advantages of international relations essay

• POLITICAL SCIENCE

Why Study International Relations: Benefits And Career Paths

• May 31, 2020

International relations is a field that is becoming more relevant as the world grows and interconnects through commerce and business, migration, social media, and mutual concerns about global environmental issues.

What Is an International Relations Major and What Does It Contain?

Political Science & International Relations is a diverse degree that mainly studies the relationship between countries and often analyzes the causes and effects of state conflict. International Relations students primarily focus on questions concerning international security, terrorism, trade, wars, human rights, and peace-building in order to apply this understanding to real-world work.

Benefits of Studying International Relations

Studying International Relations has a few perks that include:

Versatility

Studying international relations is exploring a variety of factors that comprise the field. During your education, you will take courses in macroeconomics, history, international organizations, human rights, cybersecurity, social sciences, and mathematics. Having an understanding of all of these helps students understand the relationships between countries.

Ability to apply lessons into real life

The coursework in international relations provides a solid foundation for understanding the relationships between individuals and organizations. Students of international relations can use their education for negotiations, to find solutions to a conflict or other real-life dilemmas.

Transferable skills

In addition to gaining specialized knowledge about intercultural approaches, students graduating from an international relations program will typically acquire and refine transferable skills such as their research and analytical skills, communication skills, and interpersonal skills.

Multiple career options

Many students become diplomats who work on a broad range of topics in areas such as environmental issues, climate change, or human trafficking. Still, a degree in international relations is not limited to a political path. Students can pursue a career in intelligence, such as an analyst or something in international business.

Have an impact on real issues

Students who choose to work in politics can develop and implement related policies that can potentially improve lives around the world. For example, they may work to coordinate counterterrorism, assist in natural crises, promote human rights, and address concerns like world hunger and environmental issues.

What Can You Do With An International Relations Degree

As we mentioned previously, an International Relations degree does not limit students into political careers; still, these are some of the most popular jobs in this field:

1. Diplomat

A diplomat’s job description is maintaining good relations between countries. Diplomats represent and protect a nation’s interests abroad in terms of politics, trade, and consular services. Some of the responsibilities are collecting and reporting on all the information that would affect the nation’s interests, discussing and negotiating issues like peace, trade, economics, and social and cultural aspects.

Average salary in the U.S.: $87,000 a year.

2. Intelligence Analyst

Intelligence analysts work in the military, the navy, national security departments, or almost any state department. Some primary duties include collecting and analyzing operational intelligence data, conducting mission reports, evaluating results, and maintaining intelligence databases.

Average salary in the U.S.:  $70,000 a year.

3. Policy Analyst

Usually, policy analysts get employed by the government, but work opportunities can be found within media companies or research institutes. Some of the tasks that they do are interpreting political developments, analyzing laws, and advising government officials, political parties, or the media.

Average salary in the U.S.: $84,000 a year.

4. Lobbyist

Lobbyists usually get hired by an association, corporation, or non-profit organization. Given the varied interests in global trade deals, most lobbyists work in country capitals. Lobbyists’ leading roles are monitoring, researching, and analyzing legislation, attending congressional hearings, reaching out to government policymakers, and using communication tools to promote ideas to the public.

Average salary in the U.S.: $71,000 a year

5. Communications Specialist

Communications specialists have the chance to work at a local office that has a global reach. Non-profit agencies like World Vision and Red Cross provide such services, but there are many other options. Primary duties include creating effective communication strategies, handling internal communications, writing content for media, and social networks.

Average salary in the U.S.: $50,000 a year.

You can get prepared for any of these careers by getting a degree in Political Science and International Relations at BAU. If you have any questions or want additional information, we encourage you to contact us anytime.

Bay Atlantic University

You may also like.

• 6 minute read

Science & Salaries: 8 Highest Paying Political Science Jobs

• September 26, 2023
• 4 minute read

How to Talk to Someone Who Has Different Political Views

• December 9, 2021

What is a Diplomat and What Do They Really Do?

• March 7, 2024
• 7 shares 5 0 2

8 Highest Paying Jobs in International Relations

• July 30, 2020
• 2 shares 2 0 0

Online Political Science Degree: All You Need To Know

• December 20, 2022
• 5 minute read

What Does a Political Scientist Do?

• July 23, 2022
• ACADEMIC ADVICE

Navigate the Levels of English as a Second Language

• April 24, 2024

Learning English as A Second Language: A Comprehensive Guide

Mastering esl teacher skills: a comprehensive guide to success, esl vs. efl: what is the difference, request information on bau's programs today.

