IR SECTION A

POWER What is power? For the general definition there are three main element of power; definition: 1) The ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way. 2) The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events. For the example; - political / social authority or control, especially that exercised by a government. - authority that is given or delegated to a person or body. - * power also include ; - the military strength of a state - a person or organization that is strong or influential within a particular context. 3) Physical strength and force by something or someone. In other words: we can say power is the ability to influence the behaviour or attitude of people, government, state and international system. Power in the most general sense, the ability of a political actor to achieve its goals.

Realist it is assumed that possession of capabilities will result influence, so the single word, power is often used ambiguously to cover both. Pluralist it is assumed that political interaction can modify the translation of capabilities into influence and therefore it is important to distinguish between the two. Realist in terms of the important resources such as size of armed forces, gross national product and population that a state possesses there is the implicit belief that material resources translate into influence.

Power is about: Power is a central concept in international relations. It is the central concept for realists. Difficult to measure

Defining Power Often defined as the ability to get another actor to do what it would not otherwise have done (or vice versa). If actors get their way a lot, they must be powerful. Power is not influence itself, but the ability or potential to influence others. Based on specific (tangible and intangible) characteristics or possessions of states Sizes, levels of income, and armed forces Capability: Easier to measure than influence and less circular in logic The single indicator of a states power may be its total GDP Combines overall size, technological level, and wealth At best, a rough indicator

Why state s compete for power? Based on 5 assumptions about the international system; 1) Great power are the main actor & operate in an anarchic system. 2) State posses some offensive military capability. 3) States can never be certain about the intentions of other states. 4) Main goal of state is survival. 5) State are rational actors.

A states tangible capabilities (including military forces) represent material power. Power also depends on nonmaterial elements. National will, diplomatic skill, popular support for government (legitimacy), and so forth Power can only explain so much. Realworld IR depends on many other elements, including accidents or luck. Relational concept: Relative power is the ratio of the power that two states can bring to bear against each other.

Elements of Power State power is a mix of many ingredients. Natural resources, industrial capacity, moral legitimacy, military preparedness, and popular support of government Long-term elements of power Total GDP, population, territory, geography, and natural resources Less tangible long-term elements of power include political culture, patriotism, education of the population, and strength of the scientific and technological base. Credibility of its commitments (reputation for keeping word) Ability of one states culture and values to consistently shape the thinking of other states (power of ideas) Capabilities that allow actors to exercise influence in the short term: Military forces Military-industrial complex Quality of the states bureaucracy

Less tangible: Support and legitimacy that an actor commands in the short term from constituents and allies Loyalty of a nations army and politicians to its leader Trade-offs among possible capabilities always exist. To the extent that one element of power can be converted into another, it is fungible. Money is the most fungible. Realists tend to see military force as the most important element of national power in the short term. Tanks versus Gold Iraq = tanks / Kuwait = gold In the short term, the tanks proved more powerful. Morality States have long clothed their actions, however aggressive, in rhetoric about their peaceful and defensive intentions. Geopolitics States increase their power to the extent that they can use geography to enhance their military capabilities.

Estimating Power The logic of power suggests: The more powerful state will generally prevail. Estimates of the power of two antagonists should help explain the outcome. U.S. and Iraq Implications of the outcome -- GDP does not always predict who will win the war

Two-front problem: Germany and Russia Insular: Britain and United States

Balance of Power Refers to the general concept of one or more states power being used to balance that of another state or group of states. Balance of power can refer to: Any ratio of power capabilities between states or alliances, or It can mean only a relatively equal ratio. Alternatively, it can refer to the process by which counterbalancing coalitions have repeatedly formed in history to prevent one state from conquering an entire region. Theory of balance of power Counterbalancing occurs regularly and maintains stability of the international system. Does not imply peace, but rather a stability maintained by means of recurring wars that adjust power relations

-bandwagoning

Alliances are key Quicker, cheaper, and more effective than building ones own capabilities States do not always balance against the strongest actor.

