DISCUSS THE MEANING, SCOPE AND NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

INTRODUCTION

1. International Relations is used to refer to an interdisciplinary concentration

within the social science that brings to bear a wide variety of disciplinary

perspectives on issues concerning the relations among governments,

international organisations and non-state actors such as multi-national

corporations and non-governmental organisations. The world we live in this

modern era comprises of over 185 different countries with diverse ethnic,

culture, population, economy, ideas, values and each with its own requirements

for survival. International Relations become the art and science of survival of

mankind 1. The study in the area of human behaviour brings nations to design

the way they interact with each other to achieve a definite control and direction

towards peace.

AIM

2. The aim of this paper is to discuss the meaning, nature and scope of

International Relations.

SCOPE

3. The scope of this paper will consist of the followings:

a. Introduction.

1 Deutsch, Karl W, The Analysis of International Relations, New Jersey, Prentice-

Hall, 1978, pg Vii

1
 b. The meaning of International Relations.

c. The history and development of International Relations.

d. The scope of International Relations.

e. Conclusion.

THE MEANING OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

4. What is meant by International Relations? International Relations refer to both

discipline as well as process between the entities. How International Relations

was defined sixty to seventy years ago? The discipline was started in early 1900

when it was treated as the body of knowledge in the higher learning institutions,

and taught as a separate subject. After this era, International Relations were

defined as the process of interaction between states and this definition was used

throughout until 1 960s when the whole definition was challenged. International

Relations explain international dominant or in other words are the states really

the actors in International Relations. So, starting in 1960 the state will not be the

goal actor in International Relations. There were another actors, this refer to the

whole questions how scholars defined the notion of an actor. The general

definition of actor in International Relations is any entities that play identifiable

role in international level 2.

5. There are several scholars who have defined IR according to their study. One of

the scholars that to my opinion is really defined what is IR. According to K J

Holsti’s opinion, international relations may refer to all forms of interaction

between the members of separate societies, whether sponsored by the

government or not, the

2 The Dictionary of International Relations

2
study of international relations would include the analysis of foreign policies or political

processes between the nations, however, with its interest in all facts of relations between

distinct societies, it would include as well studies or international trade, transportation,

communication and the development of international values and ethics 3. In a simple

word, this scholar stated that International Relations is a process between state and non-

state actors.

6. F H Hartman describes International Relations in his book as the predominant

emphasis, as a field of political science on describing and explaining the context

of state in terms of their interacting national interest. The nature of national

interest and policy in such that the contexts described are necessarily a mixture

of conflicts, competition and cooperation involving peace and war, friendship

and enmity 4.

7. H J Morgenthau defined International Relations as a struggle force and the use

of power among the states. International Relations is a process by which the

nation tries to serve their national interest, which may be a conflict in actor

nation and by means of their policy and nation 5.

8. Of all modern societies, contemporary international relations is closest to a

social field. Interactions are primarily spontaneous and free market processes

largely determine fundamental relations. No one plans what the society will be

like. There is no overarching organizational structure which coercively

commands behaviour. And

.K J Holsti, International Politics, A Framework for Analysis, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1992, p.10
4

.Julius Gould, William L KOLB, A Dictionary of the Social Science, p.38

5

.(H J Morgenthau, The Nature and Limits of a Theory of International Relations in WTR Fox (ed

3
relations among members of the world society comprise multiple and overlapping local,

regional, and international expectations dependent on the interests, capabilities, and

credibilities (wills) of the parties involved. In other words, the international order is

sewn together by diverse and cross-cutting balances of social powers.

9. Collectively, after looking at the definitions given by the scholars and through

discussions, International Relations can be defined as the discipline of study about

relations and interactions of different actors at the international level and these actors

can be divided into state actors and the non-state actors. Thus, International Relations

can be divided into two components which are:

a. State Actors. According to Fred Halliday, he defined state actor as a

territorial association of people recognised for the purpose of law and diplomacy

as legally equal members of the state system. It is in reality a mean of organising

people for the purpose of their participation in international systems. The state

actor can also be defined as a nation-state which has a recognised government in

terms of politics, social, cultural, economics, military which is recognised by the

world organisations or internationally. State actors have:

Legal Entity.

