several classes. The book (hardcover) can be purchased at stores or online from Amazon and other retailers. The list price is $28.00 but it is often available for under $20.00. The kindle version costs $14.99. The course includes additional required readings that supplement The World , but importantly students do not need to purchase any additional books. Instead, all of the additional readings are available online. Many of the articles are drawn from Foreign Affairs , the magazine of record for international affairs. Students can purchase a subscription to Foreign Affairs that gives them unlimited access to the magazine’s entire catalog for $24.95. Other articles are drawn from news sources that for the most part are not behind a paywall or allow users to read a handful of articles each month for free before requiring them to purchase a subscription. For Educators Only : You may request a review copy of  The World  for course adoption consideration  here .

The World: A Brief Introduction

Order Print Copy Amazon Bookshop.org IndieBound Barnes & Noble Books-A-Million Target Order E-Book Kindle

We live in a global era, in which what happens thousands of miles away has the ability to affect our lives. This time, it is a coronavirus known as COVID-19, which originated in a Chinese city many had never heard of but has spread to all corners of the earth. Next time, it could be another infectious disease from somewhere else. Twenty years ago, it was a group of terrorists trained in Afghanistan and armed with box cutters who commandeered four airplanes and flew them into buildings and claimed nearly three thousand lives. Next time, it could be terrorists who use a truck bomb or gain access to a weapon of mass destruction. In 2016, hackers in a nondescript office building in Russia traveled virtually in cyberspace to manipulate America’s elections. Now they have burrowed into our political life. In recent years, severe hurricanes and large fires linked to climate change have ravaged parts of the earth; in the future we can anticipate even more serious natural disasters. In 2008, it was a global financial crisis caused by mortgage-backed securities in America, but one day it could be a financial contagion originating in Europe, Asia, or Africa. This is the new normal of the twenty-first century.

In this global era, it is critical that all citizens understand how the world works. This introduction to international relations course eschews most of the theory, which tends to be too abstract and divorced from the way the world actually operates. Instead, it focuses on history, regions of the world, globalization and global challenges, and world order to provide readers with the essential background and building blocks necessary to make sense of this complicated and interconnected world. In short, this course will make students more globally literate, which is a must in this global era, as what goes on outside a country matters enormously to what happens inside. Even if we want to ignore the world, it will not ignore us. The choice we face is how to respond. We are connected to this world in all sorts of ways. We need to better understand it, both its promise and its threats, in order to make informed choices, be it as students, citizens, voters, parents, employees, or investors. Read More  

About The Author

Dr. Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations. An experienced diplomat and policymaker, he served as the senior Middle East adviser to President George H. W. Bush, as director of the Policy Planning Staff under Secretary of State Colin Powell, and as the U.S. envoy to both the Cyprus and Northern Ireland peace talks. A recipient of the Presidential Citizens Medal, the State Department's Distinguished Honor Award, and the Tipperary International Peace Award, he is also the author or editor of fourteen other books, including the best-selling  A World in Disarray .  Read Full Bio

Endorsements

“After a lifetime devoted to the practice and study of American foreign policy, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations provides this useful guide to help us understand the confusing world that confronts us.” —  Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor, Emeritus and author of  Do Morals Matter? Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump 

"Dr. Richard Haass, a distinguished scholar-practitioner, has written an excellent introduction to international relations--The World--and has also provided a sample syllabus that can be used as is or adapted by instructors to create their own course to address the particular needs of their students and situation. Both the book and the syllabus are highly recommended." —  Dan Caldwell Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Pepperdine University

"Richard Haass provides a compelling, informative, and timely learning tool. Together his book and syllabus offer invaluable comprehensive course materials with interactives, discussion questions, and reading lists. With multiple pedagogical approaches, students and faculty alike will find these materials engaging, well organized, and highly relevant. The compilation is accessible and yet challenging. Overall, this is an essential tool for courses in Political Science, International Affairs, and History." —  Alynna J. Lyon Professor of Political Science, University of New Hampshire

"Dr. Haass’s volume provides a panoramic view of salient conceptual topics that are valuable for a range of seminars and courses that address international affairs—whether in the social sciences, education, or humanities. Faculty and doctoral teaching assistants will discern that his syllabus outlines themes that can be modified for undergraduates, concentrating on aspects of world affairs and preparing for practicums in organizations with an international foci."  — Beverly Lindsay Codirector, Institute on Women and University Leadership in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies, University of California; Professora Emerita, Pennsylvania State University  

International Relations

(19 reviews)

Stephen McGlinchey, University of the West of England

Copyright Year: 2016

ISBN 13: 9781910814185

Publisher: E-International Relations

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Yi Edward Yang, Professor, James Madison University on 3/18/24

This textbook is divided into two parts. The first part introduces the readers to the conceptual and analytical building blocks of international relations. The second part applies the above building blocks to discuss and assess relevant global... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

This textbook is divided into two parts. The first part introduces the readers to the conceptual and analytical building blocks of international relations. The second part applies the above building blocks to discuss and assess relevant global issues. Taken together, this text provides a comprehensive coverage of topics expected in a typical undergraduate introductory international relations/global politics offered in North American colleges/universities. The free version of the text was last updated in 2016 – some major global development emerged since then, e.g., the Covid-19 pandemic and the rising tension between China and the United States, are not covered. The text lacks a glossary and an index due to cost as explained at the end of the text. These omissions however pose significant challenges to effective students learning.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

The content of the text is in general accurate and free of errors. However, the analytical angle is still very Western-centric. One necessary expansion is to include non-Western international relations theories/frameworks/examples consistently throughout the text.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

This text clearly needs major update to include new issues/cases since it was last published in 2016. The structure of the text allows for relatively easy updates.

Clarity rating: 4

This text, although contributed by various authors, is written clearly, which makes it accessible to students in introductory courses.

Consistency rating: 4

The chapters, although written by multiple authors, are generally consistent in length and style. However, the is a lack of coherent presentation style/format across the chapters. Some chapters were written in a very simple way which is fitting to students from non-political science/international relations backgrounds. While others were written in more serious tones filled with more scholarly jargons – clearly meant for students majoring or minoring in political science/international affairs.

Modularity rating: 4

Each chapter can be assigned alone. Also, content with each chapter is organized by subheadings which allows parts of each chapter to be assigned.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The organization of the text is logical given how the authors approach the themes/topics.

Interface rating: 3

No interface issues, particularly since this text is free of any charts/graphs/images.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I have not found any grammatical errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

I didn't find anything culturally offensive. But as aforementioned, the text would benefit from more non-Western theories/frameworks/examples.

A good barebone introductory international relations book that covers all the basics. It is good for the students since it is free. It does require the instructors to do a lot additional work to update issues/examples/cases and collect non-text content.

Reviewed by Corina Ladd, Adjunct Professor, Tidewater Community College on 4/29/23

Many reviewers have noted that the book doesn't talk about war. This is incorrect. The chapter on protecting people is really about war and civil war presented in a novel way. The chapter on Pax Americana is also about security. There should... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

Many reviewers have noted that the book doesn't talk about war. This is incorrect. The chapter on protecting people is really about war and civil war presented in a novel way. The chapter on Pax Americana is also about security. There should be more discussion of the causes of wars and civil wars, however. In addition, the chapter on the making of the modern world suggests that the European colonies copied the European ideas of how to run a country. This is a huge oversimplification of the system of colonization and the history of countries post-colonization. In addition, the textbook does not talk about dictatorship and human rights violations, and the global response.

Content Accuracy rating: 2

The textbook is inaccurate mostly because it's separate chapters allow each author to condense huge topics into a very short space

Relevance/Longevity rating: 1

The 2016 free edition can be used as a textbook but the textbook has been updated, but the update is no longer free.

Clarity rating: 5

The writing is extraordinarily free of jargon and the international relations vocabulary that is generally used in IR textbooks.

Consistency rating: 3

Each chapter has a separate author but it does begin by making a connection to other chapters.

Modularity rating: 5

Each chapter is very short and can be assigned at different points within the course.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

While the first chapter downplays the harms done by colonization, the chapter on poverty discusses colonization as one of the causes of global poverty. The chapter on food insecurity has a "bottom up perspective" that gives examples from everyday life in a number of countries and is designed to draw in readers rather than overwhelm them with global statistics. It is more like a reader on International Relations topics and has chapter that are not in a number of standard texts.

Interface rating: 5

There are no interface issues.

I found no grammatical errors.

As I have said in previous comments, the first chapter is quite insensitive, but others are much more inclusive. The chapter on the internet and devices includes examples from many countries, giving students a wider perspective on the world.

Peter Vale's chapter with personal reflections on the field of IR would make a good starting chapter for a course in lieu of the 1st chapter of this book.

Reviewed by Robert Asaadi, Instructor, Portland State University on 1/27/22

Part One of the text lays out the basic building blocks that one would expect to find in an introductory international relations textbook, and then in Part Two the authors compellingly explore these concepts across a wide range of relevant global... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

Part One of the text lays out the basic building blocks that one would expect to find in an introductory international relations textbook, and then in Part Two the authors compellingly explore these concepts across a wide range of relevant global issues.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The content is accurate and the analysis reflects in-depth consideration of the theories, concepts, and case studies presented.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The content is up-to-date and incorporates both canonical and contemporary case studies in its explication of the material. The text builds on foundational case studies and then applies this knowledge to the contemporary period.

The writing is clear and concise. The text is appropriate to a lower-division undergraduate level student.

Consistency rating: 5

Both the terminology and framework of the chapters is internally consistent. The organization of the text results in clarity and presents logically arranged ideas to support a comprehensive, cohesive portrait of the discipline for the introductory level.

Chapters make effective use of section headings and the text is easily and readily divisible. Instructors using this text will find that it is flexible and that sections can be assigned at different points within the course. Chapters function effectively either as stand-alone treatments of their topics or as complements with other chapters. For instance, assigning one chapter from Part One of the text ('The Basics') along with one chapter from Part Two of the text ('Global Issues') would usefully blend the more theoretically, abstract discussion of topics in Part One with the more detailed, case-specific treatment in Part Two.

Related ideas are well-grouped and the presentation of topics is logical and clear.

The text does not suffer from problems with navigation, image distortion, or other interface issues.

Sentence structure and grammar are excellent.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The examples are cross-cultural in scope and the the text is culturally sensitive in treatment of its topics.

Reviewed by Hakseon Lee, Professor, James Madison University on 11/26/21

It is pretty much comprehensive. Possibly, below stuffs can be added: democratic peace theory, capitalist peace theory, domestic audience costs, power transition theory, etc. read more

It is pretty much comprehensive.

Possibly, below stuffs can be added: democratic peace theory, capitalist peace theory, domestic audience costs, power transition theory, etc.

Yes, they provide accurate information and I could not find misinformation.

Highly relevant, but, of course, the most recent IR events (e.g., the evolution of US foreign policy during the Trump and the Biden Administrations, etc.) are not covered.

In an intro IR class, instructors may assign readings from Foreign Affairs or Foreign Policy to cover the most recent events in IR. Thus, not necessarily a critical issue.

Mostly yes, materials are clearly written.

Possibly, a glossary can be provided at the end of book so that students can refer to definitions of main terms easily.

It's an edited textbook written by multiple authors, and not necessarily perfectly consistent in depicting/describing historical events or explaining theories.

Still, I believe it's highly consistent, and any small discrepancy across authors would not generate any confusion to students. Actually, students would even appreciate the fact that IR scholars may have distinctive views/perspectives on historical/current events in IR.

It's great to have two main parts (i.e., the basics and global issues, respectively), and 18 chapters can be easily covered in a semester by instructors' own class schedules.

I think each chapter is very well organized. Some chapters have too many subsections, but I found undergraduate students usually prefer short paragraphs with single terms/concepts to longer paragraphs with multiple terms/concepts.

I don't think it has an interface issue.

No specific error I've found.

Some authors are from the UK and they use British English, not American English. It's simply natural and not an issue at all.

I don't think it has culturally offensive parts. Still, some materials (e.g., religion, colonialism, etc.) could be better served if instructors provide/explain fundamental values of DEI in all human communities/societies as they cover culture issues in IR.

I think it's pretty much well written and organized. It can be easily adopted as an Intro IR textbook in any English-speaking college/university in the world.

Of course, it's not a perfect IR textbook, but there's no "perfect" textbook, either. Experienced instructors should be able to provide additional and supplementary readings (i.e., academic journal articles, relevant websites, etc.) via institutions' own library database that are free to students.

Reviewed by Michelle Allendoerfer, Assistant Professor, The George Washington University on 12/17/20

The book covers a very wide and comprehensive set of topics in a concise way. There are many topics that I don't typically cover in an Intro to IR course but that I could see being interesting to students (e.g. technology, food) and the short... read more

The book covers a very wide and comprehensive set of topics in a concise way. There are many topics that I don't typically cover in an Intro to IR course but that I could see being interesting to students (e.g. technology, food) and the short chapters mean the students could quickly gain insights into those topics. However, compared to other introduction to International Relations textbooks, the treatment of conflict and explanations of war is not as comprehensive as I would need for an Introduction to IR course. I think as an overview of the discipline the book would work well, but would likely need supplemental material - especially with respect to interstate war and international political economy - to fully flesh out an Intro to IR course.

The book is accurate and error-free. I also think it does a good job being unbiased. I especially appreciate the efforts to highlight ways the discipline of IR is traditionally taught from a Western perspective, why that is problematic, and to point out differing perspectives.

I believe the book is very relevant and up-to-date but not in a way that would make it obsolete. The treatment of the various topics integrates both historical and contemporary cases in a way that makes it relevant without too tied to the publication date. I think the aspects that are current could easily be updated without a complete overhaul of the book.

I appreciate the readability of the book. The author avoids jargon and presents the ideas in a way that I think undergraduates would find compelling and accessible.

Overall, the book's flow is consistent. I do wish there was a more explicit organizing principle or thread throughout the book that you often find in introductory textbooks.

Each chapter can stand alone. It will be easy to assign single chapters.

The organization is logical and given the modularity of the text, instructors who adopt the book could easily change the order if needed for their purposes.

No interface issues.

No grammatical errors that I noticed.

As mentioned above, I appreciate that the book acknowledges the ways that IR as a discipline traditionally takes a Western approach. The author takes many steps towards pointing that out and incorporating different perspectives.

I think this book will work well alongside other materials. I believe the accessibility will be refreshing for undergraduate students new to the field of IR and I appreciate the different perspectives the book brings with various authors. Because the chapters can each stand alone, I think it's a great resource for instructors to be able to assign one or a few chapters to supplement other materials in the course.

Reviewed by Sahil Mathur, Adjunct Instructor, American University on 12/6/20

Given the inherently interdisciplinary nature of the academic field of International Relations (IR), any textbook on the subject is bound to be lacking in some aspects. Despite the daunting task it takes on, this textbook does an impressive job of... read more

Given the inherently interdisciplinary nature of the academic field of International Relations (IR), any textbook on the subject is bound to be lacking in some aspects. Despite the daunting task it takes on, this textbook does an impressive job of covering a range of topics that form the focus of scholarly inquiry in the field. Part One provides excellent, succinct overviews of the fundamentals, or “basics,” of the field, while Part Two delves into specific global issues of contemporary importance. As an introductory, “day-zero” IR text, the book provides readers with enough detail to kindle curiosity, without overburdening them with a flood of information. A minor criticism, however, is that some chapters in Part Two do not adequately tie the discussion of the issue to concerns and debates in IR.

In general, the book presents accurate accounts of the key themes in IR, from a range of perspectives. Several chapters use case studies and examples—accurately described—to illustrate complex ideas and abstract concepts. While some individual chapters might appear biased toward a particular lens (e.g., a US- or Western-centric view of the world), other chapters present contrasting perspectives, thereby according the book with a semblance of overall balance. As an introductory textbook, the book is composed of considerably simplified narratives. In a couple of rare instances, the simplified presentation might be construed as inaccurate or, at least, controversial. However, these are almost always on deeply contested issues in the field; interested readers could consult other sources for more nuanced analyses.

The textbook’s content is up to date in two ways: the topics explored in Part Two (“Global Issues”) are contemporary, pressing problems in international relations, and the case studies peppered throughout are largely drawn from recent, relevant events. Most, but not all, chapters are designed to first briefly introduce the topic or concept, followed by illustrative cases to help the readers’ comprehension. This design makes the text adaptable for updated editions, as newer cases could be added. Individual chapters also work as standalone pieces, thereby facilitating easy addition (or removal) of chapters on particular global issues, if required.

The text is generally written in a conversational tone, doing a good job of explaining the substantive content of each chapter in a simple manner. The prose is lucid and accessible. A handy “Getting Started” section prior to the first chapter guides the reader on how to navigate the text, elaborating on some of the field’s jargon—which is used sparingly—as well as on the use of academic citations. A couple of the chapters, however, appear to assume some prior subject knowledge on the part of the reader; while written clearly, the narratives in these chapters may not be as simple as a basic text would demand.

Insofar as the chapters construct the fundamental building blocks of IR, the book is internally consistent. While the chapters generally avoid jargon, the terms used reflect the scholarly language of the field. Consistency in terms of chapter format, however, is lacking. Some chapters make effective use of case studies, but others do not employ cases as an explanatory technique. Some chapters are simplified to the level of an introductory textbook, while others use formal academic prose. Some chapters tie the conversation to broader debates in IR better than others. Perhaps the biggest inconsistency is quality: some chapters, especially chapter 11 on “Protecting People,” stand out as sharp and clear—a highwater mark for pedagogical effectiveness. But not every chapter presents as concise and comprehensive a picture of the topic as might be desired.

While the text provides a good picture of the field overall, each chapter covers a distinct topic or issue and stands on its own. Further, the chapters make effective use of subheadings to present the material, while remaining coherent. Moreover, each chapter begins with a few sentences tying it to the preceding chapter(s). Individual chapters can, therefore, be easily assigned for specific course subunits, without losing any of the book’s broader context. This is especially useful given the previously noted inconsistency in quality across chapters.

The broad organization of the text into “The Basics” (Part One) and “Global Issues” (Part Two) and the sequencing of the chapters in Part One are logical. Part Two, on the other hand, can come across as a set of issues put together in no particular order. Greater effort to align the discussion within Part Two’s chapters to the basic themes elaborated in Part One might have improved the book’s organization. While the standalone quality of the chapters on global issues ensures modularity, it also serves as a dent in the book’s logical organization.

The text’s interface is remarkably simple: just plain, narrative text (with references). There are no images, charts, or boxes; rather, case studies serve as illustration. While one might fault the textbook for not having a “catchy” appearance, its simple presentation ensures minimal distraction for the reader. Indeed, the accessible and conversational, yet informative and interesting, narrative style serves to distinguish the text from other introductory IR textbooks.

There are no major presentation errors in the book. Minor errors are rare (I caught two). Aside from these exceedingly rare instances, the book has undergone a thorough editing and proofing process, thereby minimizing distraction from the content.

The book makes an effort to include a diversity of perspectives in IR, reflecting the theoretical and empirical diversity that the field is striving toward. In its relatively short chapters, it manages to introduce readers to both traditional and critical perspectives. Examples are drawn from different parts of the world. Despite these efforts, there remains much scope for further diversity: even as case illustrations from the Global South are present, Western examples still form the majority. The Eurocentric nature of the first chapter (albeit, with a degree of self-awareness from the author) can be transformed to offer a more global perspective as the book’s foundational stone. The book could have also strived for—and consequently benefitted from—greater diversity among the chapter authors, who are overwhelmingly from the West.

The book is currently the sole open-access textbook in the field of IR, and promises to expose significant numbers of prospective students of IR to an informed, academic introduction to and assessment of the field. While no basic textbook could possibly cover the vast and diverse landscape that is IR, this text makes a sincere attempt to balance breadth and depth. Future editions of the book would benefit from further diversifying the set of authors; including more contemporary, pressing global issues (such as, for example, the rise of China); and streamlining the structure of individual chapters to follow a common, pedagogically effective standard.

Reviewed by Abigail Post, Assistant Professor of Political Science and National Security, Anderson University on 12/4/20

I would not classify this as a comprehensive text of introductory international relations. It misses some key components, the most obvious being interstate and intrastate war. My sense is that this omission emerges from its European perspective.... read more

I would not classify this as a comprehensive text of introductory international relations. It misses some key components, the most obvious being interstate and intrastate war. My sense is that this omission emerges from its European perspective. In the United States, we still include segments on the causes, conduct, and consequences of both interstate (between states) and intrastate (within state) wars in our introductory IR courses. These text's underlying theme (obvious though never explicitly stated) is that of globalization as a cause of peace.

I did not identify any factual inaccuracies, although I would have liked more frequent citations. Since I use introductory courses to introduce students to basic research and citations procedures, I like texts that are very good at this.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The authors make a concentrated effort to make this text relevant to twenty-first century politics. Unfortunately, its relevance (like the relevance of so many political science textbooks) will take a hit due to the global pandemic. Its underlying, yet subtle, theme is that of globalization, and globalization has taken a hit with the pandemic.

Clarity rating: 3

The authors are clear in their presentation but they have watered down their approach so much that the text lacks conceptual clarity. Many key terms (anarchy, balance of power, collective action) are introduced but in an ad-hoc fashion. I imagine that it would be difficult for students to figure out what points were important to focus on. It's easy to read, however.

In general, the text is consistent in terms of terminology and framework, although inevitably multiple authors get repetitive.

The text is quite self-referential at first. That being said, I think that the chapters on international organizations and the environment would be two excellent standalone chapters that I could assign in any of my classes. The first 3-4 chapters were too interconnected. The editor himself argues that the text should be read in order in the "Getting Started Section."

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

I could not understand the organization of the chapters. I believe it is because the editor did not set out a clear organizing theme for the test. As I mentioned earlier, the underlying theme seems to be that of globalization. However, this concept does not explicitly organize the text, making it difficult to grasp the main points. The current IR text I use (World Politics by Frieden, Lake, and Schultz) is far superior on this point – but they are so expensive!