Great Powers and Middle Powers The most powerful states in the system exert most of the influence on international events and therefore get the most attention from IR scholars. Handful of states possess the majority of the worlds power resources. Great powers are generally considered the half-dozen or so most powerful states. Until the past century, the club was exclusively European. Defined generally as states that can be defeated militarily only by another great power. Generally have the worlds strongest military forces and the strongest economies

U.S., China, Russia, Japan, Germany, France, and Britain U.S. the worlds only superpower China the worlds largest population, rapid economic growth and a large military, with a credible nuclear arsenal

Middle powers Rank somewhat below the great powers Some are large but not highly industrialized Others may be small with specialized capabilities Examples: midsized countries such as Canada, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, Ukraine, South Korea, and Australia, or larger or influential countries in the global South such as India, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, Israel, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan

Power Distribution The concept of the distribution of power among states in the international system Can apply to all the states in the world or to just one region Neorealism, or structural realism 1990s adaptation of realism Explains patterns of international events in terms of the system structure (distribution of power) rather than the internal makeup of individual states. Neoclassical realists Polarity refers to the number of independent power centers in the system. Multipolar system: Has five or six centers of power, which are not grouped into alliances. Tripolar system: With three great centers of power Unipolar system: Has a single center of power around which all others revolve (hegemony) Power transition theory Holds that the largest wars result from challenges to the top position in the status hierarchy, when a rising Hegemony

power is surpassing or threatening to surpass the most powerful state.

aggression; promoting free trade, and providing a hard currency that can be used as a world standard. After WWII U.S. hegemony Hegemons have an inherent interest in the promotion of integrated world markets. U.S. ambivalence Internationalist versus isolationist moods Unilateralism versus multilateralism

The Great-Power System, 1500-2000 Treaty of Westphalia, 1648 Rules of state relations Originated in Europe in the 16th century Key to this system was the ability of one state, or a coalition, to balance the power of another state so it could not gobble up smaller units and create a universal empire. Most powerful states in 16th-century Europe were Britain, France, AustriaHungary, and Spain. Ottoman Empire Hapsburgs

Is the holding of one state of most of the power in the international system Can dominate the rules and arrangements by which international political and economic relations are conducted This type of state is a hegemon Hegemonic stability theory Holds that hegemony provides some order similar to a central government in the international system: reducing anarchy, deterring

Impact of industrialization Napoleonic Wars Congress of Vienna (1815) Concert of Europe UN Security Council WW I WW II and after

Realists believe the international system exists in a state of anarchy. Term implies the lack of a central government that can enforce rules. World government as a solution? Others suggest international organizations and agreements. Despite anarchy, the international system is far from chaotic. Great majority of state interactions closely adhere to norms of behavior Sovereignty: A government has the right, in principle, to do whatever it wants in its own territory. Lack of a world police to punish states if they break an agreement makes enforcement of international agreements difficult. In practice, most states have a harder and harder time warding off interference in their affairs. Respect for the territorial integrity of all states, within recognized borders, is an important principle of IR. Impact of information revolution/information

economies and the territorial state system States and norms of diplomacy Security dilemma A situation in which states actions taken to ensure their own security threaten the security of other states. Arms race Negative consequence of anarchy in the international system

Alliances A coalition of states that coordinate their actions to accomplish some end Most are formalized in written treaties Concern a common threat and related issues of international security Endure across a range of issues and a period of time

EXTRA NOTE The International System States interact within a set of longestablished rules of the game governing what is considered a state and how states treat each other. Together these rules shape the international system.

Purposes of Alliances Augmenting their members power By pooling capabilities, two or more states can exert greater leverage in their bargaining with other states.

Anarchy and Sovereignty 5

For smaller states, alliances can be their most important power element. But alliances can change quickly and decisively. Most form in response to a perceived threat. Alliance cohesion The ease with which the members hold together an alliance Tends to be high when national interests converge and when cooperation within the alliance becomes institutionalized and habitual. Burden sharing Who bears the cost of the alliance

Countered by the Warsaw Pact (1955); disbanded in 1991 First use of force by NATO was in Bosnia in 1994 in support of the UN mission there. European Union formed its own rapid deployment force, outside NATO. Biggest issue for NATO is its recent and eastward expansion, beyond the East-West Cold War dividing line. Russian opposition

Regional Alignments In the global South, many states joined a nonaligned movement during the Cold War. Stood apart from the U.S.Soviet rivalry Led by India and Yugoslavia Undermined by the membership of Cuba Organization of African Unity China loosely aligned with Pakistan in opposition to India (which was aligned with the Soviet Union). Relationships with India warmed after the Cold War ended. Middle East: General anti-Israel alignment of the Arab countries for decades Broke down in 1978 as Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel Israel and war with Hezbollah and Hamas Israel and Turkey formed a close military alliance Israel largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid Egypt Iran