Multilateralism: What policy options to strengthen international cooperation?

• Download the essay

Subscribe to Global Connection

Kemal derviş kemal derviş senior fellow.

November 17, 2020

• 17 min read

This essay is part of “ Reimagining the global economy: Building back better in a post-COVID-19 world ,” a collection of 12 essays presenting new ideas to guide policies and shape debates in a post-COVID-19 world.

In the era of COVID-19, we’ve all heard statements about how “the virus respects no borders” and “we are all in this together”. True enough, all countries and peoples have been affected in terms of the medical and economic toll. Such references to the global nature of the crisis are usually followed by calls to strengthen international cooperation. The sheer scale of the current catastrophe and the threat of other catastrophic risks—such as the effects of climate change or epidemiologists’ predictions of an even worse pandemic—lend credence to internationalist calls. But given the recent record of weakened multilateralism and growing great power rivalry, is it possible to imagine a post-COVID future of strengthened multilateral cooperation? 1

The question of “Why cooperate?” 2 is often answered by pointing to two concrete benefits of international cooperation: 1) the gains of minimizing the negative (or maximizing the positive) spillover effects the actions of some countries have on others, and 2) the gains from the provision of global public goods. The pragmatic “utilitarian” or “realist” rationale focuses on the benefits of cooperative solutions to specific coordination problems. 3 While this essay’s topic is global multilateralism, the principles of utilitarian cooperation also apply to sub-global contexts.

Many appeals to international cooperation in addition include references to certain values, such as the intrinsic equal value of human life: Ethical considerations are added to self-interest as a rationale for cooperation. A recent example is the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access (COVAX) proposal, which argues both: That every country can benefit from an equitable global vaccine deployment to help protect from “imported” outbreaks, and that there is a “moral imperative of ensuring that people are not cut off from lifesaving drugs.” 4

How best to imagine a global system of cooperation for the future that is grounded both in a purely utilitarian dimension (managing spillovers and providing global public goods) and in an idealistic dimension that builds on shared values and ethical goals? 5

While there may be a great diversity in the specific constitutional arrangements characterizing a democracy, liberal democratic values reflect universal human aspirations and are relevant to a discussion of international cooperation.

Utilitarian cooperation can and has been achieved among countries with differing histories, political regimes, and cultures. The pandemic has exposed weaknesses of cooperation in the health domain, but many other domains are facing serious problems because developments in geopolitics and technology have changed the way cooperation can work. The response demanded by the pandemic and ensuing economic contraction has enhanced the role of the nation-state. Coupled with the resulting desire for protection from dependence on others (especially in global supply chains), this is likely to lead to some deglobalization; some see this retreat as potentially strong and lasting. 6

But such a retreat from a relatively laissez-faire globalization could actually increase the benefits from cooperation. Compared to a world of limited state intervention, a world of more active industrial policies, however much these may be justified from the perspective of a particular country, increases the likelihood of retaliatory cycles if there are significant spillover effects, with everyone ending up worse off in the process. Before the pandemic hit, most countries already practiced some form of industrial policy. The post-pandemic situation is likely to be one of a more activist state everywhere. This tendency is reinforced by new technologies characterized by inherently anti-competitive economies of scale and hub-and-spoke type networks, where controlling the “hubs” confers much power. Moreover, these technologies lend themselves to “weaponization”, further increasing the incentives for states to intervene in domains such as cyberspace, data management and artificial intelligence. 7 This is not an argument against industrial policies to accelerate innovation or channel it to the creation of good jobs, but an argument in favor of rules to minimize negative spillovers and reduce the danger of “technological wars.” 8

The rules to reduce negative (or increase positive) spillover effects can themselves be understood as public goods, merging the two rationales for utilitarian multilateral cooperation. One difference that remains is that agreement on rules per se does not require any material resources (although their implementation and monitoring will require some) while the provision of a global public good such as climate change mitigation will typically require substantial resources and agreement on burden sharing. Pandemic prevention (including prevention of bio-error or bio-terror) and limiting climate change are usually mentioned as two important global public goods. 9 Rules to prevent nuclear proliferation and usage, including due to the miscalculation of an opponent’s intentions, remain of the same order of importance, to which we will have to add rules in the domain of cyberwarfare, biotechnology and artificial intelligence. 10 All these global public goods have in common that their provision can be justified by the well-understood self-interest of nation-states. Cooperation in many domains has been possible between countries with very different types of governments, ranging from liberal democracies to authoritarian regimes of various persuasions.

