INTRODUCTION TO IR

For some, international relations means the diplomaticstrategic relations of states, and the
characteristic focus of IR is on issues of war and peace, conflict and cooperation.
Others see international relations as being about cross-border transactions
of all kinds, political, economic and social. Again, and with increasing frequency in the
twenty-first
century, some focus on globalization, studying, for example, world communication,
transport and financial systems, global business corporations and
the putative emergence of a global society. IR is
the study of the relations of states, and that those relations are understood
primarily in diplomatic, military and strategic terms this is certainly the
way in which diplomats, historians and most scholars of IR have defined
the subject.
In the nineteenth century there was not a great deal of theorizing on the
causes of war in general because most people thought that the causes of
war, at least in the international system of that era, were obvious. Historical
studies of particular wars might discuss the cause of the war in question,
but only as a prelude to an account of the course of the war, not as a
major focus. It was taken for granted that states went to war for gain, or in
self-defence because they were attacked by some other state acting for gain.
Then came 1914, and the greatest war the European system had seen for
three hundred. Twentieth-century theorizing
about international relations begins here. Something seemed to be wrong
with the obvious answer and early students of international relations felt
the need to think more deeply about the causes of war in order to answer a
question which previously was thought not to demand a great deal of theoretical
consideration. More generally, over
the last hundred years a number of theories of the causes of war have been
elaborated, ranging from the role of special interests to the psychological
profile of particular countries or leaders.
IR THEORIES IN TWENTIETH CENTURY
New thinking that was produced in Britain and America is conveniently
summarized as liberal internationalism the adaptation of broadly liberal
political principles to the management of the international system.
In Britain, liberal internationalist ideas were developed by Fabians and
radical liberals through bodies such as the Union for Democratic Control.
However, if British liberal internationalism was largely unofficial, in the
United States these ideas were espoused by the President himself, Woodrow
Wilson.
The aim of a League of Nations would be to provide the security that
nations attempted, unsuccessfully, to find under the old, balance of power,
system. The balance of power was based on private commitments of assistance
made by specific parties; the League would provide public assurances
of security backed by the collective will of all nations hence the term
collective security. The basic principle would be one for all and all for
one. Each country would guarantee the security of every other country, and
thus there would be no need for nations to resort to expedients such as
military alliances or the balance of power. Law would replace war as the
underlying principle of the system.

The realist critique of liberal internationalis

liberal internationalists believed that the people had a real interest in and desire for peace

and that democratic regimes would, if given the chance, allow these interestsand desires to
dominate. The enemy of peace, on this account, was the
kind of militarist, authoritarian, autocratic, anti-democratic regime.realism seemed to offer a
more coherent and accurate
account of the world than the liberal ideas, and it formed the
basis for the post-war synthesis. liberal internationalism has
survived its defeat at the hands of realism. The United Nations is,
in effect, a revision of the League of Nations, even if it was convenient
to gloss over this in 1945. Liberal internationalism is, without doubt, an
incoherent and flawed doctrine.

The post-war synthesis

After 1945, realism became the dominant theory of International Relations,
offering a conception of the world which seemed to define the common
sense of the subject.

There was no mechanism in 1914 to prevent war, except for the

balance of power a notion which was associated with unprincipled powerpolitics.
What was deemed necessary was the establishment of new principles
of international relations, such as open covenants openly arrived at, but, most of all, a new
institutional structure for international relations a League
of Nations.
The aim of a League of Nations would be to provide the security that
nations attempted, unsuccessfully, to find under the old, balance of power,
system. The balance of power was based on private commitments of assistance
made by specific parties; the League would provide public assurances
of security backed by the collective will of all nations hence the term
collective security. The basic principle would be one for all and all for
one. Each country would guarantee the security of every other country, and
thus there would be no need for nations to resort to expedients such as
military alliances or the balance of power. Law would replace war as the
underlying principle of the system.
The United Nations (UN; French: Organisation des Nations unies; ONU) is an intergovernmental organization established
24 October 1945 to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization
was created following the Second World War to prevent another such conflict. At its founding, the UN had 51 member states;
there are now 193. Its objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering
social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural
disaster, and armed conflict.