Other Alliances U.S.-Japanese Security Treaty U.S. maintains nearly 50,000 troops in Japan. Japan pays the U.S. several billion dollars annually to offset about half the cost of maintaining these troops. Created in 1951 against the potential Soviet threat to Japan. Asymmetrical in nature U.S. has alliances with other states: South Korea and Australia De facto allies of the U.S.: those with whom we collaborate closely Israel CIS

NATO One of the most important formal alliances North Atlantic Treaty Organization Encompasses Western Europe and North America Founded in 1949 to oppose and deter Soviet power in Europe

Bush emphasis democracy

administration: on spreading

Strategy: Statecraft The art of managing state affairs and effectively maneuvering in a world of power politics among sovereign states. Key aspect of strategy: What kinds of capabilities to develop, given limited resources, in order to maximize international influence Example of China Deterrence Uses a threat to punish another actor if it takes a certain negative action. Compellence Refers to the use of force to make another actor take some action (rather than refrain from taking an action). Arms race A reciprocal process in which two (or more) states build up military capabilities in response to each other.

Rationality Most realists assume that those who wiled power while engaging in statecraft behave as rational actors. Two implications for IR: Implies that states and other international actors can identify their interests and put priorities on various interests. National interest Implies that actors are able to perform a cost-benefit analysis calculating the costs incurred by a possible action and the benefits it is likely to bring. The Prisoners Dilemma Game theory Zero-sum games One players gain is by definition equal to the others loss Non-zero-sum games It is possible for both players to gain (or lose) Prisoners Dilemma Rational players chose moves that produce an outcome in which all players are worse off

than under a different set of moves. They all could do better, but as individual rational actors they are unable to achieve this outcome. Applications to the study of IR

PART 2 IIdealist/ realist / liberalist / ????? 1. REALISM

- Analytical unit: State is the principle actor. - View of actor: State is unitary actor. - Behavioral Dynamic: State is rational actor seeking to maximise its own interest or national objective in foreign policy. - Issues: National security issues are most important: a. The most basic assumptions of realism reflect and inherent pessimism in the school of thought. b. Realist begin with a Prisoners Dilemma. They assume that international politics is a zero sum game and each player has a strong incentive to betray the other (defect). c. As indicated above, they also begin with the assumptions that power is the means by which a states security is guaranteed, that

power is fungible, that states are unitary and rational actors, and they are the primary units of international politics. d. Realist assume that the international system is anarchic; hence there is no superstate authority or central government to enforce rules, norms, or contracts. International anarchy leads to a self-help system in international politics. In a self-help system, each state is responsible for its own security. This in turn leads to a security dilemma. The more one state arms to protect itself from other states, the more threatened these states become and the more prone they are to resort to arming themselves to protect their own national security interest in other words resulting in an arms race.

2. Liberalism - Analytical unit: State and non-state actors (mostly institutions) are important. - View of actor: State disaggregated into components, some of which may operate transnationally. - Behavioral Dynamic: Foreign policy making and transnational processes involve conflict, bargaining, coalition, and compromise not necessarily resulting in optimal outcomes. - Issues: Multiple agenda with socio-economic or welfare issues as, or more, important as national security questions. 8

a. Liberalism is not the opposite of realism. Rather, liberalism is an optimistic version of realism with fewer assumptions constraining the implications. Liberals also begin with the assumptions that states are unitary and rational actors. However, liberals do not share the realist assumptions that power is the only means by which a states security is guaranteed. b. there is an intrinsic optimism in Liberalism. Liberals feel that security fears are not constant and can be overcome. Liberalism makes the positive statement that security fears are not static, they are a product of certain conditions, and they are malleable. c. Liberals say you can change the situations. They believe security can be guaranteed by other means (beside military power/force) and they provide for the possibility that nonstate actors (mostly institutions and corporations) play important role in world politics. d. Liberals say that there are no immutable concerns of states, only what they create. This is what most clearly distinguishes Liberalism and Realism. Liberals, like realist, assume that the international system is anarchic, but do not assume that a super-national authority is the only means by which to enforce rules, norms, or contract.