While self-interest drives much of multilateral cooperation, the vision of a desirable world order that one finds in the Charter of the United Nations, as well as more recently in the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (now Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs) and in the Paris Agreement on climate change, also contain strong appeals to common values. 11 The 17 SDGs, for example, such as SDG 1 on ending poverty and SDG 2 on ending hunger, reflect ethical imperatives that the signatories agreed on. A values-driven legitimation of cooperation, besides having its own intrinsic ethical justification, also helps make utilitarian rules easier to achieve. An agreement is often harder to reach without some “sacrifice” consented thanks to ethical considerations. If all behavior were to be governed only by pure material cost-benefit analyses, compromises would be very difficult to arrive at. With analogy to national communities, “a sense of civics is part of the cement that holds a community together.” 12 An ethos of global community and global civics can complement the utilitarian dimension to make international agreements easier to achieve and more stable.

The response demanded by the pandemic and ensuing economic contraction has enhanced the role of the nation-state.

The way forward

Can a values-based cooperation complement the already challenging global public goods provision in the future? Is a post-COVID strengthening of global civics too much to expect? Ongoing support for the SDGs (and the associated targets and indicators), as well as climate activism, allows some hope. While enlightened self-interest is embedded in the SDGs, there is also a strong global civics component that explains the momentum achieved by the 2030 Agenda. The same is true of the growing support for climate change mitigation and adaptation. In both cases, visible support from civil society can make it easier for government negotiators to reach agreements. Moreover, agreements with altruistic concessions have more support when there is burden-sharing, a major point for multilateralism. In a recent survey in the U.S., a majority of respondents favored increasing foreign aid by $101 billion a year to help achieve some of the SDGs provided other donor countries made similar efforts. 13

What has allowed a values-based universal adoption of the SDGs has been what one could call their “non-political” nature. The SDGs omit fundamental features of liberal democracy such as freedom of expression and free competitive elections. But while they do not refer to freedom from political constraints, they do reflect values of “enabling freedoms”—giving people the ability to achieve economic and social goals. Isiah Berlin’s distinction between negative and positive liberty is relevant here; as he argued, too often liberals refer only to the former. 14 As Berlin also argued, neither concept should be taken to extremes. 15 Notwithstanding the SDGs mostly aspirational nature and the additional difficulties COVID-19 has created for their achievement, the universal adoption of the 2030 Agenda and support for the positive liberties it includes has been a substantial step forward for international cooperation.

Should our vision of a desirable international system stop there and give up on liberal democratic values as universally compelling? Are liberal values a reflection of western culture only and no longer relevant in a world where the traditional “West” will no longer be dominant? Has the COVID-19 crisis illustrated the benefits of a controlling state where the individual has much less freedom than in a liberal democracy? This essay stands by the belief that while there may be a great diversity in the specific constitutional arrangements characterizing a democracy, liberal democratic values reflect universal human aspirations and are relevant to a discussion of international cooperation. 16

One can imagine a dual approach that focuses on global public goods and the positive freedoms embodied in the SDGs on the one hand, and on liberal democratic values on the other. But how to implement such an approach?

Related Content

Amar Bhattacharya

Brahima Sangafowa Coulibaly, Eswar Prasad

David Dollar

Creating a club of democratic countries had been the objective of the “Community of Democracies” conceived by Madeleine Albright and Bronislaw Geremek, personalities with impeccable liberal democratic credentials. 17 The organization, however, now has Hungary, whose prime minister derides liberal democracy, on its Governing Council. 18 This telling example underlines the difficulty of building a “circle of democracies”. Membership criteria may initially be agreed on by a small group of founding countries and could be inspired by the EU’s Copenhagen Criteria. 19 But their interpretation would always be subject to intense political pressures and overriding foreign policy considerations. Moreover, as the experience of the EU itself demonstrates—again with Hungary as the most obvious example—not only governments but regimes change, and credibility requires the ability and resolve to suspend or expel noncompliant members.

In imagining multilateralism for the future, these lessons should induce caution. Coalitions of like-minded countries of various types will certainly always exist and be useful to solve particular problems But the universal U.N. membership and its adoption of the SDGs is uniquely valuable in allowing countries with different political regimes to cooperate, provide global public goods and achieve important economic and social goals on which they can all agree. Such cooperation, say on climate, will involve regimes far from liberal democracy, but may be unavoidable if the goal is to be reached.