Empowered (to make decisions).

Power to enforce rules and regulations.

Territory within a particular geographical region.

.R J Rummel, Chapter 3: Understanding Conflicts and War, Vol 4: War, Power, Peace

4
b. Non State Actors. Based on the statement by Holsti, he mentioned that the

state is the premier unit in International Relations. The state would fade away if

there is no body or organisation to check and control all the activities of its

citizens and keep out all unwanted internal and external influence. The non-state

actors also can be defined as the entities other than nation states that interact in

the international relations. It can be in the form of corporation, association,

individual or movement which are properly defined as transnational rather than

international. Government bodies are by far the most important players in

international relations but other players who are non-government also strongly

influence, interact and as much involved internationally. These can be

categorised as;

(1) Transnational Companies (TNCs) – Large companies or corporate bodies

that have dealings with companies or governments of other nations.

Examples are Nokia, McDonald, Honda, Petronas, VISA, Citi Bank, etc.

(2) Non-governmental organisation (NGO) – These are private

organisations of different size and resources that interact with states,

TNCs or other NGOs. Example of NGOs are International Olympic

Committee, Greenpeace, Human Right Watch and Amnesty

International.

(3)________________Intergovernmental_________Organisations

__________________(IGO) - These are organisations whose

members are national governments.

5
 Example of these are the United Nations and its agencies, NATO,

ASEAN, APEC, OIC and etc 7.

10. There are the various intergovernmental and non-intergovernmental

organizations, including the United Nations, which have legal identity in

international relations. Like states and other groups composing the international

society, international organizations are legal fictions represented by authorities

who act on their behalf, usually administering rules and regulations governing

state, group, and individual international relations.

11. Thus, the international field is a complex of individuals acting in different

international capacities and roles, representing different international groups,

and interacting at different international levels. 8 What provides most coherence

to this complex is the state, which in international law takes precedence over (can

command) all other organizations, at least within its boundaries. Indeed, for

totalitarian states, the international relations of all their groups and people are

integrated into state policy and rigidly controlled, including the actions of their

citizens representing international organizations.

12. This control by the state and the complex of relations between the diverse

international actors can be made more coherent by dividing international relations

into interstate, intersocietal, and interpersonal.

a. Interstate relations. Interstate relations are those authoritative actions,

understandings, or commitments of the governmental authorities--the leaders--

.Goldstein, Joshua S, International Relations, Harper Collins, 1996, p 15

8

.R J Rummel, Chapter 3: Understanding Conflicts and War, Vol 4: War, Power, Peace

6
 of one state to or with the governmental authorities of another state or its groups

or citizens, either bilaterally or through international organizations. For example,

this would not only include the obvious international conferences, military aid,

state visits, treaties, and the like, but also nationalizations of foreign business,

expelling foreign newsmen, arresting a foreign national, applying duties to

foreign goods, censoring foreign magazines. Thus, any authoritative actions of a

state's governmental elite against any citizen or group or another state is part of

interstate relations.

b. Intersocietal relations. Intersocietal relations are those authoritative

actions, understandings, or commitments of the authorities of groups within

one state with those groups or citizens of another state, or those relations

within groups whose membership and organizations transcend states. The

latter would include, for example, multinational corporations with foreign

subsidiaries, the Catholic Church, or international professional associations.

Also, included in intersocietal relations are companies selling goods to the

citizens of other states, contacts between foreign firms, or a company

contracting with a foreign firm.

c. Interpersonal relations. Interpersonal relations (in international relations)

are those relations of or between citizens of different states acting in their

personal interests. Tourists, migrants, foreign students, the international jet set,

exemplify such interpersonal relations, as do a portion of international mail,

telegrams, phone calls, and cross-border air and surface traffic.