Extra Note Realism Theoretical framework that has held a central position in the study of IR Realisms foundation is the principle of dominance. School of thought that explains international relations in terms of power. The exercise of power by states toward each other is sometimes called realpolitik, or just power politics. Realism developed in reaction to a liberal tradition that realists called idealism. - Idealism emphasizes international law, morality, and international organizations, rather than power alone, as key influences on international events. - Belief that human nature is basically good. - Particularly active between WWI and WWII stop German, Italian, and Japanese aggression. Since WWII, realists have blamed idealists for looking too much at how the world ought to be rather than how it really is.

REALISM REALISM makes several key assumptions. It assumes that the international system is anarchic, in the sense that there is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity (that is, no true authoritative world government exists). It also assumes that sovereign states, rather than international institutions, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs. According to realism, each state is a rational actor that always acts towards its own selfinterest, and the primary goal of each state is to ensure its own security. Realism holds that in pursuit of that security, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative level of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's capabilities, both military and economic. There are two sub-schools of realism: maximal realism and minimal realism. The theory of maximal realism holds that the most desirable position to be in is that of the hegemon, the most powerful entity in the world, and that smaller entities will align themselves with the hegemon out of political self-interests. Under maximal realism, the position where there are 9

simultaneously two equally powerful cohegemons (such as was the case during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union) is an inherently unstable one and that situation will inevitably collapse into a more stable state where one nation is more powerful and one is less powerful. The theory of minimal realism holds that non-hegemonic states will ally against the hegemon in order to prevent their own interests from being subsumed by the hegemon's interests. Under the minimal-realism theory it is possible to have two equally powerful co-hegemons with whom a smaller entity may ally in turn depending on which hegemon better fits with the smaller entity's policies at the moment (playing both sides against the middle). Realism in international relations The term "realism" comes from the German compound word "Realpolitik", from the words "real" (meaning "realistic", "practical", or "actual") and "politik" (meaning "politics"). It is the balance of power among nation-states. Bismarck coined the term after following Metternich's lead in finding ways to balance the power of European empires. Balancing power meant keeping the peace, and careful Realpolitik practioners tried to avoid arms races. However, during the early-20th Century, arms races (and alliances) occurred anyway, culminating in World War I.

LIBERALISM Liberalism (also known in American circles as idealism) is generally considered the second great body of theory in contemporary international politics after realism, although technically it is the first (the first generation of international relations scholars in England after WWII were predominantly what we would now call Liberals). This approach allegedly dominated the study of international relations from the end of WWI until the late 1930s. Sometimes referred to as utopianism, Liberalism came to prominence in reaction to the carnage of the WWI. The notable Liberal idealists are Immanuel Kant, Richard Cobden, John Hobson, Norman Angell, Alfred Zimmern and Woodrow Wilson. Liberals see opportunities for cooperation. This is particularly so in their defence of international law, economic cooperation, and the spread of democracy as the most important mechanisms for building world peace. In general, Liberals have observed that the least aggressive states tend to be ones with democratic governments and capitalistic economies the so called liberal democracies, most of which are industrialised countries. The controversial claim that no democracy has ever truly gone to war against another democracy lies at the heart of the Democratic Peace Theory. Another insight drawn from

the linking of internal and external affairs is that non-state actors, like civil society, multinational corporations, and international organisations, also play important roles in world politics. Reflecting its origins in the post WWI period, Liberals have argued that the chief goal of foreign policy should be to promote world peace (although many accept that wars can be just if world peace is the ultimate goal). One mechanism for doing this is to promote the growth of international organisations and international laws, which, according to Liberals, should be generally effective provided that they reflect existing balances of power. Important Liberal projects have included the promotion of universal human rights and conflict prevention in the United Nations, and market liberalisation through the World Trade Organisation. Some branches of Liberal theory insist that domestic and international reforms must be linked, and that world peace will require democratisation of currently authoritarian states. Liberalist emphasises international organisation and law, cooperation, and the construction of a more perfect world. They share a belief in progress and are of the view that the procedure of parliamentary democracy and deliberation under the rule of law could be firmly established in 10