This need not be incompatible with a belief in the universal validity of liberal democratic values and should not stop civil society from lending support to these values around the globe. Institutionalizing an elusive circle of democratic countries is unlikely to be of much help. Instead, a growing community of people and civil society organizations promoting liberal and democratic values and cooperating across borders and continents will be more effective in the years ahead.

Note: This draft has greatly benefitted from ongoing discussions and joint work on international cooperation with Sebastian Strauss, as well as from his specific comments. Comments by Masood Ahmed, Geoffrey Gertz, Carol Graham, Yusuf Işik, Domenico Lombardi, and Dani Rodrik are also gratefully acknowledged. None of them should be held responsible for the views expressed.

• Kemal Derviş and Sebastian Strauss, “What COVID-19 Means for International Cooperation,” Project Syndicate, March 6, 2020, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/global-cooperation-can-prevent-next-pandemic-by-kemal-Derviş-and-sebasti-n-strauss-2020-03
• Incidentally, this question is also the title of Scott Barrett’s 2007 book “Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods” (Oxford University Press). For another classic on the subject, see Todd Sadler, Global Collective Action (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
• For a concise summary see Jean Pisani-Ferry, “Collective Action in a Fragmented World,” Bruegel , September 11, 2019, https://www.bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Bruegel_Policy_Brief-2019_05_1.pdf More recently Dani Rodrik and Stephen Walt offer their comprehensive “realist” vision of what a future global order in which the US and China play a dominant role should look like, https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/publications/constructing-new-global-order-project-framing-document
• Seth Berkley, Richard Hatchett and Soumya Swaminathan, “The Fastest Way Out of the Pandemic,” Project Syndicate , July 15, 2020, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/covid-19-vaccine-cooperation-covax-by-seth-berkley-et-al-2020-07 .
• A particular version of such a vision was provided by Joseph Nye “After the Liberal International Order,” Project Syndicate, July 6, 2020, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/biden-must-replace-liberal-international-order-by-joseph-s-nye-2020-07 .
• According to Nathan Gardels: “We will see a patchwork of industrial policies aimed at strengthening national resilience instead of global integration.” Nathan Gardels, “From Globalization to a Planetary Mindset,” Noema Magazine , August 7, 2020, https://www.noemamag.com/from-globalization-to-a-planetary-mindset/ . Also see Carmen Reinhart speaking in interview, May 21, 2020, Bloomberg News, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2020-05-21/reinhart-says-covid-19-is-the-last-nail-in-the-coffin-of-globalization-video .
• Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman, “Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion,” International Security 44, no. 1 (Summer 2019): 42-79.
• There are good arguments in favor of using industrial policy to achieve social and economic goals, notably by Dani Rodrik and Daron Acemoglu. Dani Rodrik and Stephen Walt use a narrow definition of beggar-thy-neighbor policies as policies that “create domestic gains only to the extent that other nations lose”. This essay uses a broader definition of such policies as those having significant negative spillover effects.
• Martin Rees, “The Biomedicine Threat,” Project Syndicate , September 6, 2020, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/biomedicine-future-threats-ethical-dilemmas-by-martin-rees-2019-09 .
• William J. Perry and Tom Z. Collina, The Button: The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power from Truman to Trump (Dallas: Ben Bella Books, 2020).
• The Preamble of the UN Charter states that “We the peoples of the United Nations [are] determined… to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” Article 55, Chapter IX of the Charter committed all member states to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”
• Kemal Derviş, Foreword to Global Civics: Responsibilities and Rights in an Interdependent World , ed. Hakan Altinay (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2011), vii-x.
• https://www.publicconsultation.org/energy/americans-favor-major-increases-in-us-aid-toward-sustainable-development-goals-if-other-countries-do-their-part-as-well/ .
• Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty,” Four Essays On Liberty (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1969), 118-172. There is a vast philosophical debate on these concepts going back to Kant.
• Too often social goals interpreted as positive liberties have been imposed by small authoritarian minorities; on the other hand, a person having liberty from political constraints cannot really be free if hungry and without shelter.
• Different histories and cultures may imply different evaluations and perceptions of desirable degrees of individualism and social cohesion. This need not negate the universal appeal of what is most fundamental for a democracy. The claims by many authoritarians that their nation’s histories or cultures reflect non-democratic and illiberal values are not credible in the face of the repression needed to sustain their regimes. 
• https://community-democracies.org/values/ .
• ‘‘Hungarians welcomed illiberal democracy. The fact that in English it means something else is not my problem. In the Hungarian context, the word liberal has become negative. Liberal democracy has no or very little support in Hungary. What I want to say is that it’s not true that a democracy can only be liberal. There’s democracy in Hungary period, it doesn’t need any modifiers.” Viktor Orban, December 14, 2014, speaking in interview with Bloomberg News, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-15/hungary-on-path-to-shed-junk-grade-and-shield-forint-orban-says.html .
• https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/accession_criteria_copenhague.html .

