THEORIES, CONCEPTS AND

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
PAPER II

[DATE]
[COMPANY NAME]
[Company address]
THEORIES
1. REALISM AND NEOREALISM
Introduction:

Amongst the major approaches to the study of international relations, Realism has by far proved to be
the most influential theory in explaining the nature of world politics. What probably explains 'its
dominance is its ability to provide the most powerful explanation for the state of war which
characterizes the normal condition of life in the international system.

Realism:

Realism, also known as "Realpolitik", is one of the dominant schools of thought within the domain of
International Relations. Its genesis can be traced back to Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian War,
and to Sun Tzu's classic work on strategy The Art of War.

 Rather than study the world as it might be, Realists maintained that a science of international
politics must study the world as it was. In contrast to the "idealists", a term retrospectively
coined by the Realists for the Inter wars scholars whose major preoccupation was with
understanding the cause of war and finding a tasting remedy for its existence, war to the
Realists appears as a natural phenomenon given the inherent craving for power in human
nature. While idealism emphasis that international relations should be guided by morality.
 Realism is grounded in an emphasis on power politics and the pursuit of national interests. From
the perspective of the Realist framework, states are recognized as the preeminent actors in
world politics. What provides weight to such an assumption is the accompanying notion of
sovereignty, which enables states to act as independent and autonomous entities both within
and outside the nation-state.
 The rise of nationalism and the emergence of modern nation-states have further consolidated
such a belief system by transforming the different states into cohesive political communities,
within which all other loyalties and ties remain subordinate to the nation-states. By logical
extension, all non-state actors like multinational corporations and intergovernmental
organizations such as the United Nations are relegated to a peripheral status within the
international system.
 Despite the growing recognition of the fact that such non-state entities do significantly influence
the outcome of developments in international relations, the Realists are unwilling to budge from
their position as far as the preeminence of nation states in the international system is
concerned.
 While conceding that the non-state actors do operate within the political arena, the Realists
argue that the states' supremacy remains unchallenged as they do so only with the consent of
national political authorities. Nothing is above the state.

Variants of realism:

There is no consensus among theorists of international relations with regard to the taxonomy of
Realism. The question as to whether Realism constitutes a single coherent theory or there are
 different strands within Realism has proved increasingly contentious. Nevertheless, the Realist
school can be divided into two broad categories

1. Classical Realism

2. Contemporary Realism or Neo-realism

Classical Realism:

Classical Realism represents a whole worldview of international politics encompassing several

generations of theorists ranging from Thucydides, Machiavelli, and E.H. Carr to Hans J. Morgenthau,
the most famous high priest of post-war Realism.

#The central argument of classical Realism rests on the assumption that international politics is
driven by an endless struggle for power, which has its root in human nature.

 Classical Realism recognises that principles are subordinated to policies and that the
ultimate test of the state leader lies in accepting and adapting to the changing power
political configurations in world politics.
 Classical Realism, as a school of thought, became prominent particularly during the inter-
war period when a new generation of scholars got actively engaged h explaining new
developments in international relations. Classical Realists, a term retrospectively used by
later band of Realists, is thus often attributed to those theorists who were actively writing
on international relations immediately before and after the Second World War.
 What distinguishes this genre of scholars from others is their shared belief in an essentially
pessimistic view of human nature.

# Some of the key figures in this tradition of Realist school Nicholas Spykman, Hans Morgenthau, and
others believe that the struggle for power is inherent in human nature.

In other words, the drive for power and the will to dominate are treated as the fundamental traits of
human nature. Following from this, the behavior of the state as a self-seeking egoist is thus understood
to be merely a reflection of the characteristics of the people that comprise the state.

 It is human nature that explains why international politics is necessarily power politics.
Convinced of the unchanging human nature, classical Realists are highly pessimistic with regard
to the possibility of any qualitative transformation of world politics. As a result, they tend to rely
much more upon conventional principles of diplomacy and mechanisms such as balance of
power, international morality and world public opinion, and international law for regulating and
restraining the inevitable clashes of interests between states, than on the human nature.

Contemporary Realism or Neo-realism:

Contemporary Realism, also called Neo-realism and Structural Realism, is a more recent strand of
Realism that developed during the 1980s under the influence of Kellneth Waltz.

# While Neo-realists continue to acknowledge the central importance of power, they tend to explain
events in terms of the structure of the international system rather than the goals and make-up of
individual states.
  The structure of the international system, for the Neo-realists, is a major determinant of state
behavior. It is through an analysis of the different structures of the international system -
defined in terms of ordering principles, the functional differentiation of the Units, and
distributions of capabilities - that the Neo-realists tend to explain the varying patterns of world
politics. This, they believe, cannot be explained simply in terms of the interests and policies of
individual countries.
 Unlike the classical Realists who trace the causes of war to the innate human nature, the Neo-
realists tend to explain international conflict within the framework of the anarchic structure of
the international system. This basically means that there is no overarching central authority to
enforce rules and norms or protect the interests of the larger global community. In other words,
itis not so much the innate human nature as the anarchic system, which nurtures fear, jealousy,
suspicion, and insecurity in the international system.
 The structural Realists insist that conflict can emerge even if the actors have benevolent intent
towards each other. This form of Structural Realism is most often associated with Kenneth
Waltz's landmark book, Theory of International Politics(1979).
 Waltz's Structural Realism has had a major impact on scholars in international relations. Waltz's
popularity as a structural Realist emanates from his ringing assertion that the structure of the
international system decisively shapes the behaviour of the states. According to Waltz: anarchy
prevents states from entering into co-operative agreements to end the state of war. The
condition of anarchy, that is, absence of a higher power over and above the sovereign nation
states to ensure peace among them is often viewed as synonymous to a state of war. By the
state of war, structural Realists do not intend to convey the impression that large-scale war is a
daily occurrence in international politics: Rather, the possibility that a particular state may resort
to force indicates that the outbreak of war is always a likely scenario in an anarchic
environment. Put differently, the structure of the international system can drive states to war
even if state leaders desire peace.
 Structural Realists insist that the form of a state, for example a democracy or a totalitarian state,
or the personality of the leader is less important in accounting for the phenomena of war than
the fact that action takes place within the contest of an anarchical realm.

However, Kenneth Waltz's theory of Structural Realism is not the only version of Neo-realism. There is
yet another version of Neo-realism, which is increasingly becoming popular as security studies. This form
of Neo-realism is further divided into two sub-groups

1. Offensive Neo-realism

2. Defensive Neo-realism.

While offensive Neo-realists emphasize the importance of relative power, the defensive Neo-realists are
often confused with neo-liberal institutionalists, a branch of liberalism.

 Like traditional Realists, the offensive Neo-realists believe that conflict is inevitable in the
international system and leaders must always be wary of expansionary powers. The defensive
Neo-realists, on the other hand, recognise the costs of war and argue that it invariably results
from irrational forces in a society. Moreover, tlley argue that it is the presence of the
 expansionary forces in the international system, always willing to use force, which makes it
impossible to co-exist in a world without weapons.

They do, however, concede that co-operation can take place but is likely to be successful only among
the friendly states.

2. LIBERALISM AND NEOLIBERALISM

Difference between Liberalism and Neoliberalism

Liberalism Neoliberalism

A political ideology based on the An economic principle that places a high regard on free
importance of liberty and freedom. markets

Defends concentration of wealth and unequal

Promotes equality.
distribution of property and natural resources

Upholds the democratic process and the

Rejects the welfare state.
welfare state.