Interface rating: 4

The only downside is lack of index, which I presume is a costly endeavor. However, the text does not include images/charts, so the text is relatively easy to navigate.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

I did not notice any typos, but the authors used informal/casual writing that I ban my undergraduates from using. For examples, the authors used the trite writing crutch: “It is important....” Several of the authors used contractions (didn't, isn't, etc.), which I forbid my students to use. I worry that assigning this text might teach bad writing habits.

There was nothing at all offensive about this book, but people should be aware that it is a European-worldview IR text.

Overall, this is a basic introductory text that to my mind holds promise. However, it requires a more explicit and systematic theoretical/conceptual framework to operate as a stand-alone text for an Introduction to IR class. I will, unfortunately, not be adopting this text as I had hoped.

Reviewed by George Amedee, Professor, SUNO on 12/12/19

The book is very comprehensive. It clearly covers all of the major themes, theories, concepts and trends in an extremely dynamic subject matters. It does well in covering traditional, enduring, and emerging issues and problems in international... read more

The book is very comprehensive. It clearly covers all of the major themes, theories, concepts and trends in an extremely dynamic subject matters. It does well in covering traditional, enduring, and emerging issues and problems in international relations. The most recent emergence of the IR world Post Trump is the addressed in this text,especially with respect to the recent threats to NATO.

For the most part, the book is accurate and error free. However, it addresses early in the book the historical existence of pre-state areas in a European context only. Some scholars might prefer to also understand the nature of government in lands, territories and empires prior to the emergence of "the state" in the context of other non-European pre-states.

The content is extremely up to date. I believe this is because book is more of a reader with many scholars focusing on a specific area of IR. Sometimes with one or two writers the content can be limited by the writers knowledge and interest. Each write in this book obviously bring considerable in depth, current knowledge about the special subject in IR. The basics Of IR are covered and most modern global Issues are addressed.

The book is written clearly and at a level that undergraduate college students should have no problems There is no assumption that the reader has been exposed to the field of IR. Every major facet of IR is covered in clearly written terms. The jargon and technical terminology used is clearly defined in language accessible to our students.

The text has a strong internal consistency. I begins with basics of defining key terms and the historical context of IR. It then focuses on helping the reader to understand the various principle and theories, structure, key actors, and international organizations both state and nonstate . Most of the historical and contemporary issues, challenges, and problems then flow in the ensuing chapters addressing major issues one at a time. .

The division of the text into smaller readings sections is fairly good. However, headings are good but most students are aided by vignettes, tables, graphs are other pictures that bridge the gap between words and pictures that help to further help to absorb the context of the readings.

The topics are presented in a very logical and clear fashion.

In this case, the book can benefit from an interface with images, charts and other displays that would further the readers understanding of the key concepts, structures, and institutions and there role in IR. Also, most books also provide a multiplicity of weblinks and other online sources throughout each chapter.

The text did not appear to have major grammatical errors.

Overall, the book is not culturally insensitive. As mentioned previously, the inclusion pre-state history that focus on Europe only, makes one wonder about areas outside of Europe. Beyond that introduction of the advent of sovereign state, the book goes on to address the international global condition satisfactorily encompassing all regions and peoples.

Obviously, I am excited about using this book to teach my class in International Relations. The writers of each chapter appear to cover all of the themes that have been traditionally a part of IR and frankly have made major steps in incorporating today's issues as such connectivity, technology and cyberissues, terrorism, religion and culture factors, climate and environmental and the emergence of new power bases in Asia and the Mideast. Of course, I have already begun researching supplemental material in the form of pictures, graphs, weblinks to supplement this outstanding reading.

Reviewed by Michael McNeal, Adjunct Instructor, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 10/24/19

See review pasted into the text window below. read more

See review pasted into the text window below.

International Relations, Stephen McGlinchy, ed. A book review for the Open Textbook Library By Michael J. McNeal, Ph.D.

Stephen McGlinchy, et. al. provide students of international relations a broad and substantive introduction to the discipline. McGlinchy has organized the chapter contributions in a sensible and accessible manner that succeeds in covering all of the major subjects and themes of the discipline. McGlitchy’s volume is comprehensive thematically, but certain sections would have benefited from deeper and more sustained analysis, for instance in the section on International Relations Theory. The content is accurate and given the general relevance of the text to the subjects covered the text should enjoy a fair degree of longevity. In the first chapter, The Making of the Modern World, by Eric Ringmar, the emergence of the norm of sovereignty is examined as a foundational development toward the Westphalian system of nation-states that emerged in Europe. Ringmar then focuses upon how this system was universalized over centuries via European imperialist conquests and colonialism. He then explicates how the resulting international system that is with us today operates and persists according to the post-war institutional framework for cooperation and conflict resolution. McGlinchy himself authors chapter two, taking up the issue of diplomacy through a number of illustrative cases. In the first case he examines efforts to regulate and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, including the recent case of Iran. He provides an overview of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its diminution in recent years. The second case he focuses on is that of the 1979–1980 Iranian hostage crisis, the transformation of U.S. – Iranian relations in its wake and the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran in the future. Carmen Gebhard provides an introduction to the levels of analysis method of international relations theorizing. This chapter covers the individual, group, state, and systems levels of analysis and the implication of it for comprehending international relations. She also explicates the ways in which the levels of analysis framework determines the findings of researchers working in IR, as well as how it affects and is effected by the evolving ambitions of the discipline. The fourth chapter, which introduces international relations theory, is co-authored by Dana Gold and Stephen McGlitchy. They begin with a helpful introduction to the particular use of terms in IR theory, then proceed to define each of the “traditional” theories of liberalism and realism that have long dominated the discipline. Insufficient attention is given to the “more modern versions” of these traditions, namely neoliberalism and neorealism, which have prevailed over roughly the last four decades. They move into the so-called “middle ground” (their phrase) in assessing the consequence of the English School of IR theory, before examining Constructivism. The overview of the Critical Theory school starts with Marxism, proceeds to Feminism, moves on to Poststructural thought in IR. The chapter then employs each theoretical framework to assess by the lights of each theory, respectively, the United Nations. This is an effective exercise, but ultimately does not compensate, as it were, for what are rather insubstantial explications of the IR theories themselves. Chapter five, written by Knut Traisbach, introduces public international law. It covers the UN system, legal treaties, intergovernmental and the global organizations that since the Second World War have provided for the international legal regime we now enjoy. It begins with the contents of international law, including the aim of preserving international order and providing for greater justice in foreign affairs between states. The chapter also contends with the laws of peace, and international humanitarian law, including the related laws of war. Traisbach traces the development of international law from its complete absence, to the patchwork of laws characterizing the nascent regime, to the semblance of global governance provided by international law today. Shazelina Z. Abidin contributes the sixth chapter, on International Organizations. The differences between and respective functions of inter-governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations is explicated. The author begins with the UN and moves through a clear description of the forms governmental organizations take, their geographical limitations, and their various aims are examined. The purpose and function of non-governmental organizations are similarly examined. The chapter then takes up hybrid organizations examining the ways in which certain agencies cooperate with formally collaborate with governments throughout the world. Finally, the chapter concludes by illuminating the ways in which international organizations shape the world. The remaining chapter contributions include introductions to a broad range of important but more specific subjects, including global political economy, religion and culture, global poverty and wealth, protecting people, giving people a voice, communications technology, terrorism, the environment, hunger, global security, and a concluding chapter on “doing IR” in a relevant way in the contemporary world. In conclusion, the text McGlinchey’s introductory level International Relations volume is clear, and the writing is well edited. While it employs British spelling and phrasing in places, this should enhance the experience of American students for whom it is unfamiliar. The book’s chapters, while authored by different contributors, are consistently edited, giving the text a high degree of consistency. The respective sections of the text can also be assigned separately. The organization, structure, and flow of the text are effective, and assigning the sections in a different order would not be detrimental to this. Finally, the text is sufficiently sensitive in cultural terms, and should present no issues to educators who assign it.

Reviewed by Stephen Bagwell, Visiting Assistant Professor, DePauw University on 10/10/19

Overall, very comprehensive for an introductory textbook. In my introductory course, I tend to delve a bit deeper into a number of issues, but this textbook overall provides a good framework to build those discussions off of. Still, I'd have liked... read more

Overall, very comprehensive for an introductory textbook. In my introductory course, I tend to delve a bit deeper into a number of issues, but this textbook overall provides a good framework to build those discussions off of. Still, I'd have liked to see at least a short discussion on the changing nature of global finance in the global political economy chapter- there is a discussion of trade and multinationals which easily transitions into course discussion of GATT/WTO, and FDI, but no mention of sovereign credit or debt, which is by far the most commonly access form of global capital.

I found no errors related to accuracy in the book. It was very well researched and proofed.

While some of the specific data will need to be updated (references to the debt/deficit as it stands now, etc), overall the theoretical discussion and the overall structure of the book should enable extended longevity. The updates should be fairly straightforward to implement.

Textbooks are never the most gripping reading, but even with advanced knowledge of the material in the book I found it fairly compelling, particularly because of the focus in the second half of the book on global issues. The second half takes the book from "good" to "fantastic"

The book is well put together and I found no issues in regards to consistency in terminology or framework.

Overall, each chapter is well written, and each chapter and section has a number of natural breaks. However, the book is written, as it says in the intro, not to be broken up or only have selections assigned. Students should use the book to progress through, which limits the ability of the instructor to structure the course prioritizing different information.

Same as above comment in "modularity". Overall, well done, but not much freedom to use a chapter here or there or rearrange chapters to fit the desired flow of the course.

There were no navigation problems (the table of contents was accurate). There were no images or charts or other display features, however.

The book was written by a large number of individuals with different backgrounds and identities, and it shows: I found no examples that were culturally insensitive or offensive, and found the inclusiveness of the viewpoints brought by the variety of authors to be refreshing.

I look forward to adopting this book in the Spring- while there are some issues with the ability to design a course around it (ie the text itself isn't flexible to starting from a different point than the text does), I believe it is worth the effort. We'll see exactly how much effort is required when I begin developing the syllabus for next semester. While the preface indicates that there are "no boxes, charts, pictures, or exercises" because "these things can be a distraction", I find that in particular to be counterproductive. The overall narrative is engaging, but including visualizations only helps to keep that engagement, particularly with undergraduates. Additionally, visualizations offer an opportunity to discuss how data is used, often erroneously, by the media or government. Being able to point to good visualizations (charts, in particular) in the textbook would be much more of a strength than a distraction.

In all, I like this book, but it could have been made better with a few tweaks. For my purposes, the book is probably about 4.75/5 stars- as good or better than many existing textbooks, and close enough to the best textbooks to justify the switch given my desire to adopt open access educational resources.

Reviewed by Xiaowen Zhang, Associate Professor, Augustana College on 7/17/19

A wide range of topics are covered. However, there is no index or glossary. read more

A wide range of topics are covered. However, there is no index or glossary.

I didn't find any factual errors.

Several chapters reference current events heavily, which will need updates soon. However, updates should be relatively easy.

The text is very accessible to beginners, although a glossary would really help.

The frameworks used by the contributors clearly vary a lot. It would be great if at least the issue chapters in the second part are written under the same framework.

Helpful subheadings throughout. Easy to be divided into smaller reading sections that can be moved around as the instructor sees fit.

Contributors in Part One tried to present the logic behind the flow from one chapter to another, but it is still odd to put a chapter on Diplomacy right after chapter 1 and before the chapter introducing the main actors of IR.

There were no major interface issues other than there are no images/charts. It would help if each chapter is followed with its own references, rather than putting all the references at the end of the book.

Many perspectives are included when issues are being examined. However, it could have included more non-Western perspectives/examples.

I can see myself including some chapters as supplemental reading material to my intro to IR course. However, using it as the primary text for college students in the United States would require a lot of extra work (developing a glossary,discussion questions, finding the images,charts, figures going along with the text, etc.).

Reviewed by Elissa Alzate, Associate Professor, Winona State University on 6/19/18

The first section of the book, "The Basics," did not cover the basics in as much detail as I would have liked to see. The first 4 chapters are really foundational for the rest of IR and the rest of the topics in the book, but the information is... read more

The first section of the book, "The Basics," did not cover the basics in as much detail as I would have liked to see. The first 4 chapters are really foundational for the rest of IR and the rest of the topics in the book, but the information is very cursory. For example, the IR theories are not covered in as much depth as they should be, and the author of that chapter seems to be somewhat dismissive of them. Also, there is no glossary. Each chapter should really end with its own list of sources cited, rather than having one long references section at the end of the book. I would also like to have seen each chapter end with a brief Further Reading list for students interested in the topic of the chapter, particularly since the main chapters in the first section are quite short.

I did not see any problems with errors or bias.

IR is a discipline that is always changing. Perhaps old information does not become obsolete, but new developments are always happening. The authors of this book did well writing about the topics in a way that it will not become obsolete within a short period of time.

Obviously, with any edited volume, the tone of the book will change from chapter to chapter based on each author's writing style. I found some of the chapters to be written in an incredibly simple way, beneficial for introductory students. Other chapters were not as accessible.

Again, it is difficult with an edited volume to make sure everyone is on the same page in terms of terminology, but the editor did a great job of ensuring that the terms and ideas were used consistently across the chapters. This was particularly true since a key theme of the book is that the ideas of IR being international and focused on states is somewhat outdated, shifting to adopt terms such as global, globalisation, and non-state actors.

Each chapter was well laid out with subheadings.

Some of the topics are presented in an odd order and appeared repetitive across chapters. For example, chapter 2 was really the first substantive chapter in the work, and it was on diplomacy. It would have been nice to get some more introductory concepts from some of the later chapters such as levels of analysis and actors before addressing one particular foreign policy tool. Additionally, the the subject of diplomacy itself was not explained very well or in much depth before the chapter went into quite a bit of detail covering nuclear proliferation, which seems to me to be something that should be discussed after basic concepts are covered.

The interface was fine. There were no interface issues or distractions. Very simple text and outline.

I saw no grammatical errors.

I saw no problems with cultural insensitivity or exclusion of any group. To the contrary, most chapters went out of their way to acknowledge that the traditional conceptions governing IR arose out of the Western tradition.

I wish the first four chapters of the basics section were covered much better. It seems that the editor chose breath over depth. In many ways, this is appropriate for an introductory class, but not when the basic themes and concepts are covered in less detail than the issues. The chapters in Part 2, "Global Issues," were covered in much greater detail. I don't find many of the chapters to be particularly useful for my purposes, but some other instructors might. I did particularly like Chapter 12, "Connectivity, Communications, and Technology," because it discusses things like the internet and internet commerce that relate directly to students' lives. Some of the other chapters did not seem as relevant and might have been better left to a textbook for a higher level IR course.

Reviewed by Boris Barkanov, Teaching assistant professor, West Virginia University on 5/21/18

This book covers an impressive range of topics. However, there is not much on IR theory. read more

This book covers an impressive range of topics. However, there is not much on IR theory.

I did not see any factual errors. There is some non-standard use of concepts. For example, the chapter on diplomacy calls the reaction of common alarm in response to the development of nuclear weapons in a previously non-nuclear state a norm (p.25). The more common but contested interpretation is that this is interest in security. This is an important and fruitful area of debate but the chapter does not go into it and there is not enough theory in the book for students to recognize and make sense of it.

It is mostly up to date and relevant. More focused and comprehensive discussion of 20th century cases, especially WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, would be useful, at least for American students. Also, I would expect more on the war/crisis in Ukraine (there is no mention of Maidan at all) and contemporary relations with Russia, which are addressed cursorily and from a very obviously Euro-Atlantic security community perspective.

I think it is very student friendly.

I found it consistent.

This is a strong point. Because of the topical focus, instructors can easily integrate the various chapters into their course.

Organization/structure/flow are fine.

It would be nice if clicking on a chapter title or page number in the table of contents took you to the chapter.

The book tries admirably to include many perspectives and address issues of global relevance. I agree that it reflects views more common among European scholars than in the USA.

I will certainly include some of these chapters as supplements to my intro to IR course. However, there is not enough theory to be my main text.

Reviewed by Peter Funke, Associate Professor, University of South Florida on 3/27/18

While comprehensiveness is not achievable, this edited volume covers main areas of the field. read more

While comprehensiveness is not achievable, this edited volume covers main areas of the field.

This is of course always depends on one's perspective but from what I could tell, it seems accurate.

Seems mostly fine although some chapters reference current events, which will be outdated at some point.

Clearly written.

There is some referring back to other chapters and topics but there could be more given that it is a textbook.

Yes, it is.

Dozen of ways to do it but it follows a somewhat standard approach. From broader and theoretical debates to issue areas.

No issues that I could detect.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

It has a somewhat Eurocentric bend as there is little on colonialism or non-western examples or approaches.

No index but you can search as it is available electronically. A glossary might be helpful.

Reviewed by Azamat Sakiev, Assistant Professor, Pennsylvania State University on 2/1/18

The textbook is comprehensive in range of concepts it covers. Some topics, however, are dispersed throughout various chapters and could benefit from being looked at in a single section/chapter. The textbook does not provide and index or glossary,... read more

The textbook is comprehensive in range of concepts it covers. Some topics, however, are dispersed throughout various chapters and could benefit from being looked at in a single section/chapter. The textbook does not provide and index or glossary, but since it is available electronically looking up terms and words of interest is of no difficulty.

The content appears accurate. No major inaccuracies were detected as of this review.

The textbook is up-to-date. The events, concepts and examples used in it are durable enough that it will not need to be regularly updated. Certainly not on an annual basis. The emphasis on concepts rather than smaller current event make it last for several years before needing re-edition.

The textbook reads easily. It flows from chapter to chapter and theme to theme rather seamlessly. It would not be a difficult read for an undergraduate level course.

The textbook has a decent consistency.

As it stands the textbook would require some effort to divide into readable chunks for assignments. I would organize is differently in terms of the chapters. However, when combining various chapters from parts 1 and 2, the reading assignments are coherent. For example, the chapters 8 and 10 cover topics that are usually taught in sequence. Thus, most likely they should be assigned as a combined reading block.

Organization is the one area where I would recommend re-work. As it stands the textbook is rather fragmented. Many chapters could be combined for a more streamlined presentation. Bringing down the number of chapters would also help in fitting the text into a standard 15 week semester long classes (at least in North America).

The textbook could benefit from some graphic representations. Since the undergraduate audience is the primary target, pictures, graphics and other visual representations would significantly increase the textbooks appeal. It would also enhance its teaching ability.

No major comments. As of this reviewing no major grammatical issues detected.

The textbook presents a very euro (western) centric view of the international relations. This is more telling of the state of the IR curriculum, rather than the critique of the text per se.

This is a decent textbook. It accomplishes most IR requirements in an open format. As such it is a valuable resources in instances when textbook costs are a prohibitive barrier.

Reviewed by David Mislan, Assistant Professor, American University on 2/1/18

International Relations is an edited volume that attempts to cover all of the common themes in an introduction to IR course. On this, it does relatively well. It follows the basic format that most intro texts cover-- it starts with big themes and... read more

International Relations is an edited volume that attempts to cover all of the common themes in an introduction to IR course. On this, it does relatively well. It follows the basic format that most intro texts cover-- it starts with big themes and theories, and then proceeds to contemporary issues. The text lacks a glossary, boldfaced terms, and an index. These three omissions lessen the usability of the text.

The accuracy varies from chapter to chapter. One thing I'd like to see is more attention to key concepts in the first few chapters. The book lacks clearly written definitions of terms (e.g. state). Readers can infer definitions from context, however. This is good for a smarter, more experienced reader, but it's a problem for most novice readers. One thing I liked about a few of the chapters was the attempt to incorporate new and non-traditional theories of IR, e.g. critical theory.

A few of the chapters reference current events or contemporary individuals, and thus will appear dated soon. Other elements are deeply historical and unlikely to need updating anytime soon. Some teaching cases embedded in the chapters were sufficiently historical, so they are won't need updating anytime soon.

Again, the quality of the prose varies from chapter to chapter. There are some stylistic differences (e.g. first person in some, third in others) and more than half of the chapter read like they're transcripts of lectures. In this sense, I don't think that the book is written in a way that's appropriate for a first-year student being introduced to a topic. I understand that IR is interdisciplinary and rooted in the arts and humanities, but I also think that IR can be presented in a straight-forward and clinical way that makes reading and writing on the topic simple and accessible. Starting with boldfaced terms and a glossary would be good. Adding discussion questions at the end of each chapter, as well as a summary of key themes, would greatly help the reader. I suppose that faculty members adopting this book can create their own glossaries and materials. Let's face it, though-- who has time for that?

Some of the chapters reference concepts and theories in prior chapters. Not all do, however. I think the book would be better if there was a more concerted effort to integrate.

This text can be divided up according to one's own schedule.

The organization of this text is nearly identical to all standard IR texts. It begins with some history, quickly moves to theory, and then surveys issues. My chief complaint-- and this is true of most IR texts-- is that the latter third (issues) rarely refers back to concepts and theories. It sends the message to the reader that "here are these theories, let me show you how irrelevant they are with the rest of this book.) At best, this organization is a missed opportunity. At worst, it works against the basic goal of the course-- to show that the scholarly study of IR is useful.

There were no major issues. One minor observation is that the left justification seemed to be in different spots from one page to the next. I'm not sure if this is normal for an e-book. It didn't bother me.

Grammatical Errors rating: 3

The grammar is fine. There are some basic style issues for some of the authors, though. Some authors rely on run-on sentences and page-long paragraphs. Both of these stylistic errors make it more difficult for students to read and comprehend the text.

I didn't see anything offensive, but I think there could've been more attention paid to non-Western examples. The last chapter was a bit weird, especially the bit about England's legacy for world affairs today.

I think that this book is a good alternative if you're looking to assign a free book. There are definitely better books out there, though. Students learn best when their texts have clear, simple, and accessible organization and prose. This book is, for all intents and purposes, a series of smart introductory lectures. I might not be the smartest guy, but I think that I already deliver smart introductory lectures. So, when I'm looking for a book, I'm looking for a reference guide/companion to my lectures. This book is not that.

Reviewed by Doga Eralp, Professorial Lecturer, American University on 2/1/18

This edited volume provides a comprehensive yet not so well integrated coverage of the issues and theories that define the international relations field today. Although the book lacks an index, as the editor noted as being too costly to compile. read more

This edited volume provides a comprehensive yet not so well integrated coverage of the issues and theories that define the international relations field today. Although the book lacks an index, as the editor noted as being too costly to compile.