Global Economy and Development

Witney Schneidman

April 17, 2024

Douglas A. Rediker

April 15, 2024

Robin Brooks

April 11, 2024

5 Reasons to Study International Relations and Diplomacy

Faculty Insights Industry Advice Political Science & Security

In many ways, our world is more interconnected than ever before—evidenced, in part, by the  amount of international travel that takes place each year .

According to the UNWTO World Tourism Barometer , the country is still recovering from rising travel demands—despite the recent economic and geopolitical challenges. In fact, international tourism reached 80 percent in Q1 2023, followed by 85 percent in Q2 and 90 percent in late July.

In the past several decades, multinational corporations have come to generate revenue that exceeds the GDP of multiple nations, allowing these organizations to exert remarkable influence over international politics. Technological innovation and the proliferation of social media have further connected global audiences in ways that were before impossible. And, the advent of the 24-hour news cycle has made it possible to know what is happening virtually anywhere, in near real-time.

Download Our Free Guide to Breaking into Global Studies and International Relations

A guide for what you need to know to prepare for, and work in, today’s globalized world.

DOWNLOAD NOW

Now, more than ever, corporations and governments are seeking to hire individuals—skilled international relations and diplomacy professionals—who can help them meet the demands of this shift towards globalization.

If you are considering this type of career in international relations, diplomacy, or global studies , you may be wondering whether or not you need an international relations degree to advance your professional career. Read on to learn more about the industry and the five top reasons to study international relations and diplomacy.

What are International Relations and Diplomacy?

Because international relations and diplomacy both address global issues, the two fields are often discussed together (as they are here). It is important to note, though, that while international relations and diplomacy are closely related, the two terms do carry distinct meanings and implications.

International relations refers to a field of study and practice focused on understanding the unique relationships that exist between various nations and cultures. These relationships can impact everything from international politics, law, and economics to security, diplomacy, and governance.

Diplomacy is a subset of international relations that is typically focused more narrowly around the process of conducting negotiations between representatives of different nations or, in some cases, corporations from different countries.

Reasons to Study International Relations and Diplomacy

1. you’ll gain transferable skills..

Most international relations and diplomacy programs are designed to prepare students for roles communicating across cultures. In addition to gaining specialized knowledge related to intercultural theory and approaches, students graduating from an international relations degree program will typically develop and refine the following practical skills:

• Research and analytical skills to help evaluate complex problems and synthesize data to tell compelling stories .
• Communication skills  to communicate effectively across channels and mediums, from writing to verbal communication.
• Interpersonal skills to aid in building relationships and resolving international conflicts, which is especially important when working in a multicultural or cross-cultural setting.

Earning an advanced degree will potentially prepare you for many career paths, as these are highly sought after skills regardless of the career you pursue or the industry you ultimately work in.

2. It’s about more than politics.

While a degree in international relations and diplomacy prepares professionals for a career in politics, your career options are in no way limited to a political path. 

Because the skills learned in a GSIR program are so transferable, individuals who study international relations go on to work in many different careers and industries , including  international business , military intelligence and analysis, national security , activism , and more.

Of course, many students do go on to become diplomats who work on a  broad range of topics in  areas such as:

• Environmental issues
• Climate change
• Conflict resolution
• Human trafficking
• Global health
• Preservation of cultural property

3. You can make an impact.

Many individuals who study international relations and diplomacy do so because they have a deeply personal motivation to make the world a better place, regardless of specific career goals.

Those who use their degree to work in politics (e.g., diplomats, activists, and ambassadors) can achieve their personal goals by developing and implementing related policies that have the potential to improve lives around the world. They may, for example, work to:

• coordinate counterterrorism efforts
• provide aid during natural disasters and other crises
• promote the rights of women and children
• address issues like food insecurity and nutrition

On the other hand, those who use their degree to enter the business world can similarly affect change. These professionals may help coordinate an organization’s charitable and strategic operations or lobby national and international governments to pursue particular legislation.