Definitions

Liberalism is a political ideology built on the foundations of liberty and equality. Classical liberalism
believes in the importance of liberty, while social liberalism places more importance on equality. Liberals
generally support freedom of speech, free markets, gender equality, international cooperation,
democracy, freedom of religion, and civil rights, just to name a few.

During the Age of Enlightenment, 17th century philosopher John Locke argued that each individual has a
natural right to life, liberty, and property, which governments must not violate. This was the time when
liberalism began to grow to become a political movement on its own as it was embraced by many
philosophers and economists in the West. The liberals did not accept current socio-political norms of
state religions, absolute monarchy, hereditary privilege, and the divine right of kings. According to the
liberals, representative democracy and the rule of law should replace the absolute reign of monarchs.

Neoliberalism is a revival of 19th century ideals connected to laissez-faire economic liberalism that
started to grow in the 20th century. It holds that the private sector should be given more power in the
economy through policies such as privatization, deregulation, and reduced government spending in the
private sector. Experts believe that the financial crisis of 2008 was the result of the government
adopting neoliberal policies in the 1970s.
Today, neoliberalism is usually associated with deregulating capital markets, removing price controls,
increasing free trade, and reducing government control on the economy by implementing austerity and
privatization programs.

Neoliberalism gained traction in the 1960s when Latin American intellectuals were impressed by
Germany’s social market economy and began planning to adopt the same policies. Neoliberalism at that
time was, in essence, a way to control social inequality and monopoly. In 1976, Argentina implemented
neoliberalist policies including austerity plans and free trade. Their financial sector was deregulated
which gained the country short-term growth. In the U.K., Margaret Thatcher adopted some neoliberal
reforms such as deregulation, privatization, tax cuts, and reforming exchange rates. Neoliberalism grew
in popularity in the U.S. during Ronald Reagan’s terms, implementing tax reductions, trade deficit
expansion, and financial deregulation. The Clinton administration also implemented neoliberal policies
by approving the North American Free Trade Agreement, which continued the deregulation of the
financial sector.

Liberalism vs Neoliberalism

What’s the difference between liberalism and neoliberalism? Liberalism is a political ideology started by
John Locke in the 17th century during the Age of Enlightenment. Neoliberalism, on the other hand, is a
revival of 19th century ideals based on economic liberalism that gained popularity in the 20th century.

Liberalism believed in the fundamental importance of liberty and equality, while neoliberalism placed
great emphasis on the liberalist concept of government involvement in economic policymaking.
Liberalism also promotes ideals that uphold freedom of speech, civil rights, freedom of religion, free
trade, and the democratic process. Neoliberalism rejects the welfare state, heavily promotes capitalism
and defends the concentration of wealth and unequal distribution of property and natural resources.

3. MARXISM/DEPENDENCY/SYSTEMS THEORY
Marxist ideology was greatly discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union, its utility as a basis for
economic and political systems seemingly disproved as Western liberal democracy and capitalism
emerged triumphant from the Cold War and the United States assumed the mantle of sole superpower.
Geopolitical trends since the Soviet Union’s dissolution have further marginalized Marxism—many
former Soviet satellite states have experimented with democracy; China, the only remaining communist
powerhouse, has successfully endeavored to transform its economy to a capitalist free-market model;
and the few staunch bastions of communism, namely North Korea and Cuba, are impoverished and
isolated states. The theoretical focus of comparative politics has reflected these empirical phenomena
as new or more salient theories have largely eclipsed Marxian thought in the last two decades.
Constructivism seeks to understand interests, values, and norms, and their role in international
interaction; institutionalism examines the development, persistence, and influence of institutions at the
multiple levels of analysis that have flourished in the wake of the Cold War (despite all realist
predictions to the contrary); and numerous interdisciplinary approaches are attempting to bridge the
gap between comparative politics and environmental determinism, neurobiology, and neurochemistry,
and even quantum physics. It would appear as though Marxian class analysis is obsolete both empirically
and theoretically.
How Can One Define Dependency Theory?

The debates among the liberal reformers (Prebisch), the Marxists (Andre Gunder Frank), and the world
systems theorists (Wallerstein) was vigorous and intellectually quite challenging. There are still points of
serious disagreements among the various strains of dependency theorists and it is a mistake to think
that there is only one unified theory of dependency. Nonetheless, there are some core propositions
which seem to underlie the analyses of most dependency theorists.

Dependency can be defined as an explanation of the economic development of a state in terms of the
external influences--political, economic, and cultural--on national development policies (Osvaldo Sunkel,
"National Development Policy and External Dependence in Latin America," The Journal of Development
Studies, Vol. 6, no. 1, October 1969, p. 23). Theotonio Dos Santos emphasizes the historical dimension of
the dependency relationships in his definition:

[Dependency is]...an historical condition which shapes a certain structure of the world economy such
that it favors some countries to the detriment of others and limits the development possibilities of the
subordinate economics...a situation in which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned
by the development and expansion of another economy, to which their own is subjected.

(Theotonio Dos Santos, "The Structure of Dependence," in K.T. Fann and Donald C. Hodges,
eds., Readings in U.S. Imperialism. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1971, p. 226)

There are three common features to these definitions which most dependency theorists share. First,
dependency characterizes the international system as comprised of two sets of states, variously
described as dominant/dependent, center/periphery or metropolitan/satellite. The dominant states are
the advanced industiral nations in the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
The dependent states are those states of Latin America, Asia, and Africa which have low per capita GNPs
and which rely heavily on the export of a single commodity for foreign exchange earnings.

Second, both definitions have in common the assumption that external forces are of singular
importance to the economic activities within the dependent states. These external forces include
multinational corporations, international commodity markets, foreign assistance, communications, and
any other means by which the advanced industrialized countries can represent their economic interests
abroad.

Third, the definitions of dependency all indicate that the relations between dominant and dependent
states are dynamic because the interactions between the two sets of states tend to not only reinforce
but also intensify the unequal patterns. Moreover, dependency is a very deep-seated historical process,
rooted in the internationalization of capitalism. Dependency is an ongoing process:

Latin America is today, and has been since the sixteenth century, part of an international system
dominated by the now-developed nations.... Latin underdevelopment is the outcome of a particular
series of relationships to the international system.

Susanne Bodenheimer, "Dependency and Imperialism: The Roots of Latin American

Underdevelopment," in Fann and Hodges, Readings, op. cit., p. 157.
In short, dependency theory attempts to explain the present underdeveloped state of many nations in
the world by examining the patterns of interactions among nations and by arguing that inequality
among nations is an intrinsic part of those interactions.

4. FEMINISM
Feminism

Feminism is theory that men and women should be equal politically, economically and socially. This is
the core of all feminism theories. Sometimes this definition is also referred to as "core feminism" or
"core feminist theory." Notice that this theory does not subscribe to differences between men and
women or similarities between men and women, nor does it refer to excluding men or only furthering
women's causes. Most other branches of feminism do.

Overview

Many people incorrectly believe that feminist theory focuses exclusively on girls and women and that it
has an inherent goal of promoting the superiority of women over men. In reality, feminist theory has
always been about viewing the social world in a way that illuminates the forces that create and support
inequality, oppression, and injustice, and in doing so, promotes the pursuit of equality and justice.

That said, since the experiences and perspectives of women and girls were historically excluded from
social theory and social science, much feminist theory has focused on their interactions and experiences
within society in order to ensure that half the world's population is not left out of how we see and
understand social forces, relations, and problems. While most feminist theorists throughout history
have been women, today people of all genders can be found working in the discipline.