Book provides often times an objective view of global politics, but on issues there have been instances where some authors refer to their personal experiences as a way to open up debates and introduce paradoxes which in some ways impact the overall bias on the issues introduced.

The edited volume captures the relevant debates in IR and provides an overall view of open topics in a manner to insuniate longer term discussion. updates for that matter would be rather easy in the coming editions.

terminology is very clear and almost too simplistic. it would have helped if the editor pushed the contributing authors to adapt a more nuanced language for their chapters.

Consistency rating: 2

the edited volume definitely deserves a more consistent narrative across chapters. As is chapters do not necessarily follow each other. The language is inconsistent and calls for a major revision to keep the use of terminology and frameworks the same across all the chapters.

each chapter of the book could be assigned separately as part of the weekly readings of an intro to IR theory course. in that respect it accomplishes a decent job; however, in terms of complementarity of chapters with one and another, it clearly fails.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 2

organization of the edited volume seems to be all over the place. there is a number of redundant discussions along with a lack of integration of different topics. it does not flow very well.

Interface rating: 1

the edited volume obviously needs more charts, figures along with images. if the idea is to attract the attention of younger college age readers, it fails to achieve that.

no problems with the grammar.

Cultural Relevance rating: 1

Yet another compilation of IR chapters from a very western oriented set of authors. There have not been a lot if any mention of contributions of non-western thinkers and scholars to the field of IR. As is such works contribute to the domination of western thinking in international politics.

Reviewed by Emily Channell-Justice, Visiting Assistant Professor, Miami University of Ohio on 6/20/17

The book is presented as a beginner's guide to International Relations and in this way is comprehensive in its presentation of basic issues relevant to the subject. But the book refuses to use "buzzwords" like "globalization" because the authors... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 2 see less

The book is presented as a beginner's guide to International Relations and in this way is comprehensive in its presentation of basic issues relevant to the subject. But the book refuses to use "buzzwords" like "globalization" because the authors do not want to get "bogged down in big debates" around complex terms. This seems like an inappropriate stance, as many beginners may be studying IR precisely to better understand such words. The book does not have an index. It has a bibliography, but throughout the text, is uses very few references, even when it seems obvious that the reader would like to know more.

The book appears accurate, but with so few citations, it's quite hard to know the perspectives of the authors of each chapter. It is not unbiased; the book is extremely Eurocentric. Countries in the global south are presented as object of diplomacy, or as the sites of problems like famine, rather than presented as active participants in globalization (I guess if they'd be willing the use the term globalization, they could have avoided this problem).

The book seems up to date, including citations from 2015. Because the text is so theory heavy and includes almost no examples, this might prevent it from seeming out of date quickly. At the same time, the second half ("global issues") that focuses on contemporary problems, would have to be updated quite regularly (i.e. examples like the environment, global food crisis). But the book should do this, because students need to be presented with examples of how IR works and how we can respond to these global issues.

The book is written clearly, if dispassionately. There is little jargon, as was the author's intention, but this makes the writing seem even too simplistic for college students. Why should we not be asking them to understand challenging terms? The book's introduction also gives recommendations for how to read, which, if idealistic, could be useful to college freshmen who are not used to reading long texts. Additionally, the authors state clearly that the chapters should not be "cherry picked" and must be read one after another--I did not find this to be the case and had no issues jumping around.

The book is very consistent. Each chapter looks quite the same, although several of the "global issues" chapters are quite short. Again, the book is meant to be read completely linearly, so this consistency was a priority for the authors.

Modularity rating: 1

The book presents itself as NOT predisposed to modularity. As a reader in the field, it seemed to me that this was a little strict and that a good professor could easily reorganize the book in order to, for example, assign an "issues" chapter along with a "basics" chapter in order to illustrate some points. But the authors do not encourage any sort of creativity so such a task would require significant extra work on the instructor's part.

The book is clearly organized based on the priorities of the authors: this means that it is theory heavy up front, features one completely inadequate chapter about "culture," and then presents a series of "issues" to bring IR into the real world. The book fits clearly into the authors' pedagogy.

There are no images or any other illustrations. This is another part of the authors' pedagogy in which they find such things distracting. There are no interface errors, but the book is entirely page after page of similar-looking text. This is ridiculously boring and very far out of touch from how students actually learn.

I did not note any errors.

The book is very Eurocentric and is focused on the diplomatic world through the eyes of Europe and North America. This is an archaic way of teaching and learning about the world. There is one chapter about "culture and religion" (which, first of all, each deserve there own attention) which tells us nothing about how cultural diversity impacts international relations. The "global issues" section is extremely weak. For instance, the chapter on the environment focuses almost exclusively on international agreements, but not on differential expectations for countries, debates around these policies, and the real-life impacts of climate change and environmental policy. This book is not culturally sensitive because there are no people in it. It's as if the authors see IR as outside of the realm of human relevance.

Since there are no images or suggestions for discussion or further reading, a faculty member using this book would have to do a huge amount of work to make the text engaging for students. The instructor would have to find creative ways to do any practical exercises, and this seems like way too much work when much better texts exist. This book is not worth using just because it is open access. Why on earth would you want to teach IR without thinking about any examples and without getting students thinking about what policies have what impact on the people living around the world?

Reviewed by Alexis Henshaw, Visiting Assistant Professor, Miami University on 6/20/17

The book at least touches on all of the subjects that I routinely cover in my introductory course on international relations, but the coverage of the subjects vary greatly. I thought the chapters on the environment and food security were... read more

The book at least touches on all of the subjects that I routinely cover in my introductory course on international relations, but the coverage of the subjects vary greatly. I thought the chapters on the environment and food security were particularly well-developed, but other chapters like the one on connectivity, communications, and technology would have been made stronger through more details or applied examples. The historical context given to today's political world is also a bit shaky. Some historical developments are more thoroughly explained than others, and students using this book might find it confusing that some background material is spread across chapters. Also noteworthy, the book contains no finding aids (index, glossary) which would make it cumbersome to students trying to use this in an introductory course.

I found the book to be accurate on the topics it covers.

It was not clear to me whether or how the publishers plan to update this text. This is particularly key for an international relations textbook with such a heavy emphasis on current world affairs. Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that the book is less than a year old, some sections are already debatably in need of updating (particularly Ch. 17, as it relates to U.S. foreign policy). While the basic information conveyed in each chapter will remain relevant, I would want to know the editor's intentions for updating the text before implementing it in a course.

The text is written in a very accessible way, and the various authors do a good job of explaining terms fully in the text.

The chapters are consistent in length and style.

The chapter structure is well-defined and appropriate for an introductory course. Potential users may want to be aware that the text is designed to flow in a certain order, so in most cases rearranging chapters out-of-order would not be advised.

The book is mostly well structured. I did have some issue with some concepts or historical developments being explained out-of-order or across multiple chapters, for example the history and development of the UN--which is spread across chapters 4, 5, and 6--and the Cold War, which is discussed piecemeal in multiple chapters.

My biggest issue with the interface is that there is none. The book contains no links, pictures, charts, graphs, or visuals at all--even where the addition of these materials could help students using the text. I appreciate the editor's note indicating that these items were sacrificed in order to produce a free text, but I feel there were some extremely low- or no-cost ways of enhancing the text that would have been beneficial. Even having authors use bold font for key terms would facilitate student learning. Authors might also have been encouraged to recommend further reading or links to online resources related to each chapter. Combined with the lack of finding aids, I think the lack of interface would frustrate some students.

I did not find any obvious grammatical errors in the text.

The text is largely inclusive, and the individual authors are representative of the global nature of the discipline.

Overall, my impression of this book was that it could not be a standalone text for an introductory, college-level IR course. The professor using this text would almost certainly need to supplement it with additional readings, and would probably also need to put a good deal of thought into designing exercises, lectures, tests, and study guides based on this material. Most importantly, I personally would not want to adopt this textbook without understanding the plan for updating it, as some of this information will likely seem outdated or obsolete in the next 5-10 years.

Table of Contents

Part One - The Basics

• 1. The Making Of The Modern World
• 2. Diplomacy
• 3. One World, Many Actors
• 4. International Relations Theory
• 5. International Law
• 6. International Organisations
• 7. Global Civil Society
• 8. Global Political Economy
• 9. Religion And Culture

Part Two - Global Issues

• 10. Global Poverty And Wealth
• 11. Protecting People
• 12. Connectivity, Communications And Technology
• 13. Voices Of The People
• 14. Transnational Terrorism
• 15. The Environment
• 16. Feeding The World
• 17. Managing Global Security Beyond ‘Pax Americana'
• 18. Crossings And Candles

References Note On Indexing

Ancillary Material

About the book.

This book is designed to be a ‘Day 0' introduction to International Relations. As a beginner's guide, it has been structured to condense the most important information into the smallest space and present that information in the most accessible way. The chapters offer a broad sweep of the basic components of International Relations and the key contemporary issues that concern the discipline. The narrative arc forms a complete circle, taking readers from no knowledge to competency. The journey starts by examining how the international system was formed and ends by reflecting that International Relations is always adapting to events and is therefore a never-ending journey of discovery. Unlike typical textbooks, there are no boxes, charts, pictures or exercises. The philosophy underpinning this book is that these things can be a distraction. This book, like others in the E-IR Foundations series, is designed to capture attention with an engaging narrative. The chapters are short, with simple paragraphs and clear sentences placing the reader inside crucial issues and debates so they can understand how things work, and where they fit in the world around them.

About the Contributors

Stephen McGlinchey is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of the West of England, Bristol and Editor-in-Chief of E-International Relations. His main research interests are in US-Iran relations during the Cold War.

Contribute to this Page

Power, the State, and Sovereignty: Essays on International Relations

Stephen D. Krasner

Stephen Krasner has been one of the most influential theorists within international relations and international political economy over the past few decades.  Power, the State, and Sovereignty  is a collection of his key scholarly works. The book includes both a framing introduction written for this volume, and a concluding essay examining the relationship between academic research and the actual making of foreign policy.

 Drawing on both his extensive academic work and his experiences during his recent role within the Bush administration (as Director for Policy Planning at the US State department) Krasner has revised and updated all of the essays in the collection to provide a coherent discussion of the importance of power, ideas, and domestic structures in world politics.

Progressing through a carefully structured evaluation of US domestic politics and foreign policy, international politics and finally sovereignty, this volume is essential reading for all serious scholars of international politics.

• What is International Relations?

International relations is the study of the interaction of nation-states and non-governmental organizations in fields such as politics, economics, and security. Professionals work in academia, government, and non-profits to understand and develop cooperative exchanges between nations that benefit commerce, security, quality of life, and the environment.

Our richly connected, complex world demands professionals skilled in international relations, an exciting field of study that presents a globally oriented perspective on issues that transcend national boundaries.

The study and practice of international relations is interdisciplinary in nature, blending the fields of economics, history, and political science to examine topics such as human rights, global poverty, the environment, economics, globalization, security, global ethics, and the political environment.

Exceptional economic integration, unprecedented threats to peace and security, and an international focus on human rights and environmental protection all speak to the complexity of international relations in the twenty-first century. This means the study of international relations must focus on interdisciplinary research that addresses, anticipates, and ultimately solves public policy problems.

International relations (often referred to international affairs) has a broad purpose in contemporary society, as it seeks to understand:

• The origins of war and the maintenance of peace
• The nature and exercise of power within the global system
• The changing character of state and non-state actors who participate in international decision-making

For example, some institutions may study the psychological and social-psychological reasoning behind the actions of foreign policymakers, while others may focus their international studies on the institutional processes that contribute to the goals and behaviors of states. Ultimately, the area of international relations studied depends on the goals or objectives of the organization.

The Value of International Relations in a Globalized Society

Although international relations has taken on a new significance because of our increasingly interconnected world, it is certainly not a new concept. Historically, the establishment of treaties between nations served as the earliest form of international relations.

The study and practice of international relations in today’s world is valuable for many reasons:

• International relations promotes successful trade policies between nations.
• International relations encourages travel related to business, tourism, and immigration, providing people with opportunities to enhance their lives.
• International relations allows nations to cooperate with one another, pool resources, and share information as a way to face global issues that go beyond any particular country or region. Contemporary global issues include pandemics, terrorism, and the environment.
• International relations advances human culture through cultural exchanges, diplomacy and policy development.

The practice of international relations is valuable in a wide array of settings. Some examples inlcude:

• Action Against Hunger
• Oxfam International
• World Food Programme
• Department of State
• Department of Homeland Security
• Department of Commerce
• General Electric
• Exxon Mobile
• Washington Post
• The Guardian
• Der Spiegal
• New York Times
• Wall Street Journal
• World Trade Organization
• United Nations
• Amnesty International
• Freedom House
• Human Rights Watch
• Reporters Without Borders
• Brookings Institution
• Center for International Policy
• Council on Foreign Relations
• Global Public Policy Institute

The Theories and Principles of International Relations

International relations may be an offshoot of political science, but this field of study is exceptionally in-depth in its own right. As our global society evolves and expands, international relations will evolve and expand along with it as we continue to explore new and exciting way to link our complex world.

For example, traditional dimensions of international relations related to international peace and prosperity include topics such as international diplomacy, arms control, and alliance politics. Contemporary studies in international relations, on other hand, include topics such as international political economics, environmental politics, refugee and migration issues, and human rights.

Examining the Levels of State Behavior

Professionals studying international relations often determine the level at which they will analyze a state’s behavior:

• System Level Analysis : System level analysis looks at the international system; more specifically, how the international system affects the behavior of nation states, with the key variable being that the international system includes the power of each state rather than being independent of them.
• State Level Analysis : State level analysis examines how a state’s characteristics determine its foreign policy behavior. This type of analysis often views states as having cultural characteristics based on their religious or social traditions, and their historical legacy, and includes an analysis of economic and geographic factors.
• Organizational Level Analysis : Organizational level analysis examines how organizations within a state influence the state’s foreign policy behavior. In other words, organizational level analysis views that organizations—not states—make the decisions that create a state’s foreign policy.
• Individual Level Analysis : Individual level analysis views the leaders of states as being the largest influencers of foreign policy.

Examining the Theories of International Relations

The study of international relations involves theoretical approaches based on solid evidence. Theories of international relations are essentially a set of ideas aimed at explaining how the international system works.

The two, major theories of international relations are realism and liberalism:

Realism focuses on the notion that states work to increase their own power relative to other states. The theory of realism states that the only certainty in the world is power; therefore, a powerful state—via military power (the most important and reliable form of power)—will always be able to outlast its weaker competitors. Self-preservation is a major theme in realism, as states must always seek power to protect themselves.

In realism, the international system drives states to use military force. Although leaders may be moral, they must not let morality guide their foreign policy. Furthermore, realism recognizes that international organizations and law have no power and force, and that their existence relies solely on being recognized and accepted by select states.

Liberalism (Idealism)

Liberalism recognizes that states share broad ties, thus making it difficult to define singular independent national interests. The theory of liberalism in international relations therefore involves the decreased use of military power. The theory of liberalism saw its first strong post-WWII emergence in the 1970s as increasing globalization, communications technology, and international trade made some scholars argue that realism was outdated.

Liberal approaches to the study of international relations, also referred to as theories of complex interdependence , claim that the consequences of military power outweigh the benefits and that international cooperation is in the interest of every state. It also claims that exercising economic power over military power has proven more effective.

Although the liberal theory of international relations was dominant following World War I while President Woodrow Wilson promoted the League of Nations and many treaties abolishing war, realism came back into prominence in the Second World War and continued throughout the Cold War.

Back to Top

• Education Resources
• Associate’s Degrees in International Studies
• Bachelor’s Degrees in International Relations
• Master’s Degrees in International Relations
• Graduate Certificates in International Relations
• International Relations Scholarships
• Best Master’s Programs in International Relations for 2024
• Executive Master’s in International Relations: Who Is It Right For?
• MBA in International Relations: Who It’s Right For
• Focus Areas
• African Studies
• Arab and Middle Eastern Studies
• Asian Studies
• European Studies
• Latin American and Caribbean Studies
• Guides and Resources for International Work and Travel
• Career Guide
• Salary Guide
• Understanding the Scope of International Development Work
• 5 Ways to Avoid Mistakes in Cross-Cultural Communication
• The 7 Symptoms of Culture Shock – Indentifying Them and Getting Ahead of the Problem
• 9 Ways to Prepare Yourself for an International Assignment
• Tips for Avoiding the “Western Takeover” When Working as Part of a Cross-Cultural Team
• What is the G7? … Its Purpose and History of Influence
• Insider Insights
• Three Decades of Globalization – Bernhard Gunter, Assistant Professor, Economics Department, American University
• Q&A with Dr. Alisa Eland, Associate Director in the International Student Services Office at University of Minnesota
• Q&A With Ryan Lucas, Freelance International Photojournalist
• Informal Cultural Consultants: Your Key to Success in a Cross-Cultural Environment
• Guide to Gaining the Experience Employers Expect: Internships, Assistantships, Study Abroad and More
• Career Profiles
• Cross-Cultural Training Specialist
• Foreign Affairs Analyst
• Foreign Policy Advisor
• Foreign Service Officer
• Humanitarian Aid Program Director
• Immigration Specialist
• Intelligence Analyst
• International Development Advisor
• International NGO Program Director
• International Outreach Specialist
• International Volunteer Recruiter and Coordinator
• Interpreters and Translators
• Military Analyst
• US Diplomat
• International Business Resources
• Where Business Intersects with Foreign Relations
• International Business Degrees

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Find top study documents

Beginners Guide on International Relations Essay Topics

Updated 15 Feb 2024

Students who decide to study International Relations can help significantly in managing politics when they finish their studies. Choosing the right topic to deal with is essential, as it tackles one of the most burning issues.

International relations essay topics can sometimes be given by teachers, usually in lengthy lists that students can choose from. All of these assignments require outstanding research and a prolonged reading activity from the student and that's why you may ask "how can I write my essay with all these complicated guidelines?" and therefore seek out professional help on essay writing services such as Edubirdie.

These students must act as professional researchers in their local library and online to try and solve some unresolved issues from the past. Therefore, choosing just the right topic is essential as it can unlock and find solutions for burning issues from the past and apply them to the present and future.

This way, students of International Relations become politicians in a way, as they address and analyze deeply rooted problems and causes for conflict between nations.

What is an International Relations Essay?

The essence of an essay on the subject is that it aims to expand the students’ knowledge and further educate them. It is an essay where students convey great ideas from analyzing past events, and solutions are offered to be applied to the future of a nation.

They’re not just about finding a solution - they’re about finding the best solution. If you consider the Nuclear Deal of Iran, which you know the importance of, and have a written essay with an in-depth analysis of it, you may come to a better understanding of why it took place.

In such cases, the cause and effect essay topics are the best. You analyze the causes, see what effects they made, and write an essay covering the main reasons for why it happened precisely the way it did.

The structure of this type of paper is conventional and includes the following sections:

• Introduction Includes some key issues, the problem to be discussed and the outline of the essay stages.
• Main Body Has subheadings that break the entire essay into thematic sections. Includes key definition, facts, analysis and further discussion. Here is where all arguments are to be supported by the sources.
• Conclusion Summary of the key points (in other words). Includes analytical conclusion and your final opinion.

Also, you may come and will come to a better understanding of what can be done to prevent such an event from ever occurring again. Choosing the right topic for International Relations isn’t always easy, which is why you can read the tips below followed by a 200-example list of essay topics.

Tips for Choosing International Relations Topics for an Essay

The following three tips should help each individual choose the best topic for your future writing.

• Convey and combine ideas you already learned from your teacher and choose a topic you will be able to cover with the knowledge you already have at hand.
• Choose a topic connected to a burning issue from the past but can connect to the present.
• Choose a topic that requires research you can find online or in your local library.