international diplomacy. They believe that politics should follow the highest moral and legal principles. For the Liberalist, human choice plays a crucially important role in affairs. They believe that politics should involve the abandonment of force, the encouragement of learning and the coexistence of societies under the leadership of adequately enlightened rulers. A central characteristic of a Liberalist is the belief that what unites human beings is more important than what divides them. Liberalists are also known for their naivety about the role of power in international relations. They disagree with the fatalistic orientation that assumes power politics is a natural phenomenon and is an unchanging law of nature. For them no pattern is unchangeable and man has the capacity to learn and change behaviours. To some, political Liberalist had failed because it had not been universalised or because it had not been given a long time to succeed and to others political idealisms failure to prevent war was the inevitable result of what they believed were political idealisms naivety and erroneous assumptions. Liberalism has been regarded as an example of both policy failure and theoretical naivety in international relations since the outbreak of war in 1939.

After fully analysing Liberalism to conclude utilising a very simplistic definition with brevity as its core, liberalism is a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavour, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. Now having clearly established the underpinning components of Liberalism we will focus our attention on NeoLiberalism. LIBERALIST LIBERALISM holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior. Preferences will vary from state to state, depending on their culture, economic system, or type of government. Many different strands of liberalism have emerged; some include commercial liberalism, liberal institutionalism, idealism, and regime theory. Recently, realism and liberalism have evolved into neo-realism and neo-liberalism. Other schools, which cannot (yet) be counted to the established mainstream in the Study of International Relations, include postmodern, feminist and neo-Marxist approaches, and neoGramscianism. These perspectives differ from

both realism and liberalism in their epistemological and ontological premises and are post positivistic in nature. Different schools of thought in international relations can predict the same events. The theories are differentiated by the assumptions they make in their reasoning toward predictions. For example, both realists and liberals claim that events as disparate as World War I, the Cold War, and the relatively conflict-free post-Cold War Europe were predicted by their theories. The theories differ in the fundamental assumptions they make in predicting state behavior. It is possible that one liberal theorist will predict war while another liberal theorist will predict peace; their disagreement arises from how they interpret events, but their fundamental assumptions are the same. Similarly, it is possible that a realist theorist and a liberal theorist could both predict peace, but their fundamental assumptions as to why that occurs would be different.

Liberalism - Optimistic - Have faith of human nature Individual good behavior Most - State ( - State are not Important national unitary actor Factor Interest) State Interdependence Dominance are key factor and Power Nature in - Anarchy - Cooperation International - Identity - Community not System course of believe anarchy war is the course of war Human Nature Course of - Self help State Self Behavior interest - Security can be obtain on self help - National security Power - Military forces To maintain - Emphasis on economic, social and political will being

Realism Pessimistic - Selfish in nature

politician action for state survival Morale/Ethic -Self Value interest before regional obligation Not moralize

goal/interest - Progress and modernization - Equality - Cooperation - Democracy - Basic right

Idealism - Unrealistic belief in pursuing of perfection. - Altruistic (welfare of others) Most Important - State and others including Factor individuals. (state are not the sole actor on international organization) Nature in - Community / collective International security System - peace Course of State - psychological motive of Behavior decision makers Human Nature Power - emphasis in cooperation to achieve progress (league of nation) Focuses on democratic rights of citizens.

Collective security - To achieve collective

Morale/Ethic Value

11

SECOND QUESTION. CHOOSE FROM 5 1. The Peace of Westphalia - Peace of Westphalia is a series of agreement, which ended the thirty years war. Peace of Westphalia was sign on 24 Oct 1648 between Emperor Ferdinand III, the German princes, representative of the Netherlands, France and Sweeden. - Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of the sovereignty of nation-states on their territory, with no role for external agents in domestic structures. - This treaty was a result of two separate peace treaties. It was from the first modern diplomatic congress and initiated a new order in central Europe based on the concept of state sovereignty. What were the primary results/outcomes of this event? a. Sovereignty and the recognition of international boundaries (including territorial adjustments for some European nations) b. Non-intervention. (The principle of legal equality between states. These principles are shared by the realist international relations paradigm. c. Institution of diplomacy. d. The balance of power. e. International law via the introduction of tenets (or rules) between nations. 12

f. Territorial integrity. g. group of people united by language and culture. h. Peace of Westphalia is important to modern IR theory. i. principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination. j. It was one of the first European Agreement that dealt with the issues of freedom of religion by allowing minority religions the right to retain and practice their faith. k. In many ways it laid the foundations for the modern concept of state by establishing for the first time such as concepts as sovereignty. l. The term peace of Westphalia, referring to the two peace treaties of Osnabruck and Munster.

