Introduction:
In this article, we will discuss constructivism international relations, and the nature and scope of international relations professionally. After reading this article your concept will be crystal clear about constructivism international relations, and the nature and scope of international relations. Let’s discuss:
In the international sphere, each state is sovereign and independent. They all honor one another’s autonomy and independence. However, no state in the modern day can exist in isolation, fully reliant on itself and cut off from the outside world. Every state is reliant on every other state, whether directly or indirectly. In the international arena, interdependence between states has been established in this manner. A distinct curriculum named “International Relations” has been developed in light of states’ interconnectedness to provide a thorough discussion of ways to build global peace and harmony through collaboration rather than conflict, war, etc.
Constructivism international relations:
Definitions given by various scholars in the field of international relations are presented below: According to Adi H. Doctor, “International relations deal with the actions and interactions of states.” [International Relations: An Introductory Study, P-3]
According to Quincy Wright, “The study of the behavior of the world’s major key groups is part of the discussion of international relations.”[The Study of International Relations, P-2]
Schleicher said in his book International Relations, “International relations is a social science that deals with some aspect of human behavior in the international arena.”
Within the framework of the previous conversation, the field of study known as international relations examines how states engage with one another and how the international system operates.
International relations nature and scope:
International relations deal with the mutual relations of states. This discussion does not acknowledge the existence of an authority above the nation-state. In today’s world, the various states of the world have reached such a state that they are all members of one big international family.
One thing must be said here, conflict and war among us are never good. On the other hand, the mutually friendly and tolerant attitude of the states will ensure they live peacefully and thus it will be possible to establish world peace.
According to Professor Quincy Wright, the study of the behavior of the world’s major key groups is part of the discussion of international relations. In this definition, the scope of international relations is considerably expanded. Because the world’s important groups include different nations, individual and cultural organizations, and non-governmental organizations and their relationships.
If all such things fall within the scope of international relations, it will become difficult to manage them, so we discuss the relations between independent states and various international organizations such as the United Nations, the Arab League, the World Health Organization, OPEC, etc. But the state is an abstract concept, so we can accept the government of that state as the representative of the state.
State behavior can generally be of two types:
- Confrontational behavior and
- Cooperative behavior.
Through the study of international relations, we can know that a state will behave in some cases confrontational and cooperatively.
Contents of International Relations:
According to Helisti in his book “International Politics“, the discussion of international relations has linked the foreign policies and political processes of states. Apart from political processes and foreign policy, it today includes issues such as the International Labor Union, the International Red Cross, Tourism, International Trade, Transport, Communications, International Values, and Ethics.
That is, there is no incident in the international system, which does not fall under its jurisdiction. If any subject has the status of a driving force in the relations between different states, we include it in international affairs. It is easy to imagine that what was the subject of international relations almost a century ago, but is no more today.
Scholars feel that to make a subject relevant to the times, it is necessary to include the latest subject in it. Topics include analysis of urgent as well as urgent issues. As the number of issues increases, the caliber of analysis will increase and that is quite normal.
The content of international relations includes negotiation strategies and methods. According to Frederick Dunn, international relations is undoubtedly a branch of knowledge. So it must have a different content. Developing and analyzing that content requires certain techniques and methods.
Therefore, it is not possible to prepare the content of international relations by excluding them. Ideologies have a clear and specific place in international relations. In recent times, foreign policy and international relations of many countries have been based on ideology.
The role of power centers and factors in international politics falls within the ambit of international relations. Recent international relations have begun to address these aspects. Terrorism has gained status as a subject of international relations.
The biggest problem of today’s world is the wide wings of terrorism and its destructive activities transcending the geographical boundaries of national states, terrorism has become so active in international society that more or less every country is suffering from insecurity today.
World Trade Organization (WTO), General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT), International Monetary Fund (IMF), etc. are included in international relations today. Apart from this, international relations are also seen to shed light on world problems.
Problems of poverty, population growth, education, health, etc. have engulfed two-thirds of the world’s population. And that’s why international relations often organize conference calls.
No one can have the final word on the content or scope of international relations. An issue that affects the inter-state relations of more than one state is ultimately recognized as a subject of international relations.
What is an international relations subject?
In judging whether international relations can be regarded as a distinct historical subject, Fuller states that international relations as a distinct scientific subject is a body of data that has been systematized by a distinct analytical method and has the power to make predictions with precision.
Over the past three decades, various scholars have collected substantial data on various aspects of state behavior to facilitate the study of international relations. In the early sixties, Richardson collected data on the war and published it in a book.