Save your time! We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

200 International Relations Essay Topics

Here’s a list of 200 creative and helpful essay topics for international relations:

• America and its allies will benefit from rising China
• Globalizations from a socio-economic point of view
• Origins, objectives, and development of Al Qaeda
• The conflict between America and Russia
• The foreign policy of America
• Cold War and American hegemony
• The Iranian revolution and the influence of America on it
• “Soft Power” Joseph Nye - analysis
• The foreign policy of America - analysis
• The importance of domestic policies and its relation to word’s situation
• International trade legislation and anti-dumping as its necessary part
• The analysis of decision making in foreign policies
• International Relations, concepts, and study in the Caribbean
• American involvement in Peru Tacna-Arica and Chile
• Economy, politics, and history of China
• Relations between China and Australia
• International Relations in colonial times
• Trade with Japan and Matthew Perry
• Realist and constructivist perspectives on Darfur and Rwanda genocide
• The global concept of security
• The theoretical critique of constructionism
• The 2014 crises - Ukraine and Crimea
• Darwin’s evolutionary theory and International Relations
• Communication across cultures
• Conflicts between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots in Cyprus
• International students and their impact on world’s education system
• Cooperation between world’s countries and their dynamics of change
• The war of the Pacific and the early American-Chilean relations
• The dispute between Japan and China over Senkaku Island - effects
• Indonesian official tourism website - analysis
• International Relations and ethics
• China’s intervention in the African Continent - challenges
• Youth Movement Protest - analysis
• The future of the English language
• World’s security committee and disarmament
• International Relations and gender
• American - German relations
• Communication on a global level
• International Relations and globalization
• Regional Institutions and globalization
• The new world group and Guyana
• Bilateral relations through history
• American foreign policy and South Sudan destabilization - effects
• How can we achieve world peace?
• International Relations - why do people choose to study them?
• The impact of World’s Organizations on the US
• International Relations and human nature
• Human rights on the global discourse
• The complete analysis of the humanitarian intervention
• Relations between world’s countries, realism, and idealism
• How does globalization affect people?
• International Relations and the impact of the Great Depression on them in the 1930s
• Public relations - analysis of world’s affairs
• A complete analysis of global businesses
• All about international communication
• The UN and its global governance
• Intercultural Relations’ international journal
• A comprehensive analysis of global businesses and their impact on the world economy
• Global Politics and International Relations
• The three theories of International Relations
• World Politics and its influence on an average citizen
• Are International Relations a form of a moral compass?
• International Relations from a realist and liberalistic point of view
• Joseph S. Nye and Robert O. Keohane and their theory about world’s politics
• Midterm International Relations
• Asian business model and its influence on the global market
• Djibouti International Relations
• The Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the global affairs
• Will there be more global businesses within the next 100 years?
• Questions and answers about world’s politics and global businesses
• Humanitarian intervention and word’s situation
• The theories and liberalism of International Relations
• The main theorists of International Relations
• Terrorist attacks on September 11 and how they influence the world
• International politics and hierarchy change
• How humans perceive politics in past and present
• America, Lebanon, and Beirut and the impact on the rest of the world
• Engagement of Japan with China - what to expect in future
• Why have populists become the reality of 21th century political arena?
• International security on the example of different countries
• World’s trade and globalization
• Arabic and Chinese international relations - investigation and analysis
• All about the affair Iran-Contra
• Foreign direct investment and Ireland’s attractiveness
• Did the desire for oil drive the US foreign policy in the Middle East?
• India - an emerging power or not?
• The UN and analysis of whether Turkey is ready to be a part of it?
• Analysis of the future relations between China and America
• All about the foreign policies of Latin America
• Did mainstream global businesses exclude the diversity of issues and voices?
• We must end the war before the war ends us
• Using foreign policies to maximize national security
• Turkey versus Afghanistan
• International Relations and the negotiations related to it
• International Relations as a framework to compare Liberalism and Neo-Realism
• All about the migrant flow from Nepal to Qatar
• A realistic interpretation of Korea’s world’s politics
• Geopolitics - an overview
• America and Russia during the Early Cold War - misperceptions and perceptions
• The South African Government and the policy brief addressed to it about Intervention
• Is the power of politics overestimated?
• The Sea Region and its power
• Overseas military bases and their common problems
• An analysis of Public Diplomacy
• The three types of realism - offensive, structuralist, and classical
• Constructivism and realism
• The Cold War - realism and liberalism
• The 1994 Rwanda Genocide and realism
• American and Iranian relations
• What will global politics face in the near future?
• Feminism and its influence on global politics and the perception of peace
• Korean War - a detailed review
• Saudi Arabia and its oil - benefits for the country
• An analysis of the Scottish Separatist Movement
• Will UK citizens regret Brexit within the next 50 years?
• The Russia-Ukraine conflict and whether the United States should get involved
• The embargo on Cuba - should America lift it?
• The United Nations Security Council and whether veto power should be abolished
• World’s politics and the participation of South Africa
• Declining significance of sovereignty and why such cases still take place
• Is there a chance to prevent war on the diplomatic level?
• The Mathias Risse and Thomas Pogge debate - summary
• Naming the Island - why is it so important for the Communist Party of China?
• Terrorism and its global spread
• The UN and the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
• Haiti, Bosnia, and Somalia cases and their impact on the American foreign policy
• Islam and its changing nature
• The historical background of the Civil War in Sudan
• The Soviet Union and its collapse - analysis
• Is the Columbian Exchange a huge step towards globalization or not?
• What Would the world look like if there was only one country?
• Authoritarian and democratic states and their contrasting development
• Why are nuclear weapons equally dangerous and needed?
• All about Democratic Peace Theory
• Human trafficking in South Africa and its devastating effects
• American political and economic policies regarding Nafta, Wto, Balance of Trade and EU
• Imperialism and its effects
• A Via Media - all about the English School
• Matteo Legranzi about the changing Middle East - Economic coordination, security, and diplomacy
• How does Brexit influence other countries and their politics?
• An analysis of the Good Neighbor Policy
• What are the most significant causes of War?
• The impact of International Relations and climate change on the Philippines
• Global business and their impact on Zambia and China
• Modern liberalism and its main features
• How vital are military ethics in War?
• Saudi Arabia and the importance of their oil
• United Nations Security Council and its importance
• Intergovernmental authority - all about its development
• The order and disorder of the International System
• Thomas Massaro and his description of the Just War Theory
• Did the feminist approaches arrive late regarding International Relations Theory?
• Economic future of Hong Kong
• How does the maturation of war develop?
• World politics and the negative impact of realism
• International System and the New Sovereignty
• Global politics and the effects of the Nixon Doctrine on them
• How can humanity use historical facts to prevent losses in future?
• How crucial are the problems of Oversea Military Bases?
• The UN and its process of reformation
• Globalization and the approach towards it
• The notion of gender and its influence on global cooperation
• Indian and Chinese raise - analysis
• American Policy Stance for Iraq
• International Relations - a realist approach
• The UK and the UN relations
• Global politics and the role of diplomacy in the 19th century
• How crucial are the functions of the Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations?
• Second Industrial Revolution and world’s politics during that time
• Skeptic theory of morality and period of its main influence
• Relations between America and the UN
• International Relations - a structural theory
• Theories of past that took place in modern politics
• The UK and the United Arab Emirates
• The American Agency of International Development
• Theory and foreign policy: any differences?
• International theory and its three traditions
• The impact of the Zimmerman Telegram on America in WWI
• Creation of Israel and Truman
• Turkey - between Islam and the West
• South Africa and its labor relations, unemployment, and trade unions
• Why do global politics influence each country separately?
• Defense Policies and America
• American foreign policies in the past and present
• Chile and Peru and the involvement of America
• How important is energy independence for America?
• China and America - in conflict or cooperation?
• The forthcoming between China and America
• The Russo-Ukraine War
• Prospects for cooperation and conflict regarding water in the Middle East
• Djibouti - a road to a more substantial foothold
• International Political Administration - its strengths and weaknesses
• Security concerns and the Western states
• China or Russia? - which is a more significant threat to American National Security
• Why should I study International Relations?
• Why is power in the center of realist perspectives?
• The pact of non-aggression in 1939 - why did the Soviet Union sign it?
• What are the benefits of a good neighbour policy?
• How imperialism affected global politics and trade
• The Gulf and its Internal Relations

Essay Examples Relevant to International Relations

• International Relations
• Globalization
• Foreign Policy
• International Trade
• Human Rights

Understanding what this type of paper is about and its importance can help an individual see that choosing the right essay topics for international relations is essential. The tips listed above and the lengthy list of topics should help each individual look for the best International Relations topics.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback, related blog posts, 200+ amazing opinion essay topics and ideas.

Choosing to write an opinion essay can be challenging if student does not consider relevant opinion essay topics that would meet an event or subjec...

150+ Controversial Topics For Essays For College Students

The popularity of controversial essays these days cannot be overestimated since the majority of college professors want to see students explore, de...

Diversity essay: effective tips for expressing ideas

In today's interconnected and rapidly evolving world, the importance of diversity in all its forms cannot be overstated. From classrooms to workpla...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Meaning, Nature and Scope of International Relations

What are International relations? This post has given all answers to your questions regarding the meaning, nature, and scope of International Relations.

International relations literally refer to the interrelationships of states. There is no state in the world today that is completely self-sufficient or isolated from others. Each state is directly or indirectly dependent on the other.

Thus, in the international arena, interdependence has been created between the states. In view of this interdependence of states, a separate topic called ‘International Relations’ has been created for the purpose of discussing in detail how to establish peace and prosperity in the world through cooperation, avoiding conflicts, wars, etc.

The scope of international relations is wide and its basis is mainly interdependence. The pace of international relations has intensified with the development of information technology.

International Relations as a separate academic discipline emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century basically after World War I. The decree on peace of the Soviet Union in 1917 and the 14-point principles of US President Woodrow Wilson in 1918 are known as important documents in international relations.

The first University Chair formally established in the discipline was the Woodrow Wilson Chair of International Politics at the University College of Wales in 1919.

Table of Contents

Meaning, Nature, and Scope of International Relations

Meaning and definition.

International Relations as a separate curriculum discusses international events and world issues between states are discussed in the context of the international system.

Its main topics are the role of the state, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and multinational corporations. It is both an academic and government policy field, and it can be either empirical or normative, as this branch of knowledge is used in both foreign policy analysis and formulation.

There is no specific definition of international relations. Experts have defined it from their own perspectives. There is also a problem with the definition of international relations. Many times international relations are considered synonymous with world politics and international politics.

Definition of International Relations by Palmer and Perkins

Palmer and Perkins are the most important name in international relations because of their relevance in terms of definition and subject matter In International relations.

According to them, International relations discuss the forces, pressures, and processes that control the nature of human life, activities, and thought in all human and group relations in the world community. That is, the discussion of international relations involves both political and non-political issues.

They defined International Relations in this way- “International Relations is the objective and systematic study of international life in all its aspects”.

Definition of International Relations by Scholars

Many scholars define International relations differently. Here I have mentioned the most important definitions of IR (International Relations) given by three eminent scholars.

Hans J Morgenthau

Hans J Morgenthau used the term International Politics and defined it as “International Politics include analysis of political relations and problems of peace among nations…it “is struggle for and use of power among nations”.

Quincy Wright

According to Quincy Wright, International Relations include “relations between many entities of uncertain sovereignties” and that “it is not only the nations which international relations seek to relate. Varied types of groups-nations, states, governments, people, regions, alliances, confederations, international organizations, even industrial organizations, cultural organizations, and religious organizations-must be dealt with in the study of international relations if the treatment is to be realistic”

Jackson and Sorensen

Jackson and Sorensen said that “at one extreme the scholarly focus is exclusively on states and inter-state relations, but at another extreme IR includes almost everything that has to do with human relations across the world. Therefore, IR seeks to understand how people are provided or not provided, with the basic values of security, freedom, order, justice, and welfare”.

He opines that International Relations basically “concerns the relationship among the world’s governments”. But he also argues that IR is not just a relationship between governments. IR needs to be understood in terms of the activities of Non-state actors also.

Acceptable Definition

Finally, an acceptable definition of international relations is that international relations are a separate curriculum that deals with the interrelationships of the various states of the world, non-State organizations, international organizations, war and peace, disarmament, alliance formation, terrorism, and the whole international system.

International relations have a profound effect on world politics, and the research and practice of the subject matter range from contemporary to modern politics, the relationship between multiple states and political ideologies on economic and global issues, mutual exchange, cooperation, and debate.

Nature of International Relations

The nature of a subject refers to the characteristics of that subject. In that sense, the natures of International relations are in the following –

Changing Nature of International Relations

The nature of international relations Is dynamic. International relations is a thorough analysis of what is happening in world politics.

The post-World War II period saw a huge shift in world politics. World politics was divided into two poles, such as the NATO led by the USA and the Warsaw Pact led by the USSR. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led to a kind of single polarity in world politics.

However, economically growing Asian countries such as China, India, Singapore, Vietnam, and various South American countries such as Brazil are all significantly influencing world politics. So it is clear that international politics is moving towards multi-polar again.

The growing importance of non-state actors like NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), MNCs (Multinational Companies), etc, are also discussed in the field of International relations. 

International Relations as an academic discipline discusses the changing pattern of the contemporary world.

As an Interdisciplinary Subject

All social science subjects are interdisciplinary in nature. International Relations also is an interdisciplinary field of study in which other disciplines in social science such as history, economics, political science, philosophy, geography, culture, etc, are interconnected.

The state is the primary actor in IR

In the field of international politics, State is the sole and unitary actor. The state has always been a major player in international relations. The state’s behavior as a major driving force in international politics is also studied in international relations.

National Interest and power are the core of IR

The protection of national interests is the main goal of the state. With this goal in mind, the state engages in relations with other states, and the national power of the state will be able to satisfy its national interests.

Thus, it is seen that the issues of national interest and the role of national power in fulfilling those interests are considered the core of IR.

Struggle for Power

According to Morgenthau, International politics is the struggle for power. I have already said that power is the means of national interest. So power politics is the key theme of IR.

Continuous Interaction among Nation States

No state in the present world is self-sufficient. Every state is dependent on each other. Hence the need for interconnectedness and that is possible only because of the interaction among different states.

International Relations also discuss the foreign policies of different states and how they behave with each other.

Analytical and Empirical Study for Theory Building

International Relations uses analytical and empirical methods as well for theory building.

There are several theories in IR. For example, Idealism and Neo-Liberalism are the results of an analytical study, and Realism and Neo-Realism are the results of an empirical study.

Must Read- Realism Theory In International Relations In Detail

Scope of International Relations

The international community is the instrument of international relations. The unimaginable changes in the international community over the past seventy years have drastically changed inter-state relations.

International relations as a distinct curriculum has followed that trend in international society since the 1930s. For this reason, it is not possible to draw a permanent line on the scope of international relations.

In the discussion of the nature of international relations, you already get the idea that the scope of international relations. The scope of international relations is mentioned below-

Study of the Behavior of States in International Politics

Just as when a nation builds good relations for the sake of its overall development, it becomes the subject of international relations, just as when there is a conflict of interest, bitterness develops among itself and that too becomes part of international relations.

Thus international relations consist of both cooperation and conflict. International relations are also a matter of forming alliances and dealing with the crisis.

Role of Non-State Actors in International Field

The content of international relations does not revolve only around the activities of the state and its formal institutions. The state is not the only active actor in the international community. There are many non-state actors whose activities affect international relations.

Multinational Corporations (MNCs), the European Economic Community, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, NATO, SEATO, WARSAW PACT, ASEAN, the Organization of American States, different terrorist organizations, and Religious Organizations are examples of the non-state elements in international relations.

Question of War and Peace

Today, international relations are not free from the discussion of the determination to save mankind from war. What was utopian in the past is becoming more and more realistic today.

The main purpose of establishing the United Nations is to ensure world peace and security. Large, and regional powers are often exchanging views to create an atmosphere of peace and security. All kinds of contacts for the welfare of various exchanges and globalization processes in cultural and other fields are Gradually increasing. All this has become the subject of international relations.

• What Is Globalization and History of Globalization [4 Phases]
• 5 Important Types Of Globalization

Study of Foreign Policy

Another important issue in international relations is foreign policy. In the past, kings or prime ministers or a few individuals played an active role in determining foreign policy.

Today, not only statesmen but also the legislature and many citizens are involved in the formulation of foreign policy. The state of affairs or ideology in foreign policy and the ideological issues of the respective regimes are important parts of international relations.

Study of Nation States

The ethnic composition, geographical location, historical background, religion, or ideologies of different states are not the same at all. And because of all these differences, the relationship between different states is different.

So international relations need to discuss all these differences in detail. When the social environment is different, his reaction falls on international relations.

International Organizations

The role of national and international organizations in international relations is no less important. People from different countries are involved with the US Congress of Industrial Organizations, the US Federation of Labor, the French Labor Organization, and the Women’s International Democratic Federation Engagement Organization.

The non-governmental organizations are also involved in the activities of the Coalition and its various expert organizations, such as UNESCO, the International Labor Organization, and the World Health Organization. Therefore, international relations also discusses all national and international organizations.

Global Environmental Issues

Issues of the environment are one of the key matters of international relations now. During the 1970s environmental politics only focused on the question of resource issues.

But from the 1990s the environmental politics focused on the issue of ‘Climate change’ brought about through global warming. To overcome this issue, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the Paris Agreement on climate change, etc, have been initiated.

So, global environmental issues affect every state in the world. For the protection of this beautiful world, all the states are trying their best to reduce the usage of greenhouse gasses and that is why it is considered as the most important part of international relations. 

Role of People in International Politics

The importance of public and public opinion in the international arena is also expanding rapidly. The end of imperialism, from international, disarmament, political and economic, has inspired movements and protests by the people of different countries. U.S. scientists, intellectuals-people from different societies have demonstrated against the Vietnam War.

Role of the Third World

The third emergence in recent world politics has brought about qualitative change. Most people in the world are third generation. In 1986, 101 countries participated in the Eighth Non-Alignment Conference.

The growing role of non-aligned countries in building new international systems, easing tensions between the East and the West, disarmament, ending colonial rule, etc. is significant.

Therefore, the role of the third world in world politics is also a relevant point of discussion in international relations.

The scope of international relations is becoming wider as it discusses various issues of dynamic nature. All the domestic policies that affect or are likely to affect other countries are now being covered by international relations. International relations currently discuss various decision-making processes.

In the past, these issues were not related to international relations. Therefore, it can be said that the scope of international relations has expanded.

Importance of Purpose of the Study of International Relations

International relations have become an essential part of social science in every country. The importance of international relations is growing not only as a subject included in the political science curriculum but also as a separate academic discipline. Even many universities have linked it to the history curriculum at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Reasonably, the question arises,

• What is the reason for this growing importance of international relations?
• what is the usefulness and purpose of the international relations lesson?
• why study international relations?

  One thing will become clear if we look at the current world map and analyze the real situation, each country has become incomprehensible in international interdependence.

It is not possible to solve the problems of a country in isolation or to meet the growing needs of different kinds. In order to meet its own economic, cultural, and other needs, each state has to voluntarily enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements with other states. Instead of extreme self-reliance, therefore, an environment of interdependence and cooperation has developed.

There is currently no doubt about the usefulness of the international relations lesson. From a broadly constructive perspective, we can gain knowledge about how international relations will work, what issues need to be eliminated or accepted and considered, and how friendship can be established between different states.

International relations make people aware of important issues such as war and peace, mutual security, disarmament, international law and trade, peaceful resolution of inter-state disputes, imperialism, colonialism, national liberation movement, etc.

The history of international relations has given each country a wealth of experience in formulating and implementing its foreign policy. The breadth of its reading has created initiative and enthusiasm about the need to build an international community.

Just as international relations have inspired people towards the possibility of international society, so too it has presented the nature of disunity among different nations. International relations cannot be analyzed by mere sentimentality. Differences in the socio-economic structure of different countries are bound to affect their national and international policy.

Establishing the usefulness of international relations on a broad basis requires, on the one hand, an objective review of real events, and on the other hand, one needs to be proactive in building a proper analytical approach and theoretical basis.

The vast potential that the advancement of science and technology has created in other branches of sociology needs to be applied to international relations as well.

From the above discussion on Meaning Nature and Scope of International Relations, it can be concluded that From the above discussion on Meaning Nature, and Scope of International Relations, it can be concluded that from the past or the time of the ancient empires to modern times i.e. post-World War II world politics and systems, globalization, the Soviet extinction or the famous Cold War and the Third World system, and the international nuances that are still constantly changing and circulating.

That is why the nature of international relations, like economics, political science, and sociology, is changing. This issue needs to be considered in light of this variability.

Let me share your experience with what you have learned in  “Meaning Nature and Scope of International Relations”.

Share this with the needful students as much as you can.

Recommended Book

Book Title- Introduction to International Relations-Theories and Approaches

Author Name- Georg Sorensen, Jorgen Moller & Robert Jackson

• Palmer, Norman D., and Howard C.Perkins, International Relations-The World Community in Transition , AITBS Publishers, New Delhi, 1997.
• Wright, Quincy, The Study of International Relations , Appleton Century Crofts, New York, 1955.
• Goldstein, Joshua S., International Relations, Pearson Education, New Delhi, 2006.
• Jackson, Robert and George Sorensen, Introduction to International Relations-Theories and Approaches, Oxford University Press, London, 1999.
• Ghosh, Peu. International Relations . Prentice-Hall of India, 2016.

Sharing is Caring :)

38 thoughts on “Meaning, Nature and Scope of International Relations”

Good morning sir how are you, my reason of commentig is am here by looking for help because i want to be very much educated but am not financially strong, so i want to study at the university but i don’t have the money to finance my education by my own so that’s why am here to look for a help from the good people’s who are always ready to help people’s to learnso am also here for that purpose, please can someone help me.

Hey Lamin! I am glad to know that you want to be very much educated in this field and at the same time it is very unfortunate that you are struggling because of money. At this stage, I am unable to help you financially but I can help you by providing study materials in pdf form. Best Wishes for your upcoming glorious future.

Nice presentation and concise

Thank You, Dear.

Can u please help me with some materials. Thank you I’m grateful and ur work is perfect

of course! stay with us.

thnks a lot sir

so nice of you

You have done a great &wonderful research. Not only for beginners but even for experts it’s a must read. I will contact you for more when I start my Ph.D. In international studies at our prestigious Nigerian Defence Academy. Thank you.

Thank you, Abdullahi Isa! I’m glad to know that you found the article useful.

Am a student taking history and international relation in kenya a first year student please help me in understanding my working environment after graduating .

Sir pls can you help me with ” international political system and component of state power .

Hello Ajit Biswas… you had done a great job in writing this extraordinary article… can you share some more study materials with me. my email: [email protected] I’ll highly appreciate your response.

You have motivated me to start working hard in order to persue this course.

thanks for your appreciation

morning sir my name is mancy, from political science department, in federal university kashere Gombe state Nigeria, please help to improve my knowledge, I wanted to have more education please sir

Thank you so much sir … The way writing is easily understandable.

Am Brighton sir.. Thanks for your work that has made me hundle my assignment on the topic of study easily and much understood.International Relations is the course am studying currently.I beg for more materials in pdf form if available

Thank you so much for providing this fruitful article for us sir. It’s very much useful for begginners stds and advance also.once again thank you

I have a question is the scope of international relations same as subject matter of international relations

yes. you are right.

Great work and masterful introduction.May be bless by again and again forever.This article has demostrates knowledge in muiltiple way with dynamic illustration.Am richly bless,thanks again!

Aoa sir I admire ur research even I seems ur work to much beneficial for all the students worldwide. Sir I wanna stay in contact with uh but unfortunately I don’t know how I’ll contact uh again. I need more material like this for more addition in my short knowledge. so plz sir consider me ur student nd support me plz.I want to study hard to make my parents and teachers so proudy.

morning sir please help to explain more about, the nature. of international relations, and power to the in international relations, and ideology of international relations thanks you sir

Hello sir, having gone through all the write ups I feel more motivated in pursuing the Course. But I really need your help by providing me some materials for study through pdf. Thanks in advance

Thank you sir, I need pdf materials for IR, public Administration, method of political research, and modern political thought.

Iam in year three doing political science it’s difficult for me to get material here in SierraLeone.

Can you please make this downloadable so I can be able to read later again offline?