Significance - Peace of Westphalia marked the beginning of the modern nation-state which began as modern diplomacy. - recognized as sovereignty of each state. - War is not only about religion, but about the state. - Protestants and catholic became allies in own countries. - Division to be unite into a single nation-state. Modern views - humanity and democracy were two principle that were not relevance to the original westphalian order. That Westphalia system has limit. Principle of sovereignty , which is basis and produced a base for rivalry instead of union of states, exclusion instead of integration. - The key concept of Europe after 1945 was still is a rejection of the principle of balance power and hegemonic ambitions of individual states, which emerged after the Peace of Westphalia. This refusal took shape mixing vital interest and the transfer of sovereign rights of nation-state on super-national European Institutions. Treaty of Westphalia, 1648 Rules of state relations

Westphalian principle: 1. the principle of the sovereignty of nation-state and the fundamental right of selfdetermination. 2. the principle of legal equality among nation-states. 3. Principle binding international agreement among countries, thus binding contract. 4. Principle of non-intervention of one state in another states internal affairs.

 Originated in Europe in the 16th century Key to this system was the ability of one state, or a coalition, to balance the power of another state so it could not gobble up smaller units and create a universal empire. Most powerful states in 16th-century Europe were Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, and Spain. Ottoman Empire Hapsburgs Impact of industrialization Napoleonic Wars Congress of Vienna (1815) Concert of Europe They all could do better, but as individual rational actors they are unable to achieve this outcome. Applications to the study of IR Extra info Westphalia is often used as shorthand for a system of equal and sovereign states; and the peace treaties of Westphalia, concluded in 1648 at Munster and Osnabruck and ending the Thirty Years War, are sometimes said to have established the modern concept of sovereign statehood. Thedistinguishedinternationalrelationsscholar StephenKrasner,whilecomment- ing that this 13

model had virtually nothing to do with the Peace of Westphalia, nonetheless defines as Westphalian an institutional arrangement for organizing political life that is based on two principles: territoriality and the exclusion of external actors from domestic authority structures. According to Krasner, Westphalian sovereignty is violated when external actors influence or determine domestic authority structures. Krasner explains that he chooses to use this terminology because the Westphalian model has so much entered into common usage, even if it is historically inaccurate. presenting it as a model of how to deal successfully with deep religious disagreements on a constitutional plane. However, both my historical claims and consequently their normative upshots will be quite different from Hills, as I will explain below. Moreover, although my main concern in this paper will be the constitutional, domestic aspects of the peace treaties, the hybrid nature of the treaties, which contained constitutional norms for the Holy Roman Empire as well as international legal norms for Europe, have inevitable implications for the international legal aspects of Westphalia.

1. In international law, a state is an entity that is recognised to exist when a government is in control of population residing within a defined territory. Recognised by other states in the international system. 2. In the study of international politics, each state is a country. It is a community of people who interact in the same political system. 3. State consists of government, in its broadest sense, covering the executive, the legislature, the administration, the armed forces and the police the essential domestic features of a state was a monopoly over legitimate use of force. 4. Great power are the main actor & operate in an anarchic system. 5. State posses some offensive military capability. 6. States can never be certain about the intentions of other states. 7. Main goal of state is survival. 8. State are rational actors. 9. Sovereignty is define as the principle that within its territorial boundaries the state is the supreme political authority and that outside those boundaries the state recognise no higher political authority. 10. State sovereignty define as a principle for organizing political space where there is one

2.

Relation between State

sovereign authority which governs a given territory. - IR theories hold different views of whether state sovereignty has been transformed. IR theories also disagree as to the whether state sovereignty is a good way of organizing political community that is state sovereigntys normative states. 11. Country consist of : -government, population, have their own language and culture. State: cover all the element of country but state must be recognized. Recognition by IOs, UN, and follow International law. 12. Anarchy: implies not the complete chaos or absence of structure or rules, but rather than lack of a central government that can enforce rules. 13. The starting point of thinking about international relations. A crucial but highly contentious concept in international relations. Manifest a feature of the international system and Defines the socio/political framework in which international relations occur. Descriptive rather than prescriptive, a general condition rather than a distinct structure 14