A year later, J. David Singer and Melvin Small, through their ‘Correlates of war project’, collected data on the total number of wars fought from 1815 to 1965, as well as the total number of wars fought over that long 150-year period. Published in the book. Another famous book on data on international relations is the World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators by Bruce State and Karl Deuce.
Looking at the difference between international relations and modern history, especially diplomatic history, we can say that although both disciplines deal with various international events, there are methodological differences between them.
History generally preserves a continuous record of various events. International relations try to arrive at a general conclusion by analyzing the various factors that are relevant to why the event took place. So we see, there is a strong rationale behind teaching international relations as a separate subject.
Regarding the extent to which international relations have made progress in this regard, Hoffman thinks that the individualization of international relations for analysis is possible and therefore should be considered as an a priori matter.
Hoffman explained the issue from various perspectives in his book Contemporary Theory of International Relations. According to him, international relations should be called a separate discipline due to the difference in content. Because political science deals with the nation-state, its citizens, and the relationship between them. Besides, political science deals with institutions and other matters within the nation-state.
According to Professor Quincy Wright, to be recognized as a past subject requires awareness among writers that the subject exists in a kind of association. They also need to agree on the scope of the subject and the boundaries by which it differs from other subjects. Judging from this point of view, we can say that international relations is a unique historical matter.
However, when international relations were first introduced as a separate department in American universities, many objected to its separate existence. According to them, what is taught about international relations can be taught within the scope of political science or modern history.
According to them, it will save a lot of time, reduce labor, and be financially beneficial. However, they failed to grasp the essence of international relations. International relations political science, and modern history both discuss completely different topics with different perspectives.
The difference between political science and international relations is that while political science deals with the state’s internal affairs of the state such as the structure and functions of the government, international relations deals with the state’s external relations. Moreover, a government can exercise absolute power over the state’s internal affairs.
But the behavior of international relations is concerned with independent states participating in any matter by power and there is no such thing as a central authority. No state can impose its will on another, and no international organization has ever been created to impose authority over independent states.
All member states of the present world agree in principle to abide by the various resolutions of the United Nations (UNO). But if a state does not comply with them, the United Nations cannot force it to do so.
Thus, it appears that the scope of study of international relations and political science is different. Therefore, the study of international relations requires a unique perspective. However, there are many arguments against the claim that international relations should be regarded as a distinct historical subject. Namely:
First, the theoretical framework and model needed to discuss the issue to achieve the status of a separate issue has not yet been developed in international relations. It is not possible to discuss any subject without its own model or theoretical framework. In this logic, international relations cannot be considered as a separate issue.
Second, preparing a theoretical framework or model for international relations is not an easy task. The subject of international relations is the history of international society and this history is constantly changing. Continuity of events is necessary to compose any common core, and its absence is noticeable in international politics.
Thirdly, we differentiate subjects like political science, history, economics, etc. Usually, these issues are developed within the boundaries of sovereign nation-states. We observe a sufficient lack of order and discipline in the international sphere as there is no such force in force, force, and other means that ensure adequate order and discipline in the domestic sphere over the sovereign power of the State entrusted with the responsibility of conducting national politics. As a result, international relations could not be born as a disciplined thought and subject.
Fourthly, it is not possible to discover the true nature of what is commonly called international relations. Because politics, economics, diplomacy, ethics, etc. have occupied that place. But the critics think that to be a distinct subject, it must be homomorphic, i.e., the subject must have a form of its own. In international relations, we notice another thing. Some consider it to be economics or politics. Many prominent scholars think that the subject should be known as international politics. Many prefer the name Relation. Some consider obstacles in the way between individual subjects.
Conclusion:
Finally, in agreement with Stanley Hoffmann, we can say that international relations deal with the study of the factors and activities that influence the foreign policy and power of the basic entities (independent states) of the present world. Let’s conclude our discussion based on Morton Kaplan’s analysis.
According to his criteria, how many crafts and techniques should an ancient subject possess? As needed some theory and promise and content. For the fruitful study of international relations, scholars have devised many techniques that facilitate the uncovering of various aspects of international relations. For example, we can mention analysis.
The Stanford group used this technique very effectively in their study of crisis decision-making. Scholars of international relations have previously developed several theories capable of predicting and helping to rationalize state behavior. This has been discussed under the title Early Manifestations and Progress of International Relations.
Its benefits have been seen through the application of these theories in the real world. So we can say, that international relations has a distinct research method with many theories and contents and different from other comprehensive subjects. Therefore, there is no longer any doubt, and there should not be, that international relations are an independent and distinct historical subject.