Thanks so much sir ,this was really helpful to me

It’s a good and comprehensive work that explains every part in details,great work sir,I just needed to get more knowledge on it, as it is an aspect of mass communication,i appreciate your effort…..

Nice elaboration… I’ve now understood I need these notes plz

Thanks so much so I really appreciate Please can you help with some materials

Sir may God blesss you I really enjoyed it thank you for enlightening us more but I’ll be glad if I can see more thank you very much sir

Am Joseph Mwangi,, studying IR as unit at the University, thanks for the good presentation and detailed work. I had a question. Scope and nature of the IR, should they form the history of IR or history is another thing. Thank you

Thank u so much for great presentation .god bless u alwayes be happy

thankyou for the content sir able to manage for the exams without books

Love you Brother , God Bless you ….you are contribute more and much

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Conflict Studies
• Development
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Human Rights
• International Law
• Organization
• International Relations Theory
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Geography
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Sexuality and Gender
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Security Studies
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

International society.

• Katarzyna Kaczmarska Katarzyna Kaczmarska Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.98
• Published online: 20 November 2017

The essay discusses the origins and development of the idea of international society in the discipline of International Relations (IR). It locates the concept in the English School tradition, providing a summary of the classic statements as found in the writings of Wight, Bull and Manning. It engages with more recent writing, including Buzan’s reconceptualization of international society and explaining the pluralist-solidarist distinction. The essay traces key debates surrounding the concept, such as the expansion of international society, humanitarian intervention and the standard of civilisation. The final part presents the main criticisms of the concept and explores the ontological status of international society.

• international society
• international relations
• English School tradition
• pluralist–solidarist debates
• international politics
• social bonds
• globalization
• regional international societies

Introduction: The English School and Its Core Concept of International Society

The idea of international society relies on the assumption of the “societal” nature of inter-state relations. This concept is usually taken to mean that order in international politics is maintained due to social bonds between states. Hedley Bull authored the most concise definition, according to which international society “exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions” (Bull, 2002 , p. 13).

Despite this frequently repeated characterization, international society remains a puzzling concept. Even though it may seem persuasive and tends to evoke positive connotations through its promise of orderly international relations, it has amassed devoted supporters as well as ardent critics. A steadily growing research programme has accompanied the idea. This essay looks at the roots and development of the idea of international society in the discipline of international relations (IR) and outlines major interpretations of international society in an attempt to establish why it arouses both reproach and enthusiasm. The article highlights themes and research areas that, making use of the concept, contributed to its development, such as the standard of civilization, pluralism, solidarism and (in)equality. Moreover, the essay does not shy away from exploring contradictions stemming from the writing on international society. Rather than insulating the idea from inconsistencies, it tries to engage with its contradictions.

Notably, the early discussion of international society unfolded in the context of the development of IR as an academic discipline. The urge to establish IR as a separate field of scholarly inquiry was an important factor that stimulated the debate on international society. As a result, the idea became entangled in broader considerations of the subject and methodology of IR and in a quasi-competition between American and European interpretations of international politics.

The idea of international society is most commonly attributed to the English School of international relations. Considered its “master concept,” it played an important role in establishing this school of thought among other approaches to theorizing international relations (Brown, 2001 ). The English School was a name given to a group of scholars interested in the history and “workings” of international society. The “English School” label was successfully popularized by a largely critical article that advocated the school’s closure (Grader, 1988 ; Jones, 1981 ). Known also as the British institutionalists, these scholars are usually associated with postulating rationalism and a greater attention to history in the study of relations between states (Suganami, 2003 ). There is, however, no agreement as to the unifying characteristics of the English School or to whether a particular group of writers should be recognized as constituting a distinct school (Linklater & Suganami, 2006 ; Wilson, 1989 ). This long-standing debate has had a bearing on the concept of international society. The feature common to the writing of the first generation of the English School scholars was the rejection of the “domestic analogy,” by which they meant that international politics cannot be modeled on a state’s internal arrangements. They also shared the aim to distinguish their research and approach from American IR. The following quotation, which is explicit in that regard, also presents the general orientation the English School took in exploring international society: “The British have probably been more concerned with the historical than the contemporary, with the normative than the scientific, with the philosophical than the methodological, with the principles than policy” (Butterfield & Wight, 1966 ).

Although most commonly identified with the English School of international relations, the concept of international society cannot be limited to the English School tradition. There is a large body of literature in IR that presupposes the existence of international society whether or not the term is used directly. International legal studies, historical sociology and regime theory, as well as or among them some constructivist writers, have relied on the idea that relations between states are subject to norms and rules. Due to the breadth of this writing, the penultimate section of this essay introduces this literature only marginally; it focuses on works that refer more specifically to the international society idea.

What Is International Society?

In its simplest exposition, international society is one of the ways of characterizing relations between states both historically and in the present. The idea relies heavily on a particular historical narrative used to account for the emergence of the European interstate system. According to this interpretation, the modern society of states originated in Europe, and, by the 19th century , its members recognized themselves as forming a club of civilized states bound by international law. Through the process known as “expansion,” the institutional structure of international society is said to have spread around the globe (Keene, 2014 ).

In IR, the employment of the concept of a society to account for interactions between states dates back to Charles Manning (Manning, 1962 ), Martin Wight (Wight et al., 1991 ) and Hedley Bull (Bull, 1966b ). These three thinkers are also considered the primary figures or even the founding fathers of the English School. They are also recognized as the pioneers of the idea of international society (Dunne, 1998 ; Linklater & Suganami, 2006 ; Suganami, 2001 ).

C. A. W. Manning can be regarded as the first to have pondered the concept within the framework of IR as an academic discipline. Manning, in the first half of the 20th century , thought of the society of states as of a particular ontology of international relations. He viewed international society as an idiosyncratic subject matter, explicating the need to create a separate discipline dedicated to the study of IR (Manning, 1962 ). Manning was particularly interested in the way in which states coexist in the absence of an international system of government, as they are neither in the Hobbesian state of nature nor form part of a world state. Manning argued that the condition of possibility for such an arrangement was based on common assumptions that states shared as well as on their constant effort to keep such an organization in place. According to Manning, international society was an element of a prevalent assumption operating in international politics. It was only as a result of state leaders and diplomats’ acting on this assumption that interstate relations could take on features that external observers recognized as “societal” (Long, 2005 ; Manning, 1962 ; Wilson, 2004 ). The classical minimalist conception of international society, ascribed to Manning ( 1962 ) and James ( 1973 ), encompassed states, international law and diplomacy. The very existence of international law was deemed sufficient to conceive of relations between states as forming a society (Mapel & Nardin, 1998 , p. 20).

Wight interpreted world politics through a conversation between the three traditions: Grotian, Kantian and Hobbesian. This move was intended to equip international relations with a proper theory as well as to overcome the dichotomy between realism and idealism. However, by referring to the three thinkers and intending to delineate clearly between them, it has been argued that Wight abused the history of thought (Bull, 2002 ).

Hedley Bull and Martin Wight together with a number of other scholars and diplomats, formed the British Committee on the Theory of International Politics (Dunne, 1998 ). Their key volume, The Diplomatic Investigations , outlined the contours of the international society idea (Butterfield & Wight, 1966 ). This is, however, Hedley Bull and his seminal work The Anarchical Society ( 2002 ), who is credited with this idea’s first comprehensive as well as succinct exposition. For Bull, international society was not the only possible way of arranging international politics. He distinguished the international system, in which states maintain contact with each other, need to take others into account in their own calculations and are able to impact another’s decision but are not bound by common values, rules and institutions (Bull, 2002 , pp. 9, 240–241). Bull also described a world society, in which humanity as a whole shares interests and values (Bull, 2002 , p. 269). Nonetheless, in his view, it was the society of states that prevailed in international politics. In Bull’s words, international society existed when a group of states, realizing they shared certain interests and values, formed a society. This meant that these states accepted certain rules that steered their relations with one another and recognized common institutions, which Bull interpreted as sets of habits and practices (Bull, 2002 , p. 13).

In Bull’s view, these societal ties binding states secured order in international politics. Order was one of the principal themes in Bull’s Anarchical Society , where he sought to demonstrate how order can be maintained in the system of states and argued that this system has to be constantly assessed in relation to the goal of world order. Bull identified several goals he deemed elementary for each social life: the restriction of violence, respect for agreements and the stabilization of possession. On that basis, he claimed that international society should be valued since it provided a degree of order conducive to the attainment of societal goals. Shared rules were to provide guidance as to how common interests could be achieved (Bull, 2002 , pp. 51–52). Common institutions were to assist in the realization of common goals (Bull, 2002 , p. 71). Bull identified five such institutions: the balance of power, international law, the diplomatic mechanism, the managerial system of the great powers and war.

Since these initial but also fundamental contributions to the development of the idea of international society, this concept has been used to explain the fact that states are in no need of a supra-state or world government above them to maintain orderly relations. The binding force constructed on the basis of common interests and values has been deemed enough of an authority. Key to such an arrangement is consent. States agree that certain norms and rules will govern their behavior and their relations with each other. The major incentive is that the advancement of common interests is made possible only by respecting the agreed upon rules.

A specific narrative of European history heavily influenced the English School’s concept of international society. There are clear links to A. H. L. Heeren’s early- 19th-century definition of a states system where member states were joined by a reciprocity of interests (Bull, 2002 , p. 12). States system was indeed a term used by the English School authors, and their initial aim was to formulate a comparative history of such state systems (Wight, 1977 ; Watson, 1992 ).

Reviving the Idea of International Society

Insights provided by Hedley Bull, Martin Wight and Charles Manning remain at the heart of the idea of international society. However, changes that have taken place in international politics since their writing, such as the end of the Cold War, as well as new developments in the discipline of IR, have spurred attempts at revising the classical definition.

One approach focused on establishing ways of defining international society. The degree of cultural homogeneity, which initially perplexed Martin Wight as the necessary component for the effective functioning of the then-called states system, was followed by other considerations. Ian Clark focused on legitimacy, which for him could be used to denote the existence of international society (Clark, 2005 ). Further, Christian Reus-Smit argued that the modern society of states is underpinned by two fundamental institutions: contractual international law and multilateralism (Reus-Smit, 1997 , 1999 ).

Barry Buzan offered one of the most thorough reconceptualizations of the idea of international society. In his endeavor, Buzan postulated that the classical definition needed to be elaborated to encompass developments that were not present or scarce under the conditions of the Cold War. Moreover, for Buzan, the English School was an “imperfect” theory but nevertheless a candidate for a grand theory of international relations (Buzan, 2004 , pp. 25–26). Buzan thus attempted to turn the English School scholarship into a systematically organized field of study (Buzan, 2004 , pp. 24–25). To that end, he reworked the classical Wightian triad of realism, rationalism, and revolutionism and proposed viewing the international system, international society and world society as analytical concepts that revealed the material and social structures of the international system.

As a point of departure, Buzan asserted that all interaction in the state system is social and that norms and values are the building blocks of societies (Buzan, 2004 , p. 102). International society “is about the institutionalization of shared interest and identity among states, and puts the creation and maintenance of shared norms, rules and institutions at the centre of the IR theory” (Buzan, 2004 , p. 7). In order to introduce the coherence needed to build a clear theoretical framework, Buzan presented relations between individuals as first-order society and those between collectives (e.g., states) as second-order societies. He also insisted that the difference between international and world society should be constructed on the basis of the type of unit (state or non-state) and not with regard to the attitude toward dominant ideas (Buzan, 2004 , pp. 96–97). The aim was for the theory to encompass three domains: interhuman, transnational and interstate (Buzan, 2004 , p. 159). The reworked definition of international society encompasses a political and legal frame composed of states but where transnational actors and individuals are participants. States are defined as international society members and as the dominant actors in the triad, able to shape the two others to a larger extent than vice versa (Buzan, 2004 , pp. 202, 259). Buzan’s expansion of the international society concept led him to drop the idea of a mechanistic international system. If the spectrum of interstate societies spreads between asocial and confederative, there is no need for an additional category of a state system to explain relations between states (Buzan, 2004 , pp. 128–129, and see p. 159 for graph).

An account of primary and secondary institutions of international society complements the picture. Whereas earlier writing by Hedley Bull distinguished only five institutions of international society (balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war and great powers), Buzan suggested that distinguishing between primary and secondary institutions helps to consider international order globally and from a regional perspective. Primary institutions, in Buzan’s view, should be understood as fundamental and durable practices that evolved from interactions between states and remained a constitutive of actors and their legitimate activities. Secondary institutions, in turn, were consciously designed by states for specific purposes (Buzan, 2004 , pp. 164–170).

International society as a theoretical lens animated several strands of research. The authors of Theorising International Society ( 2009 ) were chiefly concerned with endowing international society research with an adequate methodological foundation, such that would allow the English School to identify the social structures and normative content of international politics (Navari, 2009 ). As Navari argued, the English School distanced itself from methodological concerns and took pride in an eclectic approach. Navari’s edited volume pointed to the limitations of methodological pluralism.

Globalization of International Society

Hedley Bull’s work is important for the development of the idea of international society not solely for the considerations he outlined in Anarchical Society but also for his volume co-edited with Adam Watson, The Expansion of International Society . This influential work argued that international society, spreading from the European center, reached the entire globe (Bull & Watson, 1984 ). The expansion was understood in terms of the expansion of rules and institutions, especially that of international law, seen as the crucial element of social interactions between sovereign states (Bull, 2002 , p. 123, p. 136; Bull & Watson, 1984 ). The volume described encounters of European international society with entities considered parts of the outside world, such as Russia (Watson, 1984b ), Spain and the Indies (Donelan, 1984 ) and Africa (Bull, 1984b ). The process of broadening the international society membership was presented as a result of non-European polities, such as the Ottoman empire (Naff, 1984 ), China (Gong, 1984a ) and Japan (Suganami, 1984 ), joining the society of states. The Expansion concluded with a discussion of the evolution of a European-turned-global international society, and it addressed the possibility of the Third World’s revolt against the West (Bull, 1984c ) and the question of racial equality (Vincent, 1984 ).

According to Manning, the expansion of international society was a “pragmatic inevitability.” States needed to accept positive international law that originated in the West (Aalberts, 2012 , p. 176). The English School scholars generally saw this expansion as a historical process but also as a rational way to conduct international relations (Suganami, 2011 ). Bull and Watson suggested that the formation of the European international society and the expansion of Europe were two interrelated processes.

It is now 30 years since Bull and Watson’s classic work was published. In the intervening years, a wealth of new scholarship has challenged many aspects of this account with special reference to its Eurocentric approach to history. The historical narrative of the expansion of international society remains a contested issue. According to Bull and Watson, international society emerged in Europe and spread globally; it superseded other political organizations mainly because of its military supremacy (Bull, 1984a ; Watson, 1984a ). Gong ( 1984b ) and Watson ( 1992 ) reinforced this narrative. The competing approach stressed the relative underdevelopment of the European international society at the beginning of its global expansion and the resulting evolution of this society under the influence of encounters with non-European political entities (Buzan & Little, 2008 ). The critics of the European foundations of the global international society pointed to numerous historical inaccuracies of such a Eurocentric grand narrative. They argued that up to the 19th century , the development of norms and rules was the result of two-way interactions between Europe and other regions (Suzuki, Zhang, & Quirk, 2013 ). Finally, critics of the expansion thesis proposed replacing the concept of “expansion” with “stratification” and suggested it would be more fruitful to ask who was where within international society rather than who was a member, thereby dictating the boundaries of that society (Keene, 2014 ).

In spite of the many disputes surrounding the expansion question, it has undoubtedly inspired a broad research agenda. The topic of “entry” into international society has been explored with regard to Russia (Neumann, 2011 ), Greece (Stivachtis, 1998 ), Egypt (Roberson, 2009 ), Southeastern Europe (Bilgic, 2015 ; Ejdus, 2015 ; Wigen, 2015 ) and West and Central Africa (Pella, 2014 ).

Regional International Societies

The other dynamic that has come to the forefront in the studies of international society is the increasing attention paid to regions. Together with the greater regional integration observed in practice, the need arose to take the sub-global structures into consideration. A pressing need was felt to account for regional dynamics at play in global international society (Dunne, 2005 , p. 159). Barry Buzan was the chief advocate and an ardent critic of the English School’s neglect of the regional dimension (Buzan, 2004 , pp. 201–212). Arguably, the regional aspect had been present in what Wight termed the “comparative sociology of states systems” (Wight, 1977 ). However, Buzan accurately claimed that having established that the international society expanded to cover the globe, regional developments have never been a key concern for the English School with its preference for analyzing the state system in its totality. In order to change this pattern and to allow the English School to account for a wider range of international phenomena, Buzan mapped his conception of international society onto regional developments. His chief claim was that elements of international society existing at the global level can also be found at the sub-global scale. Moreover, some societal aspects could be more pronounced regionally than globally (Buzan, 2004 , p. 134). Certain regional groupings of states may represent “greater normative content” or an increased consciousness of common interests and values and, thus, a propensity for the joint formulation of specific common rules and institutions (Ayoob, 1999 , p. 248). For Buzan, sub-global international societies were not deemed to fall into rivalry with each other. There were also no grounds to suggest that regional developments would necessarily weaken the global social dimension (Buzan, 2004 , p. 209).

Scholars attempted to apply the concept of a regional international society with regard to the Middle East (Buzan, 2009 ) and Scandinavia (Schouenborg, 2012 ). Other regional groupings approached from the English School perspective included Europe (Sakwa, 2011 ), the European Union (Czaputowicz, 2003 ; Diez, Manners, & Whitman, 2011 ; Stivachtis & Webber, 2011 ), the Association of Southwest Asian Nations (Narine, 2006 ), Southeast Asia (Quayle, 2013 ), East Asia (Buzan & Zhang, 2014 ) and Africa (Tan Shek Yan, 2013 ). In spite of the sophisticated theoretical approach several of these studies adopted, including the application of Buzan’s insights on primary and secondary institutions, the results were inconclusive. The reliance on primary institutions resulted in a conclusion that the Middle East can be thought of as a sub-global interstate society (Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009 , pp. 114–115). The analysis of secondary institutions, however, contested this claim (Murden, 2009 ).

The Pluralist-Solidarist Debate

The idea of international society encompasses a number of contradictions. The division between pluralism and solidarism and a cognate tension between order and justice are the two most contentious aspects that characterize this approach to international politics.

The pluralist-versus-solidarist debate has long been described in terms of “the best-known tension within English School theory” (Williams, 2005 , p. 20). The understandings of solidarism and pluralism, however, have been changing and separating from this dichotomy and have shifted toward a more complex form of interplay and merging between the two (Weinert, 2011 ). To be able to appreciate this development, we have to start with the distinction and return once more to Hedley Bull, its original proponent. Bull defined solidarist international society as one where the collective enforcement of international rules and the guardianship of human rights were possible (Bull, 1966a ). Building his argumentation on the Grotian thought exposed in De Jure Belli ac Pacis , Bull assumed that individuals should be subject to international law, and solidarism was to reflect this line of reasoning. A solidarist international society was thought of as prioritizing justice, embracing the possibility for progress and acknowledging the existence of superior human values that should be promoted and protected. From this strand of thinking arose the proposition that states have duties to humanity—a thesis difficult to reconcile with sovereignty, the principal pluralist rule and the building block of international society. Pluralism, in contrast, embraced diversity as the fundamental feature of international society. The pluralist view of international society was based on the concept of coexistence and on the appreciation of difference. It embraced the idea that states are inclined to only agree on a narrow set of purposes and will avoid activities taking individuals as the point of reference (Bull, 1966a ). Bull’s approach strengthened the impression that pluralism and solidarism are mutually exclusive and that international society may represent only one type at any given time.

Bull’s own position with regard to international society as pluralist or solidarist fluctuated. Bull’s pluralism was much more prominent in his earlier work, whereas his later interventions leaned toward solidarism. His ambiguous position led Wheeler and Dunne to advocate for “Bull’s pluralism of the intellect and solidarism of the will” (Wheeler & Dunne, 1996 ). Throughout Bull’s work, the topic of justice and the “revolt against the West” perplexed him. He called for a redistribution of power and wealth from North to South, without which non-Western peoples would not support international society (Bull, 2002 , pp. 316–317). Although emphasis was always placed on order, Bull at the same time recognized the need for greater justice (Bull, 1984a , p.18). On other hand, he feared that “solidarist visions can be used to defend a homogenous international society” (Linklater & Suganami, 2006 , p. 157). He also observed that “the nascent cosmopolitan culture” was biased ‘in favor of the dominant cultures of the West (Bull, 2002 , p. 305) and that solidarism and its “tools” (e.g., trial and punishment of war criminals) were selective and prone to the influences of power politics (Bull, 2002 , pp. 85–86). Hedley Bull’s solidarism rested on the presumption that there existed common human good and that some sort of human society is not only desirable but also attainable (Bull, 2002 , p. 278).

The pluralist-solidarist tension returned as the central analytical framework following the end of the Cold War and Western claims to victory coupled with greater normative ambitions on part of liberal democratic states (Buzan, 2004 , pp. 47–49; Hurrell, 2005 , p. 21, 2007c , p. 58). Democratic states pledging of responsibility for peace and security globally was interpreted as the ascendance of solidarism. This international society, with an extending range of cooperative norms, rules, and institutions and composed of states converging in terms of ideology and internal governance, was seen as having goals that were much more ambitious than the preservation of order (Buzan, 2004 , p. 131; Hurrell, 2007c , pp. 59–60). This society, and especially liberal states purportedly forming its core, have shown growing acceptance of different types of intervention (Hurrell, 2005 , pp. 20–21).

The humanitarian intervention debate has been one important offshoot of the solidarist question in international society propagated with Nick Wheeler’s seminal work Saving Strangers . Wheeler’s theory of humanitarian intervention helped to determine what should count as legitimate humanitarian intervention (Wheeler, 2000 ). Wheeler not only recognized the solidarity exhibited by the society of states but also openly advocated a “solidarist project.” He claimed it was possible to reconcile order and justice, especially with regard to the enforcement of human rights (Wheeler, 2000 , p. 285).