By shifting the focus of social theory away from the perspectives and experiences of men, feminist
theorists have created social theories that are more inclusive and creative than those which assume the
social actor to always be a man. Part of what makes feminist theory creative and inclusive is that it often
considers how systems of power and oppression interact, which is to say it does not just focus on
gendered power and oppression, but on how it might intersect with systemic racism, a hierarchical class
system, sexuality, nationality, and (dis)ability, among other things.

5. FUNCTIONALISM
The functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, is one of the major theoretical perspectives in
sociology. It has its origins in the works of Emile Durkheim, who was especially interested in how social
order is possible or how society remains relatively stable. As such, it is a theory that focuses on
the macro-level of social structure, rather than the micro-level of everyday life. Notable theorists
include Herbert Spencer, Talcott Parsons, and Robert K. Merton.

Theory Overview

Functionalism interprets each part of society in terms of how it contributes to the stability of the whole
society. Society is more than the sum of its parts; rather, each part of society is functional for the
stability of the whole. Durkheim actually envisioned society as an organism, and just like within an
organism, each component plays a necessary part, but none can function alone, and one experiences a
crisis or fails, other parts must adapt to fill the void in some way.

Within functionalist theory, the different parts of society are primarily composed of social institutions,
each of which is designed to fill different needs, and each of which has particular consequences for the
form and shape of society. The parts all depend on each other. The core institutions defined by
sociology and which are important to understanding for this theory include family, government,
economy, media, education, and religion. According to functionalism, an institution only exists because
it serves a vital role in the functioning of society. If it no longer serves a role, an institution will die away.
When new needs evolve or emerge, new institutions will be created to meet them.

Let's consider the relationships between and functions of some core institutions. In most societies, the
government, or state, provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on
which the state depends to keep itself running. The family is dependent upon the school to help children
grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process, the
children become law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. From the functionalist
perspective, if all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity. If all does not
go well, the parts of society then must adapt to produce new forms of order, stability, and productivity.

Functionalism emphasizes the consensus and order that exist in society, focusing on social stability and
shared public values. From this perspective, disorganization in the system, such as deviant behavior,
leads to change because societal components must adjust to achieve stability. When one part of the
system is not working or is dysfunctional, it affects all other parts and creates social problems, which
leads to social change.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

 The functionalist perspective sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to
promote solidarity and stability. This approach looks at society through a macro-level
orientation and broadly focuses on the social structures that shape society as a whole.

 This theory suggests that gender inequalities exist as an efficient way to create a division of
labor, or as a social system in which a particular segment of the population is clearly
responsible for certain acts of labor and another segment is clearly responsible for other labor
acts.

 The feminist movement takes the position that functionalism neglects the suppression of
women within the family structure.

KEY TERMS

Division of Labor – A division of labor is the dividing and specializing of cooperative labor into
specifically circumscribed tasks and roles.

The Functionalist Perspective – A broad social theory that sees society as a complex system whose parts
work together to promote solidarity and stability.
Functionalist Perspective of Gender Inequality – A theory that suggests that gender inequalities exist as
an efficient way to create a division of labor, or a social system in which a particular segment of the
population is clearly responsible for certain acts of labor and another segment is clearly responsible for
other labor acts.

Critiques of the Theory

Functionalism has been critiqued by many sociologists for its neglect of the often-negative implications
of social order. Some critics, like Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci, claim that the perspective justifies the
status quo and the process of cultural hegemony which maintains it. Functionalism does not encourage
people to take an active role in changing their social environment, even when doing so may benefit
them. Instead, functionalism sees agitating for social change as undesirable because the various parts of
society will compensate in a seemingly natural way for any problems that may arise.

6. POST MODERNISM
Postmodernism, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement
characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and
an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.

Postmodernism And Modern Philosophy

Postmodernism is largely a reaction against the intellectual assumptions and values of the modern
period in the history of Western philosophy (roughly, the 17th through the 19th century). Indeed, many
of the doctrines characteristically associated with postmodernism can fairly be described as the
straightforward denial of general philosophical viewpoints that were taken for granted during the 18th-
century Enlightenment, though they were not unique to that period. The most important of these
viewpoints are the following.

1. There is an objective natural reality, a reality whose existence and properties are logically
independent of human beings—of their minds, their societies, their social practices, or their
investigative techniques. Postmodernists dismiss this idea as a kind of naive realism. Such reality
as there is, according to postmodernists, is a conceptual construct, an artifact of scientific
practice and language. This point also applies to the investigation of past events by historians
and to the description of social institutions, structures, or practices by social scientists.
2. The descriptive and explanatory statements of scientists and historians can, in principle, be
objectively true or false. The postmodern denial of this viewpoint—which follows from the
rejection of an objective natural reality—is sometimes expressed by saying that there is no such
thing as Truth.
3. Through the use of reason and logic, and with the more specialized tools provided
by science and technology, human beings are likely to change themselves and their societies for
the better. It is reasonable to expect that future societies will be more humane, more just,
more enlightened, and more prosperous than they are now. Postmodernists deny this
Enlightenment faith in science and technology as instruments of human progress. Indeed, many
postmodernists hold that the misguided (or unguided) pursuit of scientific and technological
knowledge led to the development of technologies for killing on a massive scale in World War II.
Some go so far as to say that science and technology—and even reason and logic—are
 inherently destructive and oppressive, because they have been used by evil people, especially
during the 20th century, to destroy and oppress others.
4. Reason and logic are universally valid—i.e., their laws are the same for, or apply equally to, any
thinker and any domain of knowledge. For postmodernists, reason and logic too are merely
conceptual constructs and are therefore valid only within the established intellectual traditions
in which they are used.
5. There is such a thing as human nature; it consists of faculties, aptitudes, or dispositions that are
in some sense present in human beings at birth rather than learned or instilled through social
forces. Postmodernists insist that all, or nearly all, aspects of human psychology are completely
socially determined.
6. Language refers to and represents a reality outside itself. According to postmodernists, language
is not such a “mirror of nature,” as the American pragmatist philosopher Richard
Rorty characterized the Enlightenment view. Inspired by the work of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand
de Saussure, postmodernists claim that language is semantically self-contained, or self-
referential: the meaning of a word is not a static thing in the world or even an idea in the mind
but rather a range of contrasts and differences with the meanings of other words. Because
meanings are in this sense functions of other meanings—which themselves are functions of
other meanings, and so on—they are never fully “present” to the speaker or hearer but are
endlessly “deferred.” Self-reference characterizes not only natural languages but also the more
specialized “discourses” of particular communities or traditions; such discourses are embedded
in social practices and reflect the conceptual schemes and moral and intellectual values of
the community or tradition in which they are used. The postmodern view of language and
discourse is due largely to the French philosopher and literary theorist Jacques Derrida (1930–
2004), the originator and leading practitioner of deconstruction.
7. Human beings can acquire knowledge about natural reality, and this knowledge can be justified
ultimately on the basis of evidence or principles that are, or can be, known immediately,
intuitively, or otherwise with certainty. Postmodernists reject philosophical foundationalism—
the attempt, perhaps best exemplified by the 17th-century French philosopher René Descartes’s
dictum cogito, ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”), to identify a foundation of certainty on
which to build the edifice of empirical (including scientific) knowledge.
8. It is possible, at least in principle, to construct general theories that explain many aspects of the
natural or social world within a given domain of knowledge—e.g., a general theory of human
history, such as dialectical materialism. Furthermore, it should be a goal of scientific and
historical research to construct such theories, even if they are never perfectly attainable in
practice. Postmodernists dismiss this notion as a pipe dream and indeed as symptomatic of an
unhealthy tendency within Enlightenment discourses to adopt “totalizing” systems of thought
(as the French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas called them) or grand “metanarratives” of human
biological, historical, and social development (as the French philosopher Jean-François
Lyotard claimed). These theories are pernicious not merely because they are false but because
they effectively impose conformity on other perspectives or discourses, thereby
oppressing, marginalizing, or silencing them. Derrida himself equated the theoretical tendency
toward totality with totalitarianism.
CONCEPTS
1. SOVEREIGNTY
Defination

 the quality or state of being sovereign, or of having supreme power or authority.

 the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign;royal rank or position; royalty.
 rightful status, independence, or prerogative.
 a sovereign or independent state, community, or political unit.

Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of
the state and in the maintenance of order. The concept of sovereignty—one of the most controversial
ideas in political science and international law—is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and
government and of independence and democracy. Derived from the Latin superanus through the
French souveraineté, the term was originally understood to mean the equivalent of supreme power.
However, its application in practice often has departed from this traditional meaning.

Sovereignty And International Law

Although the doctrine of sovereignty has had an important impact on developments within states, its
greatest influence has been in the relations between states. The difficulties here can be traced to
Bodin’s statement that sovereigns who make the laws cannot be bound by the laws they make
(majestas est summa in cives ac subditos legibusque soluta potestas). This statement has often been
interpreted as meaning that a sovereign is not responsible to anybody and is not bound by any laws.
However, a closer reading of Bodin’s writings does not support this interpretation. He emphasized that
even with respect to their own citizens, sovereigns are bound to observe certain basic rules derived
from the divine law, the law of nature or reason, and the law that is common to all nations (jus
gentium), as well as the fundamental laws of the state that determine who is the sovereign, who
succeeds to sovereignty, and what limits the sovereign power. Thus, Bodin’s sovereign was restricted by
the constitutional law of the state and by the higher law that was considered as binding upon
every human being. In fact, Bodin discussed as binding upon states many of those rules that were later
woven into the fabric of international law. Nevertheless, his theories have been used to
justify absolutism in the internal political order and anarchy in the international sphere.

This interpretation was developed to its logical conclusion by Hobbes in Leviathan (1651), in which the
sovereign was identified with might rather than law. Law is what sovereigns command, and it cannot
limit their power: sovereign power is absolute. In the international sphere this condition led to a
perpetual state of war, as sovereigns tried to impose their will by force on all other sovereigns. This
situation has changed little over time, with sovereign states continuing to claim the right to be judges in
their own controversies, to enforce by war their own conception of their rights, to treat their own
citizens in any way that suits them, and to regulate their economic life with complete disregard for
possible repercussions in other states.

During the 20th century important restrictions on the freedom of action of states began to appear.
The Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907 established detailed rules governing the conduct of wars on
land and at sea. The Covenant of the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations (UN),
restricted the right to wage war, and the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 condemned recourse to war for
the solution of international controversies and its use as an instrument of national policy. They were
followed by the UN Charter, which imposed the duty on member states to “settle their international
disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not
endangered” and supplemented it with the injunction that all members “shall refrain in
their international relations from the threat or use of force” (Article 2). However, the Charter also stated
that the UN is “based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its Members.”

Divided Sovereignty

The concept of absolute, unlimited sovereignty did not last long after its adoption, either domestically or
internationally. The growth of democracy imposed important limitations upon the power of the
sovereign and of the ruling classes. The increase in the interdependence of states restricted the principle
that might is right in international affairs. Citizens and policymakers generally have recognized that
there can be no peace without law and that there can be no law without some limitations on
sovereignty. They started, therefore, to pool their sovereignties to the extent needed to maintain peace
and prosperity—e.g., the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the World Trade
Organization (WTO), and the European Union (EU)—and sovereignty was increasingly exercised on
behalf of the peoples of the world not only by national governments but also by regional and
international organizations. Thus, the theory of divided sovereignty, first developed in federal states,
began to be applicable in the international sphere.

2. FOERIGN POLICY
A state’s foreign policy consists of the strategies it uses to protect its international and domestic
interests and determines the way it interacts with other state and non-state actors. The primary
purpose of foreign policy is to defend a nation’s national interests, which can be in nonviolent or violent
ways.

Key Takeaways

 Foreign policy encompasses the tactics and process by which a nation interacts with other
nations in order to further its own interests
 Foreign policy may make use of diplomacy or other more direct means such as aggression
rooted in military power
 International bodies such as the United Nations and its predecessor, the League of Nations, help
smooth relations between countries via diplomatic means
 Major foreign policy theories are Realism, Liberalism, Economic Structuralism, Psychological
Theory, and Constructivism

Examples of Foreign Policy

In 2013 China developed a foreign policy known as the Belt and Road Initiative, the nation’s strategy to
develop stronger economic ties in Africa, Europe, and North America. In the United States, many
presidents are known for their landmark foreign policy decisions such as the Monroe Doctrine which
opposed the imperialist takeover of an independent state. A foreign policy can also be the decision to
not participate in international organizations and conversations, such as the more isolationist policies of
North Korea.

Diplomacy and Foreign Policy

When foreign policy relies on diplomacy, heads of state negotiate and collaborate with other world
leaders to prevent conflict. Usually, diplomats are sent to represent a nation’s foreign policy interests at
international events. While an emphasis on diplomacy is a cornerstone of many states' foreign policy,
there are others that rely on military pressure or other less diplomatic means.

Diplomacy has played a crucial role in the de-escalation of international crises, and the Cuban Missile
Crisis of 1962 is a prime example of this. During the Cold War, intelligence informed President John F.
Kennedy that the Soviet Union was sending weapons to Cuba, possibly preparing for a strike against the
United States. President Kennedy was forced to choose between a foreign policy solution that was
purely diplomatic, speaking to the Soviet Union President Nikita Khrushchev or one that was more
militaristic. The former president decided to enact a blockade around Cuba and threaten further military
action if Soviet ships carrying missiles attempted to break through.

In order to prevent further escalation, Khrushchev agreed to remove all missiles from Cuba, and in
return, Kennedy agreed not to invade Cuba and to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey (which was within
striking distance of the Soviet Union). This moment in time is significant because the two governments
negotiated a solution that ended the current conflict, the blockade, as well as de-escalated the larger
tension, the missiles near each other’s borders.

3. NATIONALISM
Nationalism is a concept that is not easily defined. There are numerous definitions and forms of what is
nationalism, and many of these definitions even overlap. However, there is no one definition that is
more adequate than another. Keeping in mind that these definitions are constantly evolving, with
thorough analysis and the juxtaposition of arguments set out by eight prominent scholars, a clearer
definition of nationalism can be attained.