13. International relations are interpersonal, intersocietal, and interstate: the

international field comprises interpersonal, intersocietal, and interstate behavior and

attributes. States more or less dominate these relations as they are more or less

7
antifields. The more an antifield, the more a state will control the involvement of its

groups and individuals in international relations 9.

THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATION

10. As an academic purpose, the study of international relations began only in 1919.

The first chair of international politics was established at the University College of

Wales. International relations developed as a field of diplomatic history. It is also the

beginning of international relations as an independent field of study and following the

emergence of the United States as a super power, namely after 1898 but especially

during World War I, the field of international relations increased interest in the United

States as well as in the institutions of higher learning. So far, scholars

have conducted and studied the development of international relation which is divided

into 4 major stages (according to Kennot Thomson). They are as follows:

a. Beginning of World War I to end of World War I (1914 – 1918). In this period,

international relations was normally conducted by a diplomatic historian, who,

in general, avoided the study of current affairs but merely used the disciple of

the history to explain the present phenomena. As it was historical in orientation,

it was also quite destructive. In fact, this stage did not witness any significant

contribution towards establishing the theory of international relations.

9 R J Rummel, Chapter 3: Understanding Conflicts and War, Vol 4: War,

Power, Peace.

8
b. Post World War I. This stage suddenly shifted from diplomatic history to

the study of the current affairs with little consideration of these historical

contemporary issues without looking back to the history. Again, at this

stage, there is no theory being developed and there was no contribution

towards the study of the development of international relations. This

stage also lacks holistic view of the international phenomena.

c. From 1920 to outbreak of World War II (1938 – 1939). This period also

refers to the West War years. During this period, most scholars of

International Relations or Current Affairs or Diplomatic Historians lack

knowledge on the development of international relations. The outbreak

of World War I took scholars by surprise. Therefore, most of them

during this period adopted a 'legalistic moralistic approach'. In addition,

during this period, the US President had contributed an idea by

proposing that an international organisation be established so that

international conflicts can be avoided and all states are governed by

international law.

d. Since 1950 (End of World War II). This period also saw the development

of science theory for the analysis of international relations that brought in

various disciplines such as the study of political science, political

economy and political sociology. Some of these changes took place at the

end of World War II, which also saw the end of colonisation, where

countries in Asia and Africa gained independence. Political science

forces terminated colonisation in 1960. During the late 1 950s, another

approach emerged in the form of a Third School of thought, which

rejected both 'realist' and 'idealist' tradition in international relations.

Dubbing themselves 'behaviourists' in

9
 recognition of their debt to the methods and findings of such behavioural

science as sociology, economics and psychology, the adherents of the new

approach were quick to declare the 'traditionalist' view of world politics,

whether idealist or realist to be of interest only as a foundation upon which to

build a genuine science of international relations.

NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

11. The world is very large and complex. Every state has their own standing and

requirements in managing their national interests. When the world is exposed to the

development of new technologies, good transportation and communications, the

world is becoming smaller and smaller. Different people have different cultures and

understandings. By having a relation, they will know what is standing by each

country. Therefore, international relations is concerned on the people and their

cultures. The nature of international relations also is to protect the self interest,

national interest and global interest, ie. to get the total sum of national values such

as survival, economic interest, territorial integrity, prestige, peace and international

peace. According to Joseph Frankel, he defined national interest as 'the total sum of

all national values which include territorial integrity, democracy and free trade'.

Heclley Bull says, International Relations develops from international anarchy (the

absence of control). States develop relations with non-state actor for pursuing their

interest and develop cooperation. Thus, International Relations is exists.