In addition to the human rights issue as an important theme for solidarist ideas, the literature also links solidarism to normative requirements regarding states’ internal organization—in technical-bureaucratic as well as in ideological terms. The promotion of a particular example of a state, with a specific political and institutional set-up modeled on the West, was influenced by Robert Jackson’s introduction of the concept of a quasi-state (Jackson, 1990 ). Reus-Smit, for whom the starting point of the analysis was “modern international society” built on the pillars of contractual international law and multilateralism, argued that international society’s intersubjective values have a bearing on a state’s identity and provide the rules of rightful state action (Reus-Smit, 1997 , pp. 584–585, 1999 , pp. 36–39). Clark further argued that legitimacy, which he regarded as crucial for the conceptualization of international society, was composed of rightful membership and rightful conduct (Clark, 2005 , p. 2).

On the most general level, it may be stated that solidarists defend the breach of national sovereignty (Linklater & Suganami, 2006 , p. 143). The ethical standpoint is much more pronounced than it is in pluralism, and it is revealed in the call for ethical international society. Human rights are viewed as standards rather than as enforceable commitments, and norms acquire common-sense quality.

Up until the events of 9/11, scholars tended to agree that order ceased to be the exclusive objective states should pursue. The post 9/11 era was interpreted as a reversal of previous gains as states ceased to see purposes “beyond themselves” and restored to the framework of national security (Dunne, 2007 , p. 142).

Buzan attempted to transgress the division between pluralism and solidarism, arguing that they should be understood “as positions on a spectrum representing, respectively, thin and thick sets of shared norms, rules and institutions” not as mutually exclusive positions (Buzan, 2004 ). Weinert ( 2011 ) further developed the proposition that solidarism and pluralism are not mutually exclusive but operate in tandem. Features of the solidarist-pluralist debate have been reflected in William Bain’s discussion of societas vs universitas . Using Oakeshott’s concept, Bain proposed viewing international society as organized along the values of societas , an association based on authority grounded in law, or universitas , an association in recognition of a common purpose. Contemporary international politics do not resemble either one or the other image; both are present in international society practice (Bain, 2006 , pp. 201–202).

Membership and (In)equality

The question put forward by Wight, “How far does international society—supposing there be one—extend?” (Wight et al., 1991 , p. 49), continues to animate scholarly debates. Much of Bull’s work was concentrated on the issues of international society membership, criteria for it and the question of those at its fringes/borders. Bull was preoccupied with the position of weaker states in international society and their role in legitimizing the international society. In his opinion, there was no other way for the international society to last then taking into consideration and in fact reflecting the values and interests of weaker states. While the problem of what type of states should be accommodated remains underdeveloped in Bull’s writing, Clark ( 2005 ) and Hurrell ( 2007b , p. 41) addressed the membership question.

International society proponents have agreed that the idea is premised on the equality of states. Wight asserted that “the movement from a hierarchical to an egalitarian principle was probably inherent in the reciprocal recognition of sovereignty” (Wight, 1977 , p. 135). International society, as a voluntary association, was supposed to be a reciprocal agreement based on the idea of free will expressed by equal members (Bain, 2003b , p. 70).

The English School paid considerable attention to the fact that, in a judicially equal society, there exists unequal distribution of power: “the modern European states-system, while formulating the principle of the equality of states, has modified it by establishing the class of great powers” (Wight, 1977 , p. 42). Manning suggested that states do not vary in formal status as sovereignty is uniform; what differs is the stature and hence the standing in international relations (Manning, 1962 , p. 190). Great powers have been identified as one of the institutions of international society, possessing special rights as well as responsibilities for international society management and preservation (Bull, 2002 , p. 17, chapter 9).

Several authors have pointed to the existence of international society’s core composed of liberal-constitutionalist states. These states have prevailed as the winning coalition following all major conflicts, most recently the Cold War. The core states have been principal agents in the production and reproduction of the practices underpinning international society (Buzan, 2004 ). Their values shape the modern constitutional structure (Reus-Smit, 1997 , pp. 584–585). In other words, the powerful are seen as privileged in relation to the rest of the international society members, despite formal equality of all states (Buzan, 2004 , pp. 222–227). The “inner” grouping’ interprets and implements the wishes of international society as a whole (Clark, 2005 , p. 159). The core is also presented as a homogenizing force and as a model others are expected to emulate (Buzan, 2004 , p. 60). Bain argued that international society as a voluntary association is no longer the case if one analyses modern instances of “trusteeship,” such as Kosovo under the UN administration (Bain, 2003a ).

The inequality theme found its most comprehensive reflection in the debate about the standard of civilization. The narrative developed around the standard of civilization suggested that Western states in their encounters with non-Western societies before the early 20th century demonstrated that they considered themselves to be the representatives of a genuine (read “better”) civilization. This belief justified the expansion of their own social, political, legal and cultural norms and practices beyond Western Europe.

The first exponent of this approach was Gong ( 1984b ). Historically, the relationship between the expansion of the international society of European states and the standard of civilization was intimate. The standard of civilization originated in Europe in the 19th century and was used as an explanation and legitimation of powerful states’ expansion. As such, it also forged changes in the European international society and altered states that sought international society membership (Gong, 1984b , p. 4). The standard of civilization has been used to express a tacit or explicit set of rules that enabled the distinction between those states belonging to an allegedly more advanced grouping and those that did not (Gong, 1984b , p. 3). The standard of civilization was premised on and perpetuated the division between the advanced, the privileged, those setting the rules and those following (willingly or as a result of coercion). The standard of civilization was an idea as well as means to organize international society and enable its expansion. Non-Europeans, due to their alleged lack of an “adequate” civilization or their “shortcomings” in terms of religion, were not sovereign international society members (Sørensen, 2006 , p. 49). As it became enshrined in international law, the standard also took an increasingly explicit juridical character (Gong, 1984b , p. 5).

As the standard itself was a broad and evolving category, the goals of the employment of the 19th century were far from uniform. It served either to bar certain countries (Japan, China) from participating in the international society, to impose unequal treaties on them or to legitimize colonization. An important objective—especially with regard to these elements of the standard that touched upon the internal organization of a state (i.e., the effectiveness in running state affairs, the independence of judiciary from the executive and, especially, the protection of property)—was also to protect Europeans leaving in the colonies (Gong, 1984b , p. 64).

More recently, scholars reengaged with the standard of civilization argument: (Bowden 2009 ), Keene ( 2002 ) and Suzuki ( 2009 ). Keene, in particular, saw it as leading to the creation of two distinct orders ruled by contrasting laws: one superior and one subordinate deliberately sustained by the leading states in colonial peripheries (Keene, 2002 ). The inscription of the standard of civilization in international law allowed for sustaining this unequal relation between the two orders (Anghie, 1999 , 2005 ).

Critique of the Idea of International Society

Several currents can be distinguished in the critique of the idea of international society. The first, originating from the English School camp, advances a mild criticism centered on the problem of the decline of international society. Another “insider” criticism relates to the lack of methodological rigor in the study of international society. The English School methodological orientation is said to be either difficult to pin down (Keene, 2009 ) or nonexistent (Jackson, 2009 ). Scholars who do not identify with the English School research agenda have typically pointed to the Eurocentric nature of the idea of international society. The third charge castigates the international society idea for providing an illusion of certainty and simplicity. The failure to take the complexity and multidimensional aspect of international politics on board undermine, to a large extent, the idea’s potential for a meaningful engagement with contemporary international developments (Edkins & Zehfuss, 2005 ).

Already in 1975 , Bull considered international society to be “in decline” (in Bull, 2002 , p. xxi). Western primacy established in the aftermath of the Cold War propelled doubts as to the durability of global international society. Ian Hall argued that solidarist developments reflected in the works of Time Dunne or Nicholas Wheeler undermined the very foundations of international society, such as the centrality of states or the importance of power politics (Hall, 2001 ).

This strand of critique was strengthened in the wake of the United States’ reaction to the 9/11 attacks. International society was regarded as threatened by the extent of American preponderance. Other members of the international society could not compel the United States to act in ways that would support the existing international order. Instead, the United States rearranged international politics along the lines of hierarchical order (Dunne, 2003 ). American actions were largely considered as undermining international society (Bellamy, 2005 ). These discussions culminated with an attempt to reconcile practices of hierarchy with the idea of international society. Presenting hegemony as one of the primary institutions of international society, Ian Clark sought to reinvigorate international society as a still adequate framework to account for developments in international politics (Clark, 2009 , 2011 ).

Another current criticized the idea of international society as reflecting only a particular historical experience: that of Western states. The classical figures of the English School have been castigated for their excessive Eurocentrism and for the downplaying of the role of imperialism in bringing about the allegedly shared norms of international society. The idea, according to Keal, helped legitimize a highly unequal international system, comprising the practices of imperialism and colonialism (Keal, 2003 ). Edward Keene, who chose to examine international society and its membership requirements from the point of view of the non-Western world, criticized the overreliance on the Western European example and the superficiality of order built on the supposedly shared foundations of international society. He proposed acknowledging the “dualistic nature of order.” The modern world’s history, Keene argued, was divided into two different patterns of international political and legal order. Institutional and legal structures of that order developed differently in Europe and beyond. While European order was tolerant with regard to ethnic, cultural and political difference, the “extra-European” one was preoccupied with the civilizing mission—an inward world of promoting toleration and outward of promoting civilization. The key challenge posed by Keene centers on the fact that thinking in terms of international society prevents us from taking other forms of international order, such as imperial systems, seriously (Keene, 2002 , p. 41).

The English School has also been criticized for the neglect of coercive aspects of international society’s expansion and for presenting the expansion as a progressive and positive process (Suzuki, 2009 ). Some critics vowed to replace “expansion” with the “subjugation” of other regions by European states (Halliday, 2009 ).

International Society Beyond the English School

Despite this essay’s focus on the English School’s take on international society, it is necessary to acknowledge that the idea of international society has a larger following. This is particularly visible among scholars of international law and of historical sociology. The common feature of this writing is that authors generally do not pay particular attention to defining international society. Instead, they approach it as a given, as the state of affairs or the organizing future of international politics. Adopting such a standpoint, most authors have relied on the Grotian conception of international law. Whereas for the English School international law is but one element or—to use their nomenclature—one institution of international society, for scholars outside of the English School tradition, it is international law that is central to the existence of international society, a sine qua non of international society.

For Richard Falk, for instance, international society provides a political framework that conditioned and enabled the existence and operation of international law (Falk, 1970 ). Falk simply acknowledged the existence of international society, without any specific consideration of its features and principles. Concerned with the politics of international law, he asked how international law emerged and continues to be conditioned by politics as well as how it cannot be treated as objective or politically neutral.

Hermann Mosler equated international society with an international legal community composed of independent political entities organized on a territorial basis and “a general conviction” that these entities are bound by reciprocal rules (Mosler, 1980 , p. 2). His definition is therefore not markedly different from that put forward by the English School.

Mark Klamberg, proposing a sociological approach to international law, combined the study of the content of international rules with their influence on the course of international relations with the principal aim to discover why these rules actually affect states behavior (Klamberg, 2015 ). Despite the title of his volume Power and Law in International Society , there is scarce discussion of what the international society may mean or entail. The main concern converges, however, with the central research question posed by the classical English School: How is it possible to have binding rules among states without any central authority on the international level? (Klamberg, 2015 , p. 4). A number of other legal scholars have approached international society as a framework provided by international law (Tourme-Jouannet, 2013 ). More critically leaning authors challenged the neutrality of positive international law and explored its functions in safeguarding the West’s primacy in international politics at the expense of non-European actors (Anghie, 2005 ).

Contradictions: The Ontological Status of International Society

One of the rarely acknowledged but central problems in the international society scholarship is the lack of agreement as to the ontological status of the society of states. Partly a result of inconsistencies in classical writings and partly the consequence of an ever-growing research agenda, international society tends to be presented as an ideal type, as an analytical framework or as a fairly adequate depiction of reality.

Manning and Bull constructed the idea of international society in a somewhat contradictory manner. It was to be an ideal type, to which any system of states might approximate. At the same time, however, it was a concept read from the practice of states (Linklater & Suganami, 2006 , p. 53). In Bull and Watson’s volume, international society was presented as an existing phenomenon with global reach and universal acceptance. Bull’s initial outline of a framework in 1977 —that is, a way of looking at and evaluating the world—became equated with empirical reality (Bull & Watson, 1984 , p. 8).

Some scholars have approached international society as actually existing and, as such, amenable to empirical study: the historical work of the English School presented this society as emerging from and replacing international anarchy. According to functionally based accounts, the current international society is an outcome of purposive activity on the part of states as well as a conscious effort undertaken with a goal of establishing international order (Buzan, 1993 , p. 327). Other scholars have claimed that international society is a normative framework. This camp is further divided into those claiming it is a framework that actually exists and those viewing it as an ideal beyond reach but worth attempting to attain. The third camp has approached it as an analytical framework (i.e., as a device aiding the study of international politics and broadening our understanding of it). In addition, these three strands are not neatly delineated in academic works.

From Jackson’s perspective, international society is a “moral and legal framework” (Jackson, 2000 , p. 39). He depicted international society as “basically a normative framework by reference to which foreign policy, diplomacy, the threat or use of armed force, and other international activities are to be judged” (Jackson, 2000 , p. 31). For Clark, international society is a political framework but one that allows for the application of “constitutionally mediated” norms (Clark, 2005 , p. 7). In his other writings, Clark presented international society in terms of “historically changing principles of legitimacy” (Clark, 2005 , p. 7). In Grader’s analysis of the English School’s scholarship, she pointed out that various authors differ as to their conceptions of international society. She noted that it was metaphysical for Manning and it was empirical and normative for Bull, while others, such as Northedge, would opt for a system rather than a society of states (Grader, 1988 ). In a reply to Grader’s criticism, Peter Wilson argued that international society is ideational and norm-based for both Manning and Bull (Wilson, 1989 ).

Another aspect that has arisen concerns the relationship between the idea of international society and these aspects of international politics that can be considered social. The English School has claimed to share a number of concerns with constructivism (Dunne, 1995b ; Reus–Smit, 2002 ). Constructivists have even been criticized for their unreferenced rediscovery of inputs that the English School made a decade earlier (Hurrell, 2007a ; Suganami, 2001 , p. 5).

The point of convergence between the English School and constructivists is the agreement regarding the existence of a social dimension to international politics (Reus-Smit, 2009 ). The social dimension , however, tends to be interpreted in various ways in writings on international society. To some, it denotes the fact that international society is not a given but has been constructed by states and, as a result, forms a structure that contains the behavior of states through institutions and practices (Dunne, 1995a ). Others have claimed that intersubjective knowledge and social relations among actors constitute international relations (Towns, 2010 ). This ambiguity notwithstanding, the prevalent supposition is that international relations take place in a social setting co-constructed and mutually intelligible to those involved. The idea of international society has been thought of as a possible “baseline for international theory” on the grounds that there exist intersubjective understandings of rules that constitute international society (Mayall, 1978 ). For IR constructivists, such as Nicholas Onuf, the international legal regime occupies a central place and is the defining feature of international society. However, from their perspective, the presence of legal rules needs to be supplemented by informal rules or “rules of the game” (Onuf, 1994 , p. 15). Both constructivists and English School authors discussed international society in relation to regime theory. For Onuf, international society is a particular type of regime: it is “nothing more than an inclusive regime, within which are nested all international regimes, themselves constituted from the relations of states and other well-bounded regimes” (Onuf, 1994 , p. 9). Buzan ( 1993 ) argued that regime theory and international society belong to the same tradition but had been separated by the peculiarities of academic discourse (Buzan, 1993 , p. 328).

Several scholars have taken up the request, originating most often from the constructivist side of academia, for more clarity about the defining features of system, society and community (Dunne, 2008 ; Hurrell, 2007b ; Linklater & Suganami, 2006 , p. 103). However, due to ontological challenges, no conclusion has been reached. Moreover, the drive to establish IR as a discipline and later to claim the English School as a legitimate subfield of inquiry have contributed to a forced unification of thinking on international society and to the dismissal of rather than a deeper engagement with the problems international society poses as an analytical framework.

Despite its contradictions, the tendency to legitimize rather than criticize the status quo in international politics and commend it under the banner of order, the idea of international society and especially the English School’s elaborate discussion of its parameters have contributed to the development of IR theory. One of the chief inputs was that IR subject matter should be conceptualized in broader terms and should include social bonds between states, built on their common interests and encompassing norms and rules as well as institutions. In addition, the idea of international society helped emphasize the need for historical contextualization in the study of international politics and to counter the narratives and interpretations relying on power-political models of interstate relations on the one hand and idealistic accounts of a world government on the other. The English School’s most recognizable contribution to IR theory is the proposition that the international system cannot be discussed solely in material terms. It also cannot be exclusively looked at through an idealist lens. The idea of international society is supposed to provide the “third way” between realism and idealism/liberalism. While realism made conflict the major feature of international politics and idealism/liberalism focused on co-operation, international society was supposed to encompass elements of both conflict and co-operation (Bellamy, 2005 ). Though power still remains an important element, common norms and institutions have a significant role to play in structuring relations between states.