To begin with, the most well know definition today is from Professor Anthony Smith. He states that
nationalism is simply ‘an ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity and
identity for a population which some of its members deem to constitute an actual or potential “nation”
(Anthony Smith, Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History, 2001, p.9). In this definition, Smith reveals what
he believes the three main goals of nationalism are: autonomy, national unity, and national identity.
Even Smith’s profound definition has not been available for very long considering he was born in 1933.
Although there is much argument on the definition of nationalism, Smith agrees that there is one main
point of agreement and that is that the term nationalism is a modern phenomenon (Smith, Anthony
2001). Civic nationalism is basically defined as a group of people which have a certain loyalty to civic
rights or laws and pledge to abide by these laws. Ethnic nationalism is basically a group that possess a
common culture, language, land, etc. It is more specific in terms of who can be in it (McGregor 2010).
Smith (1991) writes that “every nationalism contains civic and ethnic elements in varying degrees and
different forms. Sometimes civic and territorial elements predominate; at other times it is the ethnic
and vernacular components that are emphasized” (Smith, Anthony 2001). Smith’s most important
argument features civic and ethnic types of nationalism as opposed to eastern and western types. . Even
more specifically, Smith makes the distinction between both civic and ethnic nationalisms. He also
believes that “Many modern nations are formed around pre-existing, and often pre-modern, ethnic
cores” (Theories of Nationalism Smith). Smith is claiming that nations had pre-existing-origins prior to
their ‘new origins’ of their new nation. One of the most popular arguments by critics is that the civic and
ethnic viewpoint of nationalism collapses too much on the ethnic category.
(http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/35/5/554). Smith’s definition seems to be the foundation for
nationalism. Other scholars go in to more detail on certain elements of the definition, but most relate
back to Smith’s original definition.

On the contrary to Anthony Smith’s definition of nationalism pertaining to the civic and ethnic type,
Hans Kohn has argued that the two main types of nationalism are eastern and western. His definition is,
“Nationalism is a state of mind, in which the supreme loyalty of the individual is felt to be due to the
nation-state.” (Hans Kohn, Nationalism, 1965) His argument includes both eastern and western types of
nationalism which refer to eastern and western Europe. “Eastern nationalism conceived the nation as an
organic community, united by culture, language and descent (McGregor 2010).” This could possibly be
related to Smith’s ethnic type of nationalism. “Western nationalism conceived the nation as a political
and civic community, held together by voluntary adherence to democratic norms (McGregor 2010).”
Again, western nationalism could be perceived as a civic type of nationalism. This can be recognized as
two similar classifications on two unfamiliar grounds. Kohn believes that nationalism relates directly
with the eastern and western Europe and that it is also where the ‘state of mind’ of nationalism
originated. The main criticism of Kohn’s classification of nationalism is him being over simplistic. He
certainly does not go into as much detail as Smith on the definition and relates only towards Europe
which most likely is why he is being identified as over simplistic.

Carlton J. H. Hayes’ definition of nationalism states, “Loyalty and attachment to the interior of the group
(namely the nation and homeland) are the basis of nationalism.” In this definition, a common cultural
background and common cultural group are considered the main factors in forming a nation. That
remains true with most of the definitions of nationalism. Hayes definition of nationalism seems to be
more specific to the ‘ethnic’ ties toward nationalism. (http://www.al-
islam.org/islamandnationalism/5.htm). Hayes is basically saying that land, language, and blood are the
basis of nationalism. . He is saying that nation is something to be proud of. Hayes also believe that these
‘ethnic’ qualities are the most important; even religion does not compare. “It is attachment to
nationality that gives direction to one’s individual and social postures, not attachment to religion and
ideology. A human being takes pride in his national achievements and feels dependent on its cultural
heritage, not on the history of religion and his faith (http://www.al-
islam.org/islamandnationalism/5.htm).” This quote further proves Hayes view on nationalism and how it
relates to one’s culture and past, and specifically not related to religion at all. The reason Hayes
definition is unique from others, is his emphasis that religion is not a factor in forming a nation. To
further specify Hayes definition on nationalism he says, “What distinguishes one human being from
another are not their beliefs, but their birth-place, homeland, language and race. Those who are within
the four walls of the homeland and nation, belong to it, and those who are outside it, are aliens. It is on
the basis of these factors that the people have a feeling of sharing a single destiny and a common past.”
(http://www.al-islam.org/islamandnationalism/5.htm). This quote goes hand in hand with Hayes’s
definition of nationalism and just further explains it.
According to scholar Benedict Anderson nationalism is, “a new emerging nation imagines itself to be
antique.” This is similar to how Anthony Smith and Hayes defined nationalism. It is mostly like the
Smith’s ethnic nationalism, which focuses more on the origin of the nation. Anderson focuses more on
modern Nationalism and suggests that it forms its attachment through language, especially through
literature. Of particular importance to Anderson’s theory is his stress on the role of printed literature. In
Anderson’s mind, the development of nationalism is linked with printed literature and the growth of
these printed works. People were able to read about nationalism in a common dialect and that caused
nationalism to mature. (CITE). Anderson’s definition of nationalism and nation differ greatly from other
scholars. He defines nation as “an imagined political community.” He believes this because “the nation is
always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it
possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to
die for such limited imaginings.” Not only is Anderson’s theory distinctive because of the printed
literature theory, but also the “imagined political community.”

Peter Alter states,” Nationalism is a political force which has been more important in shaping the history
of Europe and the world over the last two centuries than the ideas of freedom and parliamentary
democracy or, let alone, of communism.” His argument is similar to John Breuilly in the sense that there
is a strong emphasis on nationalism being a “political force.” Alter is saying that it has everything to do
with being a political movement instead of the idea of freedom. In reference to nationalism, Alter states,
“It can be associated with forces striving for political, social, economic and cultural emancipation, as well
as with those whose goal oppression.” His outlook on nationalism seems much broader than other
scholars. This particular reference virtually sums up many scholars definitions together. Alter does not
seem to have a specific argument on nationalism, as in civic vs. ethnic or western vs. eastern but just an
acceptance that nationalism could be based on all of these arguments. Again, Alter says, “It can mean
emancipation, and it can mean oppression… dangers as well as opportunities.” There is no precise
argument when he tries to define nationalism even though he does have the idea that nationalism is
directly related to a political force. Alter also states that nationalism was important to shaping Europe,
but most scholars agree with that statement to begin with.

Scholar Ernest Gellner states that, “nationalism is primarily a political principle that holds that the
political and the national unit should be congruent”. Gellner has been considered the “father of
nationalism studies” and was a teacher of Anthony Smith. Although most scholars would agree that
nationalism appeared after the French Revolution, Gellner further argues that nationalism became a
“sociological necessity in the modern world.” His argument is similar to the uniqueness of Benedict
Anderson’s “printed literature” theory, but Gellner focuses more on the industrialization of work and
cultural modernization to explain how nationalism expanded. Gellner believes that “states only exist
where there is division of labour, therefore the state comes before nationalism
(http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~plam/irnotes07/Gellner1983.pdf).” Like other scholars, Gellner
believes that nationalism is a political force. There are many criticisms to Ernest Gellner’s theory,
including Anthony Smith saying, “It misreads the relationship between nationalism and industrialization
(Smith 1998).”
Historian John Breuilly defends a more modern theory of nationalism. He concludes, “The rise of the
modern state system provides the institutional context within which an ideology of nationalism is
necessary.” Breuilly argues that the process of “state modernization provides an important factor in
understanding historical signs of nationalism (http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/nationalism.html).”
Breuilly argues that nationalism does not have much to do with ethnicity or ethnic background, rather
more to do with political motivation. This is not the first scholar who believed that ethnic background
had nothing to do with nationalism. In fact, Breuilly’s definition relates well to Gellner in the sense that
they both argue for political motivation. “Nationalists are seen to create their own ideology out of their
own subjective sense of national culture. “(John Breuilly, Nationalism and the State (Manchester
University Press, Manchester, 1982). This particular quote is quite similar to Anderson’s “imagined
political community” theory. Breuilly does not support the ethnic side of nationalism nearly as much as
others and, like Benedict Anderson favors nationalism as just a political force. Breuilly criticizes most
scholars due to the fact that they believe in national culture because he believes there is no such thing.
He believes that the political component of nationalism is by far the most important.