10
activities can be categorized between high and low politics.

a. High Politics. High politics are the type of politics played by

leaders of countries and by other high-level government officials. High

politics in international relations refer to the making of vital, large impact

decisions such as committing a country to war or alliances. In the case of

domestic politics, high politics involves large scale decisions and policies

such as instituting path breaking laws in order to initiate a comprehensive

social security system that calls for racial or ethnic integration to rationalize

private industry or to make radical changes in the system and form of

government.

b. Low Politics. Low politics are the type of politics usually played

by bureaucrats and administrators. It involves small magnitude decisions

that do not alter appreciably the social, political and economic structure of a

country or of the international system. It is defined additionally as

bureaucratic behaviour designed to implement high political decisions

without disturbing the foundation of the social, political, and economic status

quo. The examples are the routine replacement and rotation of diplomatic

personnel, the administration of technical, economic and military aid

programs. Low politics at the domestic level includes activities such as

passing regulatory laws on environmental pollution, deciding on increments

in the minimum wage and in social security benefits.

11
 12. According to the Classical Realist, a common dichotomy of political
SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

13. International Relations covers a variety of scopes. However, it requires our own

approach to meet the aims of international relations. The understanding of theories in

international relations will help in achieving the aims. Nonetheless, it is not easy to

understand where it requires an identify tool to maintain a good relation by using the

aspects of poverty, security believes and good diplomacy. The scopes of International

Relations can be categorised as follows:

a. State Security and Peace. To protect the survival of state against war or

threat, for example, in international conflict, balance of power, negotiation,

peacekeeping, international intervention and etc.

b. International Political Economics. The study of the involvement by the

state in the politics of international economics activities, for example,

international trade, international cooperation, international financial,

multinational corporations and etc.

c. International Law. The body of rules governing the relationships of

international actors with each other. Institutionally, the spirit of international law

is almost similar to the domestic law. For example, the body of international law

is international judiciary under the auspices of United Nation and international

treaties which is the main source for international law.

d. Social, Cultural, Health and Education. It covers mostly on health

issues such as the bird flu which has cost handsomely; child workers for

12
 instance the employment of children which deprived them from their right for

education and progress; as well as preservation of culture to maintain the

diversification of the world.

e. Environmental and Moral Issues. It consists of global warming where

the rise of global temperature effect is caused by human activities.

Deforestation is also one of the problems because of uncontrolled clearing of

the forest. Nuclear waste also is becoming the environment and moral issues

and it also affects the national interest.

CONCLUSION

13. Based on the definitions and discussions mentioned in this paper,

International Relations can be referred to any form of interaction between

members of international society whether it involves the government or no-

government parties, ie. relation between any united or non-government

organisations. International Relations also include all forms of relationship

such as political, economic, trade, communication, culture, sport, social,

education, military and etc. International Relations is also the transaction or

interaction between nations that is made up of a multitude of variables, in

the quest of national interest towards peace and stability. There are many

different methods or theories behind the working principle of international

relations depending on the school or thought or approach adopted.

Advancement in technology and economy has brought fourth the need for

interdependence and the dilution of sovereignty as a mean of survival and

national interest.

13
BIBLIOGRAPHY

.Helen Hemingway Benton, Encyclopedia Britainica, Volume 9, 1978

K J Holsti, International Politics, A Framework for Analysis, New Jersey,

Prentice-.Hall, 1992

.Julius Gould, William L KOLB, A Dictionary of the Social Science

Grant Hugo, Appearance and Reality in International Relations, New York, Columbia

.University Press, 1970

H J Morgenthau, The Nature and Limits of a Theory of International Relations in .

(WTR Fox (ed

Adi H Doctor, International Relations: An Introductory Study, New Delhi, Vikas

.Publication, 1969

Iver B Neumann & Ole Wæver, The Future of International Relations: Masters in

the .Making, London & New York, Routledge, 1997

.R J Rummel, Chapter 3: Understanding Conflicts and War, Vol 4: War, Power, Peace

.Goldstein, Joshua S, International Relations, Harper Collins, 1996

14
DISCUSS THE MEANING, SCOPE AND NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

MAJAR RUSLI BIN DARIAH

142-07

15