• Aalberts, T. E. (2012). Constructing sovereignty between politics and law . London: Routledge.
• Anghie, A. (1999). Finding the peripheries: Sovereignty and colonialism in nineteenth-century international law. Harv. Int’l. LJ , 40 , 1.
• Anghie, A. (2005). Imperialism, sovereignty, and the making of international law . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Ayoob, M. (1999). From regional system to regional society: Exploring key variables in the construction of regional order. Australian Journal of International Affairs , 53 , 247–260.
• Bain, W. (2003a). Between anarchy and society: Trusteeship and the obligations of power . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bain, W. (2003b). The political theory of trusteeship and the twilight of international equality. International Relations , 17 , 59–77.
• Bain, W. (2006). The empire of security and the safety of the people . Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
• Bain, W. (2009). The English School and the activity of being a historian. In C. Navari (Ed.), Theorising international society: English School methods . Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bell, D. S. A. (2001). International relations: the dawn of a historiographical turn? British Journal of Politics & International Relations , 3 , 115–126.
• Bellamy, A. J. (2005). Introduction: International society and the English School. In A. J. Bellamy (Ed.), International society and its critics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bilgic, A. (2015). ‘We are not barbarians’: Gender politics and Turkey’s quest for the West. International Relations , 1–21.
• Bowden, B. (2009). The empire of civilization: The evolution of an imperial idea . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Brown, C. (2001). World society and the English School. European Journal of International Relations , 7 , 423–441.
• Bull, H. (1966a). The Grotian conception of international society. Diplomatic investigations: Essays in the theory of international politics . London: Allen & Unwin.
• Bull, H. (1966b). Society and anarchy in international relations. In H. Butterfield & M. Wight (Eds.), Diplomatic investigations: Essays in the theory of international politics . London: Allen & Unwin.
• Bull, H. (1984a). The emergence of a universal international society. In H. Bull & A. Watson (Eds.), The expansion of international society . Oxford: Clarendon.
• Bull, H. (1984b). European states and African political communities. In H. Bull & A. Watson (Eds.), The expansion of international society . Oxford: Clarendon.
• Bull, H. (1984c). The revolt against the West. In H. Bull & A. Watson (Eds.), The expansion of international society . Oxford: Clarendon.
• Bull, H. (2000). International relations as an academic pursuit. In H. Bull , K. Alderson , & A. Hurrell (Eds.), Hedley Bull on international society . Basingstoke, U.K.: Macmillan Press.
• Bull, H. (2002). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics . Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave.
• Bull, H. , & Watson, A. (Eds.). (1984). The expansion of international society . Oxford: Clarendon.
• Butterfield, H. , & Wight, M. (1966). Diplomatic investigations: Essays in the theory of international politics . London: Allen & Unwin.
• Buzan, B. (1993). From international system to international society: Structural realism and regime theory meet the English School. International Organization , 47 (3), 327–352.
• Buzan, B. (2004). From international to world society? English School theory and the social structure of globalisation . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Buzan, B. (2009). The Middle East through English School theory. In B. Buzan & A. Gonzalez-Pelaez (Eds.), International society and the Middle East: English School theory at the regional level . Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave.
• Buzan, B. , & Little, R. (2008). The historical expansion of international society.
• Buzan, B. , & Zhang, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Contesting international society in East Asia , Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Clapton, W. (2012). The ‘hierarchical society’? Re-conceiving international society in the post-Cold War era. Annual Convention of the International Studies Association . San Diego.
• Clark, I. (2005). Legitimacy in international society . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Clark, I. (2009). Towards an English School theory of hegemony. European Journal of International Relations , 15 , 203–228.
• Clark, I. (2011). Hegemony in international society . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Czaputowicz, J. (2003). The English School of international relations and its approach to European integration. Studies & Analyses , 2 .
• Diez, T. , Manners, I. , & Whitman, R. (2011). The changing nature of international institutions in Europe: The challenge of the European Union. Journal of European Integration , 33 , 117–138.
• Donelan, M. (1984). Spain and the Indies. In H. Bull & A. Watson (Eds.), The expansion of international society . Oxford: Clarendon.
• Dunne, T. (1995a). International society: Theoretical promises fulfilled? Cooperation and Conflict , 30 , 125–154.
• Dunne, T. (1995b). The social construction of international society. European Journal of International Relations , 1 , 367–389.
• Dunne, T. (1998). Inventing international society: A history of the English School , Basingstoke, U.K.: Macmillan.
• Dunne, T. (2003). Society and hierarchy in international relations. International Relations , 17 , 303–320.
• Dunne, T. (2005). System, state and society: How does it all hang together? Millennium—Journal of International Relations , 34 , 157.
• Dunne, T. (2007). The English School. In T. Dunne , M. H. Kurki , & S. Smith (Eds.), International relations theories: Discipline and diversity . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Dunne, T. (2008). The English School. In C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international relations . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Edkins, J. , & Zehfuss, M. (2005). Generalising the international. Review of International Studies , 31 , 451–472.
• Ejdus, F. (2015). The expansion of international society after 30 years: Views from the European periphery. International Relations , 28 , 445–478.
• Falk, R. (1970). Status of law in international society . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Gong, G. W. (1984a). China’s entry into international society. In H. Bull & A. Watson , (Eds.), The expansion of international society . Oxford: Clarendon.
• Gong, G. W. (1984b). The standard of ‘civilization’ in international society . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Gonzalez-Pelaez, A. (2009). The primary institutions of the Middle Eastern Regional Interstate Society. In B. Buzan & A. Gonzalez-Pelaez (Eds.), International society and the Middle East: English School theory at the regional level . Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Grader, S. (1988). The English School of International Relations: Evidence and evaluation. Review of International Studies , 14 , 29–44.
• Hall, I. (2001). Still the English patient? Closures and inventions in the English School. International Affairs , 77 , 931–942.
• Halliday, F. (2009). The Middle East and conceptions of ‘international society.’ In B. Buzan & A. Gonzalez-Pelaez (Eds.), International society and the Middle East: English School theory at the regional level . Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Hurrell, A. (2005). Legitimacy and the use of force: Can the circle be squared? Review of International Studies , 31 , 15–32.
• Hurrell, A. (2007a). Evaluating the English School. International Studies Review , 9 , 738–740.
• Hurrell, A. (2007b). On global order: Power, values, and the constitution of international society . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hurrell, A. (2007c). On global order: Power, values, and the constitution of international society . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jackson, R. H. (1990). Quasi-states: Sovereignty, international relations, and the third world . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Jackson, R. H. (2000). The global covenant: Human conduct in a world of states . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jackson, R. H. (2009). International relations as a craft discipline. In C. Navari (Ed.), Theorising international society: English School methods . Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
• James, A. (1973). Law and order in international society. In A. James (Ed.), The bases of international order: Essays in honour of C.A.W. Manning . London: Oxford University Press.
• Jones, R. E. (1981). The English School of international relations: A case for closure. Review of International Studies , 7 , 1–13.
• Keal, P. (2003). European conquest and the rights of indigenous peoples: The moral backwardness of international society , Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Keene, E. (2002). Beyond the anarchical society: Grotius, colonialism and order in world politics . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Keene, E. (2009). International society as an ideal type. In C. Navari (Ed.), Theorising international society: English School methods . Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Keene, E. (2014). The standard of ‘civilisation’, the expansion thesis and the 19th-century international social space. Millennium—Journal of International Studies , 42 , 651–673.
• Klamberg, M. (2015). Power and law in international society: International relations as the sociology of international law . London: Routledge.
• Linklater, A. , & Suganami, H. (2006). The English School of international relations: A contemporary reassessment . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Long, D. (2005). C. A. W. Manning and the discipline of international relations. The Round Table , 94 , 77–96.
• Manning, C. A. W. (1962). The nature of international society . London: Macmillan.
• Mapel, D. , & Nardin, T. (1998). International society: Diverse ethical perspectives .
• Mayall, J. (1978). International society and international theory. In M. D. Donelan (Ed.), The reason of states: A study in international political theory . London: Allen and Unwin.
• Mosler, H. (1980). International society as legal community . Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Murden, S. W. (2009). The secondary institutions of the Middle Eastern Regional Interstate Society. In B. Buzan & A. Gonzalez-Pelaez (Eds.), International society and the Middle East: English School theory at the regional level . London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Murray, R. W. (Ed.). (2013). System, society & the world: Exploring the English School of international relations . e-International Relations.
• Naff, T. (1984). The Ottoman Empire and the European states system. In H. Bull & A. Watson (Eds.), The expansion of international society . Oxford: Clarendon.
• Narine, S. (2006). The English School and ASEAN. The Pacific Review , 19 , 199–218.
• Navari, C. (2009). Theorising international society: English School methods . Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Neumann, I. B. (2011). Entry into international society reconceptualised: The case of Russia. Review of International Studies , 37 , 463–484.
• Onuf, N. (1994). The constitution of international society. European Journal of International Law , 5 , 1–19.
• Pella, J. A, Jr. (2014). Africa and the expansion of international society: Surrendering the savannah . London: Routledge.
• Quayle, L. (2013). Southeast Asia and the English School of International Relations: A region-theory dialogue . Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Reus-Smit, C. (1997). The constitutional structure of international society and the nature of fundamental institutions. International Organization , 51 , 555–589.
• Reus-Smit, C. (1999). The moral purpose of the state culture, social identity, and institutional rationality in international relations. Princeton Studies in International History and Politics . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Reus-Smit, C. (2002). Imagining society: Constructivism and the English School. British Journal of Politics & International Relations , 4 , 487–509.
• Reus-Smit, C. (2009). Constructivism and the English School. In C. Navari (Ed.), Theorising international society: English School methods . Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Roberson, B. A. (2009). Law, power and the expansion of international society. In C. Navari (Ed.), Theorising international society: English School methods . Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Sakwa, R. (2011). Russia and Europe: Whose society? European Integration , 33 , 197–214.
• Schouenborg, L. (2012) The Scandinavian international society: Primary institutions and binding forms, 1815–2010 . London: Routledge.
• Sørensen, J. S. (2006). The shadow economy, war and state building: Social transformation and re-stratification in an illiberal economy (Serbia and Kosovo). Journal of Contemporary European Studies , 14 , 317–351.
• Stivachtis, Y. A. (1998). The enlargement of international society: Culture versus anarchy and Greece’s entry into international society . London: Macmillan.
• Stivachtis, Y. A. , & Webber, M. (2011). Regional international society in a post‐enlargement Europe. European Integration , 33 , 101–116.
• Suganami, H. (1984). Japan’s entry into international society. In H. Bull , & A. Watson (Eds.), The expansion of international society . Oxford: Clarendon.
• Suganami, H. (2001). C. A. W. Manning and the study of international relations. Review of International Studies , 27 , 91–107.
• Suganami, H. (2003). British institutionalists, or the English School, 20 years on. International Relations , 17 , 253–272.
• Suganami, H. (2011). The English School, history, and theory. Ritsumeikan International Affairs , 27–50.
• Suzuki, S. (2009). Civilization and empire: China and Japan’s encounter with European international society . London: Routledge.
• Suzuki, S. , Zhang, Y. , & Quirk, J. (2013). International orders in the early modern World: Before the rise of the West . London: Routledge.
• Tan Shek Yan, E. (2013). Understanding African international society: An English School approach (Doctoral dissertation). Aberystwyth University.
• Tourme-Jouannet, E. (2013). What is a fair international society? International law between development and recognition . New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Towns, A. E. (2010). Women and states: Norms and hierarchies in international society , Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Vincent, R. J. (1984). Racial equality. In H. Bull & A. Watson (Eds.), The expansion of international society . Oxford: Clarendon.
• Watson, A. (1984a). European international society and its expansion. In H. Bull & A. Watson (Eds.), The expansion of international society . Oxford: Clarendon.
• Watson, A. (1984b). Russia and the European states system. In H. Bull & A. Watson (Eds.), The expansion of international society . Oxford: Clarendon.
• Watson, A. (1992). The evolution of international society: A comparative historical analysis , Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
• Weinert, M. S. (2011). Reframing the pluralist-solidarist debate. Millennium-Journal of International Studies , 40 , 21–41.
• Wheeler, N. J. (2000). Saving strangers: Humanitarian intervention in international society . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wheeler, N. J. , & Dunne, T. (1996). Hedley Bull’s pluralism of the intellect and solidarism of the will. International Affairs , 72 , 91.
• Wigen, E. (2015). Go West! Turkey’s entry into international society. International Relations , 468–478.
• Wight, M. (1977). Systems of states . Leicester, U.K.: Leicester University Press.
• Wight, M. , Wight, G. , Porter, B. , & Royal Institute of International Affairs . (1991). International theory: The three traditions . Leicester, U.K.: Leicester University Press for the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
• Williams, J. (2005). Pluralism, solidarism and the emergence of world society in English School theory. International Relations , 19 , 19–38.
• Wilson, P. (1989). The English School of international relations: A reply to Sheila Grader. Review of International Studies , 15 , 49–58.
• Wilson, P. (2004). Manning’s quasi‐masterpiece: The nature of international society revisited. The Round Table , 93 , 755–769.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 09 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [91.193.111.216]
• 91.193.111.216

Character limit 500 /500

10 Reasons Why International Relations Are Important

International Relations are at the centre of many important topics of the world today, and if it had to be summed up in one sentence, the importance of IR stands in the cooperation between nations and entities around the world. The benefits of such cooperation are immense and can shape global policies. But why do international relations matter? Below you can find 10 reasons:

#1 IR empowers humanity to better manage challenges and crises

Many people who pursue international relations and diplomacy degrees do so because they have a deep vested interest in making the world a better place, regardless of specific career goals. Those who utilize their degrees to work in policy (e.g., diplomats , activists, and ambassadors) can achieve their personal goals by developing and implementing relevant strategies that have the potential to enhance lives around the world. By working together and sharing resources, nations can better manage the effects of crises such as natural disasters, droughts, floods, famine, and even diseases such as the Covid-19 pandemic.

#2 International relations are a promoter of peace

International Relations introduces you to a world of politics and the social-historical implications of global development . Through both communication and cooperation, nations can resolve their problems peacefully and come to an agreement that can create lasting peace. Things don’t always go as smoothly as would be ideal, however, and there are still many conflicts that go unresolved, but large IR “arenas” like the UN give each side the opportunity to make their case and have their voices heard, ultimately forcing you to resolve your differences with your rivals through words.

#3 International relations enable better organization of human capital

We currently live in a world in which the general standard of living is greater than ever before . However, despite our constant technological advances and discoveries, humanity faces numerous problems and challenges. These problems require professionals, scientists, technocrats, diplomats , and capable people in every position, and it is the goal of many organizations, both governmental and international structures such as the UN, to organize the best of the available human capital. International Affairs can be seen as promoting this initiative, which aims to bring the best that each nation has to offer into key decision-making positions.

#4 International relations promote cooperation, exchange and cultural development

To be an impactful international diplomat, ambassador , lobbyist, or business leader focused on a particular country or region, you must immerse yourself in a different culture. However, part of that job is to master the language, culture, and traditions of another country. In this way, countries can better understand and cooperate with each other. This positive effect also transfers to the population, because two states that maintain friendly relations can become two peoples that are closely connected and thus share ideas, cultures and traditions.

#5 International relations encourages you to travel and gain new experiences

Cultural collaboration not only makes you more effective at your job, but also allows for profound personal growth and discovery that many find incredibly fulfilling. Having new experiences, visiting new places, seeing new things and meeting new people can open up new horizons and opportunities for many people. By building and fostering relationships with one another, the nations of the world can provide these above opportunities to many more people than they would without the help of cordial international relations .

#6 International relations promote faster proliferation of technological innovations

Countries that have good relations with each other tend to share their inventions and innovations more quickly, and this has been the norm among civilizations since the dawn of time. This close cooperation between nations on technological issues has not only made human life easier and safer through developments in medicine, housing, and infrastructure, to name a few, but has also encouraged countries to build closer relationships with each other.

#7 International relations are essential on matters of security and stability

International relations among others can promote law enforcement cooperation between nations. Issues of jurisdiction and sovereignty have been raised repeatedly since the emergence of nation-states in the 19th century and are more important than ever in today’s world, where globalization has taken hold everywhere and international criminal organizations, terrorists, human traffickers, etc. have gained much more power than in the past. By working together, states can reach beyond their national borders and enforce their laws much more effectively to ensure accountability and justice and provide stability and security for their citizens.

#8 IR promote trade and financial interdependence among nations

By working closely together financially and integrating their respective economies, nations can ensure that their populations thrive and that free and equal trade takes place between their peoples through close international ties. Close political ties are always a precursor to strong economic dealings and financial interdependence among nations and are a critical component of international politics.

#9 IR create the conditions for democracies to flourish in developing countries

A country with many friends and strong international ties is a country with many opportunities. Developing countries are always in a precarious position because they seem to never choose between their past and their future. Corruption seems endless and progress unattainable, but a country that has friends can always find a helping hand in times of need. There are many examples of developing countries that have received assistance, professional guidance and, most importantly, funding through their IR to achieve their goals and significantly shorten the road to democracy.

#10 International relations promote the rights of women and children

For better or worse, most, if not all, international institutions that exist today originated in the West and have been influenced by Western values, even those that were developed relatively recently. Concepts such as democracy, the rule of law, human rights , and equality have so far resisted the test of time quite successfully and have spread throughout the world through the medium of international relations. Many countries have made efforts to actively spread these ideas and this culture, including ensuring that the rights of women and children are recognized and respected. On the contrary, many reactionary countries have resisted this change as well, but the world of international relations is a big stage, and if countries want to enjoy the benefits that come from cooperation with other countries, they are also obliged to provide certain guarantees for the advancement of the rights of the more vulnerable strata of society.

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law

International Relations

• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section International Relations Theory

Introduction, general overviews.

• Anthologies
• Reference Resources
• Methodology
• Constructivism
• The “English School”
• Neoconservatism
• Critical IR Theory
• Feminist IR Theory
• Post–Cold War IR Theory
• Political Theory and IR Theory
• Foreign Policy and IR Theory
• History and IR Theory

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Academic Theories of International Relations Since 1945
• Causation in International Relations
• Comparative Regionalism
• Complex Systems Approaches to Global Politics
• Conflict Management
• Democracy in World Politics
• Feminist Theories of International Relations
• Foreign Direct Investment
• Hierarchies in International Relations
• Human Nature in International Relations
• International Relations as a Social Science
• International Society
• Politics of Resilience
• Popular Culture and International Relations
• Populism and Global Politics
• Quantum Social Science
• Reflexivity and International Relations
• State Theory in International Relations
• Teaching International Relations
• The Queer in/of International Relations
• Theories of Foreign Policy
• Time Series Approaches to International Affairs
• Trust and International Relations
• World-System Theory

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Crisis Bargaining
• History of Brazilian Foreign Policy (1808 to 1945)
• Indian Foreign Policy
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

International Relations Theory by Jonathan Cristol LAST REVIEWED: 26 November 2019 LAST MODIFIED: 26 November 2019 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0039

International relations (IR) theory is difficult to define. It is often taught as a theory that seeks both to explain past state behavior and to predict future state behavior. However, even that definition is contested by many theorists. Traditional IR theories can generally be categorized by their focus either on humans, states, or on the state system as the primary source of conflict. Any bibliography of international relations theory is bound to create controversy among its readers. Why did the author choose one theory and not the other? Why did the author choose one source and not the other? Indeed, a wide variety of permutations would be perfectly valid to provide the researcher with an adequate annotated bibliography, so why were these particular entries chosen? This article identifies Realism , Liberalism , and Constructivism as the three major branches of IR theory. These three branches have replaced the earlier realism-idealism dichotomy. The “English School” could be considered part of any of the aforementioned three branches, and its placement in the IR theory world is the subject of some debate. It has therefore been given its own section and is not included in any of the other sections. Critical IR theory and Feminist IR theory are often considered part of constructivism; however, there is much debate over whether they constitute their own branches, and so they are included in this article (as well as in their own entries in the OBO series), though the sources are somewhat different. Post–Cold War IR Theory is given its own heading because there are a number of theories that were proposed in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War that are still widely taught and discussed in the field. Perhaps the most controversial inclusion is that of Neoconservatism . Though it is quite possible to mount a case for it to be considered a theory of US foreign policy, it is theoretically distinct from other IR theories (the belief in bandwagoning instead of balancing). The final three sections are included to show how political theory has influenced IR theory, and how history and foreign policy have influenced IR theory (and vice versa). The included sections and citations represent both the mainstream of IR theory and those nonmainstream theories that have just started to break into the mainstream of IR theory. This article provides a starting point for both the beginning and the serious scholar of international relations theory.

The overviews listed in this section are generally designed to be introductory international relations (IR) textbooks and not specifically IR theory textbooks. The only article listed in this section is Snyder 2004 , which is the best source for someone who needs to quickly learn the basics of realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Like Snyder, every source listed herein considers realism, liberalism, and constructivism to be the major IR theoretical frameworks. Drezner 2015 shows how these three, and other, theories explain and predict the response to crises. Duncan, et al. 2009 examines a wide range of IR theories, but the discussion is limited to the chapters dedicated to IR theory. Kegley and Blanton 2016 focuses on the traditional theories, returning to them throughout the book to show how they influence and are impacted by current events. Mingst, et al. 2019 , one of the most widely used undergraduate IR texts, includes sections on how different theories might deal with current international issues. Shimko 2015 devotes only one chapter to IR theory, but it does the best job of implicitly and explicitly weaving theoretical discussions throughout the text. Of the few widely used textbooks solely devoted to IR theory, Dunne, et al. 2016 is the most comprehensive and the clearest. It makes an ideal textbook for a midlevel or advanced IR theory class in that it goes far beyond the traditional theories, with chapters written by leading experts on the subjects that they cover. Booth and Erskine 2016 is similar in structure and breadth, but goes more deeply into the discipline and relevance of IR theory itself. Genest 2004 is a hybrid textbook and anthology. Genest covers a very wide variety of theories, which the author explains through his own writings; he adds classic and modern works to bring the tradition to life. Viotti and Kauppi 2019 presents a broad overview of IR theory, including a substantial discussion of the intellectual roots of IR theory.

Booth, Ken, and Toni Erskine. eds. International Relations Theory Today . 2d ed. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2016.

This book provides an overview of the state of IR theory as well as how IR theory grapples with real-world problems. Generally clearly written, but most useful for graduate students and specialists in the discipline. All of the chapters are written specifically for this book; it is not an anthology.

Drezner, Dan. Theory of International Politics and Zombies: Revived Edition . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015.

DOI: 10.1515/9781400852284

Drezner provides an overview of major international relations theories through the lens of a zombie apocalypse. The book uses this unlikely scenario to demonstrate the different IR theoretical approaches to “real world” crises. A fun, breezy read that provides an excellent overview of IR theory to the undergraduate student.

Duncan, W. Raymond, Barbara Jancar-Webster, and Bob Switky. World Politics in the 21st Century . Student Choice Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2009.

In the chapters that specifically deal with IR theory, this work is more comprehensive in discussing a wide variety of theoretical approaches than the other texts listed here. However, outside of those chapters, the discussion of theory is quite limited. A useful undergraduate textbook.

Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, eds. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity . 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.

A truly outstanding and clearly written general textbook on IR theory. The innovation here is to have A-list thinkers from within the various traditions write the chapters on those theories. Chapters range from “Structural Realism” to “Feminism,” with separate chapters on “Poststructuralism,” “Postcolonialism,” and “Green Theory.” All of the chapters are written specifically for this book; it is not an anthology.

Genest, Marc A. Conflict and Cooperation: Evolving Theories of International Relations . 2d ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2004.

A hybrid textbook and anthology. Genest provides a detailed chapter for each major theoretical tradition, as well as for some theories not covered in depth by other texts cited in this section. After an introductory essay about each theory, he includes articles and excerpts that exemplify that tradition, including classic texts and more recent works. An excellent lower-level graduate textbook or advanced undergraduate textbook.

Kegley, Charles, Jr., and Shannon Lindsey Blanton. World Politics: Trend and Transformation . 16th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2016.

One of the most widely used undergraduate IR textbooks. Devotes a full chapter to competing theoretical approaches and then returns to theory by devoting considerable time to examining how those approaches lead to policies.

Mingst, Karen A., Heather Elko McKibben, and Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft. Essentials of International Relations . 8th ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2019.

Along with Kegley and Blanton 2016 , one of the most widely used undergraduate IR textbooks. Only one full chapter is devoted to IR theory, but there are sections on IR theory within chapters on other subjects, including international law, peace and security, and foreign policy decision making.

Shimko, Keith L. International Relations: Perspectives & Controversies . 5th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2015.

This undergraduate international relations textbook contains only one chapter purely dedicated to IR theory, but it does an excellent job in weaving theory through the entire text. Shimko presents balanced, theoretically informed cases for and against current issues and problems in IR.

Snyder, Jack. “One World, Rival Theories.” Foreign Policy 145 (November/December 2004): 52–62.

An update on a similarly named 1998 Foreign Policy article by Stephen Walt. Snyder provides his take on the basic principles of realism, liberalism, and constructivism and compares and contrasts them. Perfect brief overview of the three dominant traditions in IR theory.

Viotti, Paul R., and Mark V. Kauppi. International Relations Theory . 6th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2019.