Implies the absence of any authoritative institutions, rules or norms above the sovereign state. The lack of a common government or universal authority is thus what distinguishes the international from the domestic realm of politics and law. In mainstream Anglo-American international theory anarchy remains the fundamental assumption of international politics and as such it poses the key research questions in the discipline. 14. States are the main actors existing in a self-help environment in which the security dilemma is always pressing. States are presumed to act rationally in terms of perceptions of the national interest, but they are not entirely unconcerned with rules and norms. So, conflict and cooperation can and do co-exist within the same social milieu. This is the common terrain occupied (though, of course, disputed) by the heirs of the realist and idealist traditions. Anarchy, in fact, is what states make of it (Wendt, 1992) . In sum, the tendency to view anarchy as the basic condition of international relations underestimates its inherent ambiguity and overestimates its explanatory powers. 15. state:

an organized political entity that occupies a definite territory, has a permanent population, and enjoys stable government, independence and sovereignty sovereignty: means a government has the right, at least in principle, to do whatever it links in its own territory. 16. Sometimes called the nation-state, this is the main actor in international relations. It has a legal personality and as such in international law possesses certain rights and duties. According to the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (1933): which is widely regarded as the classic legal definition, states must possess the following qualifications: a permanent population, a defined territory and a government capable of maintaining effective control over its territory and of conducting international relations with other states. In respect of the last qualification the role of recognition by other states can often be crucial since it implies acceptance into the international community.

Extra Note 17. These qualifications are not absolute and permit variations. For example there is no necessity in international law for settled boundaries or frontiers. Many international conflicts take the form of boundary disputes but their existence does not rob the disputants of legal personality. Israel, for example, is generally accepted as a state even though the precise demarcation of its boundaries has never been settled. Although there is a general requirement that a state has some form of government or means of exercising control, a state does not cease to exist when this control is in dispute or when it is `temporarily;' deprived of effective control as in wartime, civil wars, or revolutions. 18. Indeed, the attribute of sovereignty itself, which is widely regarded as the defining characteristic of statehood, is by no means absolute. Some states, such as these in postwar Eastern Europe, were regarded as 'penetrated' or `satellite' states, since the control they exercise over their internal and external environments was circumscribed by a powerful neighbour or hegemon. In the real world, as opposed to the world of political or legal theory, sovereignty can differ in degree and intensity among states

without deprivation of international personality status. Regarding secessionary movements or national liberation organization, recognition is generally withheld until victory over the mother state (or occupying power) is secured. Yet even in these cases, recognition as a gesture of support can be given though the legal status may be in abeyance or dispute. In sum, although the state has legal personality and essential defining characteristics, these are not static or absolute. Not only is the state the main agent in international law, politically too it is dominant and has been for over four hundred years. With the exception of Antarctica no significant territorial area is exempt from state control (terra nullis). 19. To date, there are nearly two hundred states in the international system, an increasing number of them being categorized as microstates. Despite their number and despite the fact that many liberation movements are still actively seeking statehood; some commentators have argued that the state is declining as the primary actor in world politics. Not only is it functionally obsolete (because of its military and economic penetrability) but it is no longer capable of adequately handling global problems.

The challenge of interdependence and the proliferation of non-state actors states; have questioned the traditional assumptions concerning the dynamics of world politics. Yet, on the evidence presented so far, it is difficult to escape the conclusion of its death have been greatly exaggerated.) Failed states; quasi-states.

3. Sovereignty - In status, means that government has the right, in principle, to do whatever it wants in its own territory. States are separate and autonomous answer to no higher authority. In principle, all states are equal in us, if not in power. - Sovereignty also means that states are not supposed to interfere in the internal affairs of other state. - Although states do try to influence each other (exert power) on matter of trade, alliances, war and so on, they are not supposed to meddle in the internal politics and decision processes of other states. More controversially, some states claim that sovereignty gives them the right to treat their own people in any fashion, including bahavior that other states call genocide. - Sovereignty is define as the principle that within its territorial boundaries the state is the

15

supreme political authority and that outside those boundaries the state recognise no higher political authority. - State sovereignty define as a principle for organizing political space where there is one sovereign authority which governs a given territory. - IR theories hold different views of whether state sovereignty has been transformed. IR theories also disagree as to the whether state sovereignty is a good way of organizing political community that is state sovereigntys normative states.

16