Michael Hechter defines nationalism as a, “collective action designed to render the boundaries of the
nation congruent with those of its governance unit (M. Hechter, Containing Nationalism, 2000).” He
further explains, “Nation and governance can be made congruent by enacting exclusive policies that
limit full membership in the polity to individuals from on one more favored nations.”

4. NATIONAL INTERESTS
National Interest’ is a key concept in International Relations. All the nations are always engaged in the
process of fulfilling or securing the goals of their national interests. The foreign policy of each nation is
formulated on the basis of its national interest and it is always at work for securing its goals. It is a
universally accepted right of each state to secure its national interests. A state always tries to justify its
actions on the basis of its national interest. The behaviour of a state is always conditioned and governed
by its national interests. Hence it is essential for us to know the meaning and content of National
Interest.

Meaning of National Interest

National Interest is a vague and ambiguous term that carries a meaning according to the context in
which it is used. Statesmen and policy-makers have always used it in ways suitable to them and to their
objective of justifying the actions of their states. Hitler justified expansionist policies in the name of
“German national interests.”

The US presidents have always justified their decisions to go in for the development of more and more
destructive weapons in the interest of “US national interest.” To build up a strong nuclear base at Diego
Garcia was justified by the USA in the name of meeting the challenge posed by erstwhile USSR as well as
for protecting the US interests in the Indian Ocean. During 1979-89, (erstwhile) USSR justified its
intervention in Afghanistan in the name of “Soviet national interests”.

Definition of National Interest:

(1) National Interest means: “The general, long term and continuing purpose which the state, the nation,
and the government all see themselves as serving.” —Charles Lerche and Abdul
(2) National Interest is: “What a nation feels to be necessary to its security and well being … National
interest reflects the general and continuing ends for which a nation acts.” —Brookings Institution

(3) “National Interest is, that which states seek to protect or achieve in relation to each other. It means
desires on the part of sovereign states.” —Vernon Von Dyke

(4) “The meaning of national interest is survival—the protection of physical, political and cultural
identity against encroachments by other nation-states”. —Morgenthau

(5) National Interest means: “The values, desires and interests which states seek to protect or achieve in
relation to each other” “desires on the part of sovereign states”. —V.V. Dyke

National Interests can as defined as the claims, objectives, goals, demands and interests which a nation
always tries to preserve, protect, defend and secure in relations with other nations.

Components of National Interest:

A) Necessary or Vital Components of National Interest and

(B) Variable or Non-vital Components of National Interests.

(A) Necessary or Vital Components:

According to Morgenthau, the vital components of the national interests that a foreign policy seeks to
secure are survival or identity. He sub-divides identity into three parts: Physical identity. Political identity
and Cultural identity.

Physical identity includes territorial identity. Political identity means politico- economic system and
Cultural identity stands for historical values that are upheld by a nation as part of its cultural heritage.
These are called vital components because these are essential for the survival of the nation and can be
easily identified and examined. A nation even decides to go to war for securing or protecting her vital
interests.

A nation always formulates its foreign policy decisions with a view to secure and strengthens its security.
The attempts to secure international peace and security, that nations are currently making, are being
made because today the security of each state stands inseparably linked up with international peace
and security. Security is, thus, a vital component of national interest. Each nation always tries to secure
its vital interests even by means of war.

(B) Non-vital or Variable Components of National Interest:

The non-vital components are those parts of national interest which are determined either by
circumstances or by the necessity of securing the vital components. These are determined by a host of
factors—the decision-makers, public opinion, party politics, sectional or group interests and political and
moral folkways.

“These variable interests are those desires of individual states which they would, no doubt, like to see
fulfilled but for which they will not go to war. Whereas the vital interests may be taken as goals, the
secondary interests may be termed as objectives of foreign policy.”
These objectives have been listed by V.V. Dyke and his list includes: Prosperity, Peace, Ideology, Justice,
Prestige, Aggrandizement and Power. Though each state defines these objectives in a manner which
suits its interests in changing circumstances, yet these objectives can be described as common to almost
all states. Thus, national interest which a nation seeks to secure can be generally categorized into these
two parts.

Classification of National Interests:

In order to be more precise in examining the interest which a nation seeks to secure, Thomas W.
Robinson presents a six fold classification of interests which nations try to secure.

1. The Primary Interests:

These are those interests in respect of which no nation can compromise. It includes the preservation of
physical, political and cultural identity against possible encroachments by other states. A state has to
defend these at all costs.

2. Secondary Interests:

These are less important than the primary interests. Secondary Interests are quite vital for the existence
of the state. This includes the protection of the citizens abroad and ensuring of diplomatic immunities
for the diplomatic staff.

3. Permanent Interests:

These refer to the relatively constant long-term interests of the state. These are subject to very slow
changes. The US interest to preserve its spheres of influence and to maintain freedom of navigation in
all the oceans is the examples of such interests.

4. Variable Interests:

Such interests are those interests of a nation which are considered vital for national good in a given set
of circumstances. In this sense these can diverge from both primary and permanent interests. The
variable interests are largely determined by “the cross currents of personalities, public opinion, sectional
interests, partisan politics and political and moral folkways.”

5. The General Interests:

General interests of a nation refer to those positive conditions which apply to a large number of nations
or in several specified fields such as economic, trade, diplomatic relations etc. To maintain international
peace is a general interest of all the nations. Similar is the case of disarmament and arms control.

6. Specific Interests:

These are the logical outgrowths of the general interests and these are defined in terms of time and
space. To secure the economic rights of the Third World countries through the securing of a New
International Economic Order is a specific interest of India and other developing countries.

5. SECURITY
Information security has become a continuing concern in all areas of an Information system. Security is
neither a product nor a software; it is a discipline that needs to be taken into consideration in any
organizational decision. It is indeed true that there is no such thing as a completely secure system. But it
is also correct that by increasing the security measures that protect your assets, you are making your
system a much more difficult target for intruders, which, in turn, reduces the chances of becoming a
victim when the right security technologies are in place.

What Are the Goals for Security?

Security is required to achieve four main goals:

S NO Goal Threat
1 Confidentiality Exposure to Data
2 Integrity Alteration to Data
3 Availability Denial of Service
4 Authenticity Attacks by viruses

Confidentiality: This means secret data must remain confidential. This means that if somebody wants
some data to be available to certain people, then the operating system must make that data available to
those particular people, with no one else allowed to see that data. It prevents unauthorized disclosure
of secured information.

Integrity: This means restricting unauthorized modification of secured information. Unauthorized users
must not be allowed to modify the data without the owner’s permission. Data modification includes not
only changing or deleting data, but also removing data or adding false data to change its behavior.

Availability: This means nobody can disturb the system to make it unusable. It assures that the system
works promptly, and that service is not denied to authorized users. This is to restrict unauthorized users
by withholding information, causing a denial of service to authorized users.

Authenticity: This means the system must able to verify the identity of users. Users can login to the
system by providing a combination of username and password, or matching any other security
parameters.

What Assets Should We Protect?

Security is about the protection of assets. For this reason, we must first identify the organizational
assets.

Information system assets can be categorized as:

Assets Availability Secrecy Integrity/Authenticity

Hardware Equipment gone bad. - -
Denial of services.
Software Programs can be An unauthorized copy A program can be
deleted, altered, etc. of software is made. modified to fail or
Denying access to users change its behavior
 Data Files are deleted. An unauthorized Existing files are
Denial of access to reading of data is modified or deleted,
users. made. and new files are
added.
Communication Lines Data is deleted Data can be read. Data is modified,
Network traffic is delayed, or false data is
analyzed added.