This book provides a comprehensive overview of IR theory. It covers a wide range of theories, but its unique innovation is its almost 170-page discussion of the Western and non-Western intellectual roots of IR theory.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About International Relations »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
• Arab-Israeli Wars
• Arab-Israeli Wars, 1967-1973, The
• Armed Conflicts/Violence against Civilians Data Sets
• Arms Control
• Asylum Policies
• Audience Costs and the Credibility of Commitments
• Authoritarian Regimes
• Balance of Power Theory
• Bargaining Theory of War
• Brazilian Foreign Policy, The Politics of
• Canadian Foreign Policy
• Case Study Methods in International Relations
• Casualties and Politics
• Central Europe
• Challenge of Communism, The
• China and Japan
• China's Defense Policy
• China’s Foreign Policy
• Chinese Approaches to Strategy
• Cities and International Relations
• Civil Resistance
• Civil Society in the European Union
• Cold War, The
• Colonialism
• Comparative Foreign Policy Security Interests
• Conflict Behavior and the Prevention of War
• Conflict Management in the Middle East
• Contemporary Shia–Sunni Sectarian Violence
• Counterinsurgency
• Countermeasures in International Law
• Coups and Mutinies
• Criminal Law, International
• Critical Theory of International Relations
• Cuban Missile Crisis, The
• Cultural Diplomacy
• Cyber Security
• Cyber Warfare
• Decision-Making, Poliheuristic Theory of
• Demobilization, Post World War I
• Democracies and World Order
• Democracy and Conflict
• Deterrence Theory
• Development
• Digital Diplomacy
• Diplomacy, Gender and
• Diplomacy, History of
• Diplomacy in the ASEAN
• Diplomacy, Public
• Disaster Diplomacy
• Diversionary Theory of War
• Drone Warfare
• Eastern Front (World War I)
• Economic Coercion and Sanctions
• Economics, International
• Embedded Liberalism
• Emerging Powers and BRICS
• Empirical Testing of Formal Models
• Energy and International Security
• Environmental Peacebuilding
• Epidemic Diseases and their Effects on History
• Ethics and Morality in International Relations
• Ethnicity in International Relations
• European Migration Policy
• European Security and Defense Policy, The
• European Union as an International Actor
• European Union, International Relations of the
• Experiments
• Face-to-Face Diplomacy
• Fascism, The Challenge of
• Feminist Methodologies in International Relations
• Feminist Security Studies
• Food Security
• Forecasting in International Relations
• Foreign Aid and Assistance
• Foreign Policy Decision-Making
• Foreign Policy of Non-democratic Regimes
• Foreign Policy of Saudi Arabia
• Foreign Policy, Theories of
• French Empire, 20th-Century
• From Club to Network Diplomacy
• Future of NATO
• Game Theory and Interstate Conflict
• Gender and Terrorism
• Genocide, Politicide, and Mass Atrocities Against Civilian...
• Genocides, 20th Century
• Geopolitics and Geostrategy
• Germany in World War II
• Global Citizenship
• Global Civil Society
• Global Constitutionalism
• Global Environmental Politics
• Global Ethic of Care
• Global Governance
• Global Justice, Western Perspectives
• Globalization
• Governance of the Arctic
• Grand Strategy
• Greater Middle East, The
• Greek Crisis
• Hague Conferences (1899, 1907)
• History and International Relations
• Human Rights
• Human Rights and Humanitarian Diplomacy
• Human Rights, Feminism and
• Human Rights Law
• Human Security
• Hybrid Warfare
• Ideal Diplomat, The
• Identity and Foreign Policy
• Ideology, Values, and Foreign Policy
• Illicit Trade and Smuggling
• Imperialism
• Indian Perspectives on International Relations, War, and C...
• Indigenous Rights
• Industrialization
• Intelligence
• Intelligence Oversight
• Internal Displacement
• International Conflict Settlements, The Durability of
• International Criminal Court, The
• International Economic Organizations (IMF and World Bank)
• International Health Governance
• International Justice, Theories of
• International Law, Feminist Perspectives on
• International Monetary Relations, History of
• International Negotiation and Conflict Resolution
• International Nongovernmental Organizations
• International Norms for Cultural Preservation and Cooperat...
• International Organizations
• International Relations, Aesthetic Turn in
• International Relations, Practice Turn in
• International Relations, Research Ethics in
• International Relations Theory
• International Security
• International Society, Theorizing
• International Support For Nonstate Armed Groups
• Internet Law
• Interstate Cooperation Theory and International Institutio...
• Intervention and Use of Force
• Interviews and Focus Groups
• Iran, Politics and Foreign Policy
• Iraq: Past and Present
• Japanese Foreign Policy
• Just War Theory
• Kurdistan and Kurdish Politics
• Law of the Sea
• Laws of War
• Leadership in International Affairs
• Leadership Personality Characteristics and Foreign Policy
• League of Nations
• Lean Forward and Pull Back Options for US Grand Strategy
• Mediation and Civil Wars
• Mediation in International Conflicts
• Mediation via International Organizations
• Memory and World Politics
• Mercantilism
• Middle East, The Contemporary
• Middle Powers and Regional Powers
• Military Science
• Minorities in the Middle East
• Minority Rights
• Morality in Foreign Policy
• Multilateralism (1992–), Return to
• National Liberation, International Law and Wars of
• National Security Act of 1947, The
• Nation-Building
• Nations and Nationalism
• NATO, Europe, and Russia: Security Issues and the Border R...
• Natural Resources, Energy Politics, and Environmental Cons...
• New Multilateralism in the Early 21st Century
• Nonproliferation and Counterproliferation
• Nonviolent Resistance Datasets
• Normative Aspects of International Peacekeeping
• Normative Power Beyond the Eurocentric Frame
• Nuclear Proliferation
• Peace Education in Post-Conflict Zones
• Peace of Utrecht
• Peacebuilding, Post-Conflict
• Peacekeeping
• Political Demography
• Political Economy of National Security
• Political Extremism in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Political Learning and Socialization
• Political Psychology
• Politics and Islam in Turkey
• Politics and Nationalism in Cyprus
• Politics of Extraction: Theories and New Concepts for Crit...
• Popuism and Global Politics
• Post-Civil War State
• Post-Conflict and Transitional Justice
• Post-Conflict Reconciliation in the Middle East and North ...
• Power Transition Theory
• Preventive War and Preemption
• Prisoners, Treatment of
• Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs)
• Process Tracing Methods
• Pro-Government Militias
• Proliferation
• Prospect Theory in International Relations
• Psychoanalysis in Global Politics and International Relati...
• Psychology and Foreign Policy
• Public Opinion and Foreign Policy
• Public Opinion and the European Union
• Race and International Relations
• Rebel Governance
• Reconciliation
• Religion and International Relations
• Religiously Motivated Violence
• Reputation in International Relations
• Responsibility to Protect
• Rising Powers in World Politics
• Role Theory in International Relations
• Russian Foreign Policy
• Russian Revolutions and Civil War, 1917–1921
• Sanctions in International Law
• Science Diplomacy
• Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), The
• Secrecy and Diplomacy
• Securitization
• Self-Determination
• Shining Path
• Sinophone and Japanese International Relations Theory
• Small State Diplomacy
• Social Scientific Theories of Imperialism
• Sovereignty
• Soviet Union in World War II
• Space Strategy, Policy, and Power
• Spatial Dependencies and International Mediation
• Status in International Relations
• Strategic Air Power
• Strategic and Net Assessments
• Sub-Saharan Africa, Conflict Formations in
• Sustainable Development
• Systems Theory
• Territorial Disputes
• Terrorism and Poverty
• Terrorism, Geography of
• Terrorist Financing
• Terrorist Group Strategies
• The Changing Nature of Diplomacy
• The Politics and Diplomacy of Neutrality
• The Politics and Diplomacy of the First World War
• the Twenty-First Century, Alliance Commitments in
• The Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relation...
• Theories of International Relations, Feminist
• Theory, Chinese International Relations
• Transnational Actors
• Transnational Law
• Transnational Social Movements
• Tribunals, War Crimes and
• UN Security Council
• United Nations, The
• United States and Asia, The
• Uppsala Conflict Data Program
• US and Africa
• US–UK Special Relationship
• Voluntary International Migration
• War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714)
• Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Western Balkans
• Western Front (World War I)
• Westphalia, Peace of (1648)
• Women and Peacemaking Peacekeeping
• World Economy 1919-1939
• World Polity School
• World War II Diplomacy and Political Relations
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [91.193.111.216]
• 91.193.111.216

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy
• How To Study International Relations UPSC Mains

International Relations UPSC Notes [Strategy, Booklist]

International relations is a very important component of the UPSC exam. It is part of the General Studies Paper II in the UPSC Mains exam. It is also relevant for the UPSC Prelims exam. In this article, you will get an overview of the international relations segment of the IAS exam , a strategy on how to tackle this section, a list of books for IR and also a comprehensive set of UPSC Notes for International Relations.

UPSC Syllabus for International Relations

In the UPSC Prelims exam, the IR segment is covered in GS Paper I as “Current events of national and international importance”. It is evidently interlinked with the current affairs segment.

Download the UPSC Prelims Syllabus in the link.

In the UPSC Mains exam, IR is part of the General Studies Paper II.

Under IR, GS Paper II may have questions based on the following topics:

• India and its neighbourhood
• Relations between India and neighbouring countries
• Bilateral, regional and global groupings and agreements involving India and/or affecting India’s Interests
• Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests
• Indian diaspora

You can download the UPSC Mains Syllabus in the link.

UPSC International Relations Trend Analysis

(Marks worth of questions asked from IR in the various years in IAS Mains)

The following graph shows the break-up of the international relations topics asked in the UPSC Mains 2020:

The next chart shows the same information for the preceding two years:

Crash Course on International Relations for Prelims 2021

How to approach International Relations for UPSC?

Although the IR section is a mix of both static and dynamic topics, questions are generally asked based on current affairs . Hence, it is extremely important to keep abreast of the latest international events and developments, and also how it can affect India and her relations with other countries.

For convenience during IAS preparation, we can divide the topics into various heads, as follows:

India’s international relations based on location:

• India and neighbours (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, China and Nepal)
• India and various organizations (UN, G20, ASEAN, GCC, IMF, EU, World Bank, etc.)
• India and the different regions (the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Europe, etc.)
• India and the rich nations (Australia, Japan, USA, etc.)
• India and the 5 UNSC members (USA, France, China, Russia and UK )

India’s foreign policy during the different phases:

• Post-independence
• Non-alignment Movement
• Wartime with Pakistan and China
• Fall of the USSR
• Current events (Coronavirus, Vaccine diplomacy, etc.)

When you start reading the IR study material, you must begin by reading about:

• The basic philosophy underlying international relations.
• Evolution of the foreign policy of India.
• Major changes in the world in the last few decades and how India has been affected by those changes.
• Role of India in the major international organizations.

In bilateral relations, you must focus on:

• India – neighbours
• India – US Relations
• India – Russia Relations
• India – China Relations

In every relationship, look for the following:

• Historical relations
• Economic relations
• Contemporary issues
• Areas of confrontation
• Landmark agreements or movements
• Way to the future
• Unique opportunities or challenges

International Relations Notes for UPSC

The important topics on international relations are linked in the table below:

International Relations UPSC Books

IR Books for UPSC Prelims

• NCERT XII (Contemporary World Politics)
• Current Affairs (News Analysis)

IR Books for UPSC Mains

• International Relations: Pushpesh Pant

You can get comprehensive video lectures on International Relations for the UPSC Exam here .

Also read: International Relations Questions in UPSC Mains GS 2

Related Links:

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

• world affairs

A Modi Win Will Only Mean More Trouble for Indian Muslims

M ore than two years have passed since a picture of me, picked up from my personal social media handles, was put up with a price tag for auction on the internet. It was part of a website called Bulli Bai , a religious slur used for Muslim women in India. 

Why was I targeted? Likely because of my reporting. The perpetrators wanted to shame and humiliate a journalist who was determined to expose the failures of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party’s gender, caste, and religion-based violence. But more importantly, they wanted to shut up a Muslim woman who had dared to be vocal in Modi’s India.

When the photo was posted, I wondered how the main perpetrator , a 21-year-old student from Assam, who created Bulli Bai could be so consumed by his hatred that he felt compelled to auction Muslim women online for their outspoken criticism of the BJP—journalists, social workers, actors, and politicians. A recent meeting with my lawyer about my case against the Bulli Bai creators, who are still being investigated by the Delhi police, was a painful reminder of the targeted harassment faced by outspoken Muslim voices critical of the ruling BJP. 

As the ongoing election in India is set to finish on June 1, it has once again offered deeper insight into how political dialogue is fueling this culture of hate. 

Particularly, the political campaign of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP has leaned into anti-Muslim sentiment, progressively making Islamophobia one of the defining features of this election.

It was most prominently on display when Modi, in a thinly veiled reference to Muslims, referred to the 200 million Indian Muslim population as “infiltrators” at a BJP campaign rally while addressing voters in the Western state of Rajasthan on April 21. The Prime Minister also accused the opposition Congress party of planning to distribute the country’s wealth to Muslims.

Modi, in his speech, asked, “Earlier, when his [ former Prime Minister and Congress Party member Manmohan Singh’s] government was in power , he had said that Muslims have the first right on the country’s property, which means who they will collect this property and distribute it to—those who have more children, will distribute it to the infiltrators. Will the money of your hard work be given to the infiltrators? Do you approve of this?”

Read More: How India’s Hindu Nationalists Are Weaponizing History Against Muslims

This 2006 statement by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh emphasizing that minorities, particularly Muslims , should have the first claim on resources to help uplift their socio-economic status, has been often quoted out of context in political rhetoric, distorting its original intent to uplift marginalized communities.

The reemergence of conspiracy theories like “Love Jihad,” alleging a covert agenda by Muslim men to ensnare and convert Hindu women, by Modi, has surged back into public attention, prominently surfacing at an election rally on May 28, days before the seventh and last phase of the ongoing elections, in the Eastern state of Jharkhand . 

The alarming rhetoric about Muslim population growth too have dominated the election discourse, fueled by the BJP's top leader, Modi, who has been criticized for his Islamophobic remarks, evoking memories of Gujarat's 2002 riots. While he later denied singling out Muslims in an interview with an Indian news channel, his history of linking them to population growth fuels a Hindu-majoritarian conspiracy theory.

Following the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat during his tenure as chief minister, Modi faced scrutiny regarding his administration's lack of assistance to relief camps, predominantly established by non-profit organizations and Muslim communities. During a campaign rally, Modi then insinuated that these camps might transform into "baby factories," implying that Muslims could potentially have families as large as 25 children.

In his Jharkhand rally in May of this year, Modi spoke of "unseen enemies" working to divide society and claimed that the opposition parties were playing into the hands of “infiltrators”. He warned against "Zalim (cruel) love," alluding to Love Jihad. 

As the elections progressed, Modi’s speeches transformed slowly from issues such as “development” to anti-Muslim rhetoric. Unlike previous elections, Modi's campaign strategy this time has shifted towards overt Hindu-Muslim politics, drawing attention to his past record and raising concerns among Indian Muslims, as evidenced by the Election Commission's intervention in a campaign video by the BJP inciting hatred against Muslims. 

The video, shared by BJP Karnataka wing with a cautionary message in Kannada, depicted a cartoon version of Congress’s Rahul Gandhi placing an egg marked "Muslims" into a nest alongside smaller eggs labeled with categories such as "Scheduled Castes," "Scheduled Tribes," and "Other Backward Castes.” The narrative unfolds as the "Muslim" hatchling is shown being nourished with financial resources, eventually growing larger and displacing the other hatchlings from the nest—implying that a Congress government will give away all resources to Muslims. 

This came days after another animated video shared by the BJP’s official Instagram handle was removed on May 1 after a large number of users of the platform reported the video for “false information” and “hate speech.” The video repeats the BJP’s rhetoric on the Congress party, who they allege are“empowering people who belong to the very same community [of] invaders, terrorists, robbers and thieves [who] used to loot all our treasures” while the voice-over says, “If Congress comes to power, it will snatch all the money and wealth from non-Muslims and distribute them among Muslims, their favorite community.” 

Despite its controversial content, the video amassed over 100 thousand likes before being removed.

Both videos come after claims by Modi during his campaign speeches that Congress was planning to “steal” reservations in educational institutes and government jobs among other benefits from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Castes and redistribute them to Muslims.

Modi may be the foremost leader, but he's not alone in setting the tone; other top-tier BJP leaders are also walking in his footsteps. Home Affairs Minister Amit Shah's remarks linking voting for the Congress party to "jihad" in the South Indian state of Telangana have also stirred controversy.

Read More: The Modi-fication of India Is Almost Complete

The India Hate Lab, a Washington D.C.-based group that documents hate speech against India’s religious minorities, in its report of 2023 paints a grim picture of rising hate speech incidents against Muslims, totaling 668 documented cases. 

These incidents, often featuring calls for violence and spreading divisive theories, were predominantly concentrated in regions governed by the BJP, particularly during key election periods like in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, and Chhattisgarh. Additionally, the report highlighted stark differences in hate speech content between BJP and non-BJP-governed areas, with BJP leaders more frequently involved in non-BJP territories as they strive to expand political footholds.

When leaders resort to fear-mongering, it legitimizes the dehumanization of minorities, creating a fertile ground for extremists. This often isn’t just about one app or incident. It’s about the pervasive atmosphere of intolerance that such rhetoric by the BJP leaders breeds. And those who oppose this type of hate speech want to ensure that no one—regardless of their faith, gender, or caste—has to live in fear of being targeted for who they are. 

Modi’s statement received widespread criticism from the opposition, the intelligentsia community including authors, writers, scholars, academics, and the minority Muslim population of India. The Congress party even filed a complaint with the Election Commission, alleging that Modi's remarks violate electoral laws that prohibit appeals to religious sentiments. Despite public outcry and demands from activists and citizens for action, the Election Commission has so far taken no appropriate action. 

Modi's Islamophobic statements, which have fueled fears over and over again among India's Muslim population, must be viewed within the broader context of his party's strategies—which often invoke religious and communal sentiments to galvanize their voter base. And this time, the aim is to break all previous records by securing 400 plus seats in the 543 seat parliament.

If the BJP is able to secure such a huge majority in the parliament, Hindu majoritarianism will remain unchecked. The hostility towards the minorities could escalate even more, and opposition parties may bear the brunt of state agencies and crackdowns if they ask questions. 

During Modi’s previous terms, Muslims have seen an increased marginalization and discrimination fueled by Hindu nationalist agendas—ranging from difficulty in securing a rented accommodation in urban cities, erasure of Muslim names from roads, cities and railway stations, to the underrepresentation in government jobs and discrimination and vandalism of shops of small Muslim vendors. 

Today, India, a country which once took pride in its ganga-jamuni tehzeeb —a term used to refer to the fusion of Hindu-Muslim cultures—has become a global epicenter of divisive politics. While elections will come and go, the impact of the irresponsible words of Modi and the BJP will stay with the 200 million plus Muslims in the country.

These words have real and dangerous implications for the safety and security of India's Muslim population. Muslims in India currently face increased social ostracism, economic boycotts, and even physical violence. And another victory with an overwhelming majority will only mean more trouble.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• How Joe Biden Leads
• TIME100 Most Influential Companies 2024
• Javier Milei’s Radical Plan to Transform Argentina
• How Private Donors Shape Birth-Control Choices
• What Sealed Trump’s Fate : Column
• Are Walking Pads Worth It?
• 15 LGBTQ+ Books to Read for Pride
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

What Claudia Sheinbaum’s victory might mean for Mexico

The next president should break with her predecessor and mentor.

T HE RESULT of Mexico’s presidential election, which was announced on June 2nd, is no surprise. Yet what happens next is still a cliffhanger. Claudia Sheinbaum will become the country’s next president but it is far from clear whether she has the will or ability to break free of the policies or personal sway of her populist predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. The coming struggle will influence the fate of Mexico’s 126m people but also has huge implications for migration, crime and trade in America, its giant northern neighbour.

The country’s first female, and Jewish, president differs starkly from her predecessor in some respects, even though they belong to the same party, Morena. A climate scientist with a P h D in environmental engineering, she took a technocratic approach to crime as mayor of Mexico City, and worked with the private sector. Mr López Obrador, by contrast, governed by whim and bombast, berating businesspeople and indulging vested interests. The result was bad for Mexico.

Ms Sheinbaum inherits three sets of problems where she needs to abandon Mr López Obrador’s legacy. The first is the disorder that causes chaos inside Mexico and spills across its northern border. Mr López Obrador did co-operate with the United States in attempts to control the rate of migrants trying to cross, but in many other respects he failed. Ms Sheinbaum will need to reverse his permissive approach to Mexico’s gangs, which have sprawled. They not only terrorise Mexicans, but traffic migrants. They also cook fentanyl and smuggle it across the border, contributing to the 75,000 Americans killed by synthetic opioids last year.

Second, Ms Sheinbaum must also break from her predecessor on trade and investment. At first glance Mexico has much to celebrate. Boosted by the North American free-trade deal signed under President Donald Trump, known as the USMCA , in 2023 Mexico overtook China to become the United States’ largest trade partner. Foreign direct investment into Mexico has risen, with it being a beneficiary of the diversification of supply chains away from China.

But zoom in and the story is one of a missed opportunity. Mexico could do far better. Fresh investment by multinationals who have not been active in Mexico before remains very low. Mr López Obrador’s state-led energy strategy has resulted in insufficient, dirty and expensive power, putting off plenty of companies. Add in insecurity and a lack of rule of law and Mexico is less attractive than it could be.

Furthermore, a trade bust-up could be brewing with the United States, especially if Donald Trump returns to the White House. Officials in Washington increasingly fret about Chinese companies moving to Mexico in order to bypass tariffs. That could come to a head in 2026 when the United States, Canada and Mexico have to review the USMCA deal. Ms Sheinbaum will need to show she is welcoming to business but tough about Chinese firms bending USMCA rules and deft at defusing the looming US -trade row. And she must tackle the issues deterring new investors.

The final mistake that Ms Sheinbaum must reverse is Mr López Obrador’s assault on democracy. He has weakened the institutions painstakingly built up since 2000, when presidential power changed hands for the first time. Ms Sheinbaum should underline the independence of key institutions such as the electoral body and freedom-of-information agency, and refuse to advance mooted constitutional changes, including to elect judges. Mr Trump is unlikely to care much about this, but Mr Biden might, and investors do.

Ms Sheinbaum’s to-do list is clear: tackle disorder, boost trade and investment and strengthen democracy. Yet is she really up to the task? One fear is that despite her technocratic credentials and style she is a captive of Mr López Obrador’s agenda. Intellectually she is a nationalist and ideologue. She is his protégée and throughout her three-decade political career has hewn closely to him. During the campaign she spoke more about policy continuity and protecting his legacy than about her own proposals.

Even if Ms Sheinbaum wants to reverse course, will she have the power to do so? Mr López Obrador claims he is returning to “La Chingada”, his ranch (an interesting name: in Mexico sending someone to “la chingada” means to send someone to hell). But it is hard to imagine this obsessive, egomaniacal figure leaving the stage. Instead he may continue to hold sway over Morena, which looks to have won at least a simple majority in Congress and possibly the two-thirds majority needed for constitutional changes. Many politicians and officials across Mexico owe their position to him—as to a large extent does Ms Sheinbaum herself.

External forces may push Ms Sheinbaum in the right direction: she faces severe fiscal constraints that may force her to tame the size of the state. She cannot compete with Mr López Obrador’s charisma and so may have to appeal to the public based on results. Still a huge test lies ahead: if you want to understand whether Mexico can fulfil its potential and whether America’s border will continue to be a source of instability, watch whether Ms Sheinbaum can break free of the shadow of her mentor. ■

Explore more

More from leaders.

Three reasons why it’s good news that robots are getting smarter

They are becoming more capable, easier to program and better at explaining themselves

Morena’s landslide win threatens to take Mexico down a dangerous path

The country’s newly elected president will need to show political courage

How the Labour Party could end Britain’s stagnation

Even if the economy peps up, taxes will have to rise