Hardware: Includes CPUs, motherboards, hard disks, CD-ROMs, etc., and all other physical devices.
Threats can be accidental or deliberate damage to equipment.

Software: Includes operating system, utilities, applications, etc. Several distinct threats need to be
considered. Software can be deleted, altered, or changed in behavior.

Data: Includes files and other forms of data. Unauthorized persons can read, modify, or delete data.

Communication Lines: Includes cables and other network communication media. Data in transfer can be
read, modified, or deleted.

Who Are the Attackers?

In security literature, people who try to gain unauthorized access to information systems, whether for
commercial or non-commercial purposes, are known as intruders, generally referred as hackers or
crackers. They act in two different ways: passive and active. The former just wants to read files or data
for which they are not permitted, while the latter is more dangerous, wanting to make unauthorized
changes to data.

Some common types of intruders are:

1) Casual prying by non-technical users: People who want to read other people’s e-mails or files while
they are connected on shared devices.

2) Snooping by insiders: Highly skilled people likes developers, students, or other technical persons, who
consider it a personal challenge to break the security of a computer system.

3) Determined attempts to make money: Some developers or others personnel working in banking
societies attempt to steal money from their organizations.

4) Attempts at secret military or government data: This is considered to be very serious crime. This
category involves attempts made by competing foreign countries to gain a country’s information for the
purpose of national defense, attacks, etc.

What Are the Threats?

INSIDER ATTACKS:

Logic Bombs: These are code embedded in a program that is set to explode when certain conditions are
met. The conditions used to trigger the bomb can be the presence or absence of certain files, a
particular day or date, a particular user running the application, etc. Once triggered, a bomb may alter
or delete data or sometimes entire files, causing a machine halt or dealing some other damage. For
example, if a developer is fired, the logic bomb will trigger upon not receiving his daily password to a
certain portion of code, or when any other set of conditions are satisfied.

Trap Doors: These are login programs written by developers to gain unauthorized access. For example,
a developer could add code to a login program to allow anyone using a particular login name (like
“student”), no matter the password. If this code is inserted into a working program, the login succeeds
by entering the login name as “student” with any password or with a blank password.

Login Spoofing: This is a technique of collecting other users’ passwords. In this method, a false login
interface that seems identical to the real thing (which would normally be connected to a safe server) is
mounted on an actual login screen. When the user enters their user ID and password, this information is
stored in an intruder’s database. Then the dummy login shell is destroyed, and the actual login screen
will start asking login parameters again. Most—probably all—users think they have made a mistake in
the entering ID or password. They never know about the spoof, and will enter their credentials again
and successfully login into the system. Because of this, a login screen will be presented after pressing
CTRL+ALT+DEL in most systems.

OUTSIDER ATTACKS:

Trojan Horses: Can look like useful software applications but has hidden malware contained within it. To
spread it across networks, it is attached to games, etc., which attract people to eagerly download it. The
malware then does whatever it is designed for, such as deleting, modifying, or encrypting files. It can
also search for credit card numbers, passwords, or other useful data. Moreover, it will restart
automatically when the machine is rebooted and runs in the background. The bottom line is it does not
require the author’s involvement; the victim does all the necessary things to infect themselves.

Virus: A program that infects other programs and makes copies of itself, which can spread across the
whole file system and take temporary control of operating system. Then a fresh copy of virus is attached
to uninfected files when they comes in contact. It can spread from computer to computer when files are
shared.

Worm: A worm is a program that replicates itself and sends copies from computer to computer across
the network connections. Upon arrival, the worm may be activated and propagates again to perform
unwanted functions. It is used as an e-mail virus.

Zombie: A program that secretly takes over an Internet connected computer and uses it to launch
attacks that are difficult to trace back to the zombie creators. It is used in denial-of-service attacks
against web servers.

Spyware: Software that is loaded onto a PC and runs in the background, causing infections without
user’s knowledge.

Adware: An advertisement that is integrated into software. It can result in pop-up ads or redirection of
the browser to a commercial site. It also changes the home page of a browser to its redirecting link.

Root kit: A set of tools used to gain root level access after breaking computer security. Root kits can
contain any of above malicious software, like virus, worms, spyware, etc.

How Can We Protect Against It?

The ideal solution to all these threats is to prevent any of the threats from entering the system. Though
prevention can fail, it can at least help reduce the number of successful attacks. The next best approach
is:

Detection: Determine whether an infection has occurred. If so, locate the infection.

Identification: Once it is detected, identify the specific threat that has infected a program.

Removal: After the specific virus has been identified, remove all the traces of the threat from the
infected systems so that it cannot spread further to other systems.

All these approaches give rise to some ways that a system can be designed and implemented to increase
its security. It is always advisable to have multiple layers of security, so that if one of them is not
enough, there are still others capable of defending the system. The defenses are not really hierarchical,
but still occur in the following categories:

Firewall: A firewall is a software or hardware appliance that filters the information that flows from an
Internet connection into your network or computer system. If an incoming packet of data is flagged by
the filters, it is not allowed to pass through.

Antivirus: Firewalls try to keep intruders away from systems, but they fail in some situations when
threats try to hide from them. In such cases, an antivirus is used to detect and remove malicious
software. Sometimes it can be just scanner, or a remover, or both. A scanner examines the behavior and
location of files, etc., thereby detecting the threat, while the remover removes the virus.

Intrusion Detection: Intrusion detection (ID) gathers and analyzes information within a computer system
or network to identify security breaches, which include both intrusions (attacks from outside the
organization) and misuse (attacks from within the organization). It periodically scans threats to
contribute to the security of a computer system or network.

6. POWER
Power ‘is the ability to influence or change in outcome’.

The Five Forms of Power concept is often used in an organization-wide communication. The French-
Raven’s five forms of power are introduced with observance of the level of observability, and the extent
to which the power is dependent on structural conditions. Dependency refers to the degree of
internalization that occurs among individuals subject to social control. On the basis of these
considerations, it is possible to link personal processes to structural conditions.

What are the Five Forms of Power?

John French and Bertram Raven introduced the following five forms of power:

1. Coercive Power

This form of power is based upon the idea of coercion. This means that someone is forced to do
something against their will. The main objective of coercion is compliance. This form of power illustrates
what happens when compliance is not obtained. According to French en Raven there are also other
forms of power that can be used in a coercive manner such as withholding rewards or expertise or using
referent power to threaten social exclusion. The force of power is also associated positively with
punitive behaviour and negatively associated with conditional reward behaviour. This form of power
often leads to problems. In many cases this form of power is abused. Coercive power can lead to
unhealthy behaviour and dissatisfaction at work. Leaders who use this leadership style rely on threats in
their management styles. Often these threats relate to dismissal or demotion.

2. Reward Power

This type of power involves the ability of individuals to delegate matters they do not wish to do to other
people and to reward them for this. For managers in an organization it is a perceived possibility to value
or reward their subordinates’ good results in a positive manner. This form of power is based on the idea
that as a society we are more inclined to do things well when we are getting something in return for
this. The most popular forms are raises, promotions or compliments. The problem with this form of
power is that when the reward does not have enough perceived value to others, the power is
weakened. One of the frustrations when using rewards is that they often need to be bigger than the last
time if they are to have the same effect. Even then, when they are given regularly, employees can
become satiated by the rewards and as a result, they will lose their effectiveness.

3. Legitimate Power

This form of power gives the ability to link certain feelings of obligation or notion of responsibility to the
management. Rewarding and punishing employees can be seen as a legitimate part of the formal or
appointed leadership role. Most managers in organizations execute a certain degree of reward and
punishment. Legitimate power is usually based on a role. People always run with the pack and
traditionally obey the one person with power which is solely based on their position or title. This form of
power can easily be overcome as soon as someone loses their position or title. This power is a weak
form to persuade and convince other people.

4. Referent Power

This form of power is about management based on the ability to administer to someone a sense of
personal acceptance or approval. The leader in this form of power is often seen as a role model. Their
power is often treated with admiration or charm. This power emanates from a person that is highly liked
and people identify strongly with them in some way. A leader who has referent power often has a good
appreciation of their environment and therefore tends to have a lot of influence. Responsibility in this
form of power is heavy and one can easily lose oneself in this. In combination with other forms of
power, it can be very useful. Celebrities often have this form of power in society, but also lose a lot of
power because of certain circumstances.

5. Expert Power

This form of power is based on in-depth information, knowledge or expertise. These leaders are often
highly intelligent and they trust in their power to fulfil several organizational roles and responsibilities.
This ability enables them to combine the power of reward in the right mode. The fact is that if someone
has a particular expertise within an organization, they can often persuade employees, who trust and
respect them, to do things for them. This expertise is greatly appreciated and forms the basis of this
type of leadership.
 7. IDEOLOGY
An ideology is a set of opinions or beliefs of a group or an individual. Very often ideology refers to a set
of political beliefs or a set of ideas that characterize a particular culture.

Ideology, a form of social or political philosophy in which practical elements are as prominent as
theoretical ones. It is a system of ideas that aspires both to explain the world and to change it.

This article describes the nature, history, and significance of ideologies in terms of the philosophical,
political, and international contexts in which they have arisen. Particular categories of ideology are
discussed in the articles socialism, communism, anarchism, fascism, nationalism, liberalism,
and conservatism.

The sociology of knowledge

The use of the word ideology in the pejorative sense of false consciousness is found not only in the
writings of Marx himself but in those of other exponents of what has come to be known as the sociology
of knowledge, including the German sociologists Max Weber and Karl Mannheim, and numerous lesser
figures. Few such writers are wholly consistent in their use of the term, but what is characteristic of their
approach is their method of regarding idea systems as the outcome or expression of certain interests. In
calling such idea systems ideologies, they are treating them as things whose true nature is concealed;
they consider the task of sociological research to be the unveiling of what Mannheim called the “life
conditions which produce ideologies.”

The Context Of International Relations

It has been said that ideology transformed international relationships in the 20th century—in
appearance at least. Earlier centuries experienced dynastic wars, national, civil, and imperial wars, and
diplomacy designed to further national security or national expansion or to promote mutual advantages
and general peace. Such factors, indeed, appeared to govern international relations until recent times.
International relations during most of the 20th century were seemingly dominated by the exigencies of
“-isms”: wars were fought, alliances were made, and treaties were signed because of ideological
considerations. The balance of power in the world was a balance weighted by ideological commitment.
“The communist bloc” confronted “the free peoples,” and in the “Third World” emergent
nations cultivated a nationalist, anticolonialist ideology in their search for identity and their efforts to
achieve modernity.

But this is not to assert that ideological wars, or ideological diplomacy, were entirely new. What became
the most conspicuous element in 20th-century international relations—so conspicuous that other
elements were often entirely ignored—was present, to a lesser degree, in earlier international relations.
It is necessary here to distinguish between the actual events of history and the interpretations that are
put on history, for some events lend themselves more readily than others to an ideological
interpretation. The ideological perspective became increasingly significant as the general public came
to play a role in considering questions of war and peace. When questions of defense and diplomacy
were settled by kings and their ministers and wars were fought by professional soldiers and sailors, the
public was not expected to have any opinion about international relations, and in such a situation there
was little place for ideology.
Ideology in the World Wars

In the course of World War I, however, a new element appeared to have been introduced. The war was
seen by those who experienced it as being in its early stages a national war of the traditional kind, and
as such it was not at first expected to assume any profoundly disturbing form. Each combatant people
viewed itself as fighting for king and country in a just war. But by 1916 the Allies were being urged to
think of their endeavour as a war “to make the world safe for democracy,” and the Germans, on their
side, were correspondingly encouraged to visualize the war as a struggle of “culture” against
“barbarism.” On both sides, the casualties were far more terrible than anyone had foreseen, and the
need to sustain the will to war by an appeal to ideology was plainly felt by all the nations involved.
Whether such “war aims” were really the main objectives of the governments concerned is another
question; what is important is that, as the need was increasingly felt for a justification of war, the
justification took an ideological form. Whether or not World War I changed its real nature between 1914
and 1918, the prevailing conception of it underwent significant alteration. This became more marked
after the Russian Revolution of 1917, when the Bolsheviks submitted to harsh German peace terms for
reasons thatwere not only practical but ideological—namely, the preservation and promotion
of communism. President Woodrow Wilson took the United States into the war on the Allied side with
an alternative ideological vision—that of ensuring permanent peace through the League of Nations and
of establishing democratic governments in all the conquered countries.

The rise of communism clearly marked a corresponding increase in the role of ideology in international
relations. Fascism helped to speed the process. The Spanish Civil War of the 1930s was an almost clear-
cut confrontation between the ideologies of left and right (not entirely clear-cut because of
the ambiguous relationship between communism and anarchism).

The precise extent of ideological commitment in World War II is a matter of some controversy. At one
level, the 1939 war is seen as a continuation of the war of 1914. Two of the leading protagonists—Great
Britain and the United States—agreed more in their anti-ideological stance and their hostility to Nazism
than in promoting an alternative ideology. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, suspicious of British and
French imperialism and eager to cultivate a progressive ideological outlook, was critical of Prime
Minister Winston Churchill’s politics, hostile toward Charles de Gaulle’s, but surprisingly tolerant
of Joseph Stalin’s. The revival of Wilson’s idealistic war aims in the Atlantic Charter provided a basis for a
kind of general ideological union of the Allies. But such formulations proved to be of small significance
compared with the profound ideological commitment of the Soviet Union to communism, and that of
the United States to an international position more ideologically anticommunist than pro anything.

Ideology of the Cold War

What came to be called the Cold War in the 1950s must be understood, to a large extent, as an
ideological confrontation, and, whereas communism was manifestly an ideology, the “noncommunism,”
or even the “anticommunism,” of the West was negatively ideological. To oppose one ideology was not
necessarily to subscribe to another, although there was a strong body of opinion in the West that felt
that the free world needed a coherent ideology if it was to successfully resist an opposing ideology.

The connection between international wars and ideology can be better expressed in terms of a
difference of degree rather than of kind: some wars are more ideological than others, although there is
no clear boundary between an ideological and nonideological war. An analogy with the religious wars of
the past is evident, and there is indeed some historical continuity between the two types of war. The
Christian Crusades against the Turks and the wars between Catholics and Protestants in early modern
Europe have much in common with the ideological conflicts of the 20th century. Religious wars are
often communal wars, as witness those between Hindus and Muslims in India, but an “ideological”
element of a kind can be discovered in many religious wars, even those narrated in the Hebrew
Bible (Old Testament), in which the people of Israel are described as fighting for the cause of
righteousness—fighting, in other words, for a universal abstraction as distinct from a local and practical
aim. In the past this “ideological” element has in the main been subsidiary. What is characteristic of the
modern period is that the ideological element became increasingly dominant, first in the religious wars
(and the related diplomacy) that followed the Reformation and then in the political wars and diplomacy
of the 20th century.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
NUST LECTURES