4. You’ll experience cultural immersion.

In order to be an effective international diplomat, ambassador, lobbyist, or business executive focused on a particular country or region, you’ll be required to immerse yourself in another culture.  Part of the job is mastering another country’s language, culture, and traditions. In addition to making you more effective at your job, this can allow for deep personal growth and exploration, which many find incredibly fulfilling.

5. You’ll be part of a team.

International relations never occur in isolation. Whether you are in a boardroom working to establish ties between your organization and others around the world or you are in an embassy or consulate, your job will be a collaborative one. 

Diplomats, for example,  collaborate with many agencies and learn how to assemble people with a variety of skills to accomplish international goals. They work alongside colleagues from the military, intelligence services, commerce, trade, agricultural, law enforcement, science, and technology.

Choosing an International Relations and Diplomacy Program

If you believe that earning a degree in international relations and diplomacy is your next step, it’s important you choose the program that will best help you reach your personal and professional goals. 

To ensure alignment between a GSIR program and your career goals, seek one that offers a concentration in the field you are hoping to eventually work in. The Master of Science in Global Studies and International Relations at Northeastern, for example, offers students four unique concentrations to choose from:

• Global Health & Development
• Conflict Resolution
• International Economics & Consulting

Additionally, the program offers students an opportunity to gain real-world, hands-on experience through the International Field Study Experience , a program in which students can serve as international consultants to help international organizations solve their current challenges. This is the type of experience that employers across industries are looking for.

Think this is the degree for you? Learn more about earning an MS in Global Studies and International Relations at Northeastern University, or download our guide to advancing your international relations career below.

Subscribe below to receive future content from the Graduate Programs Blog.

Related articles.

How You Can Use Geographic Information Technology

Master’s Lands Alum Role with the Dept. of Homeland Security

What Can You Do With a Master’s in International Relations?

Did you know.

The average mid-career salary for international relations majors is $92.9K. (OneClass, 2018)

Master of Science in Global Studies and International Relations

A degree that will put you on the world map.

Most Popular:

Tips for taking online classes: 8 strategies for success, public health careers: what can you do with an mph, 7 international business careers that are in high demand, edd vs. phd in education: what’s the difference, 7 must-have skills for data analysts, in-demand biotechnology careers shaping our future, the benefits of online learning: 8 advantages of online degrees, how to write a statement of purpose for graduate school, the best of our graduate blog—right to your inbox.

Stay up to date on our latest posts and university events. Plus receive relevant career tips and grad school advice.

By providing us with your email, you agree to the terms of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Keep Reading:

5 Homeland Security Careers for the Future

The Top 3 Job Requirements For a Homeland Security Career

What Are Security Studies?

Should I Go To Grad School: 4 Questions to Consider

8 reasons you should study International Relations or Diplomacy

There’s nothing we need now more than people who are interested in the wellbeing of the world as a whole. International Relations and Diplomacy are two fields that address this crucial need. They are intertwined, yet have their distinctive traits. 

International Relations is the study of the relations of states with each other and with international organisations and certain subnational entities — for example, bureaucracies, political parties, and interest groups. Viewpoints from other academic disciplines are often taught, including political science, geography, history, economics, law, sociology, psychology, and philosophy.

It’s not to be confused with International Studies, which focuses on all globally-oriented phenomena. Diplomacy is a subset of International Relations that deals with methods to influence how foreign governments and people decide and behave, using dialogue, negotiation and other measures apart from war and violence. The University of Haifa , Israel offers a Master of Arts in Diplomacy Studies while Seton Hall University in the US offers a JD/MA in Law and Diplomacy.

These master’s degrees will fit those who enjoy debating current global affairs, want to make a difference and develop unique skill sets that are high in demand. The world is more interconnected than ever — one country’s government decisions can create a ripple effect across the entire international community. For example, a diplomatic tiff between China and Australia has led China to warn students to reconsider travelling to Australia to study and suspending Australian beef imports. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu watches from an overview the Israeli settlement of Har Homa. Source: Debbie Hill/AFP

With a degree in Diplomacy, graduates will have the skills and experience to become negotiators between states to handle matters such as the above. This can take on various forms and positions. According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations , there are three classes of heads of mission: ambassadors or nuncios accredited to heads of state and other heads of missions of equivalent rank; envoys, ministers, and internuncios accredited to heads of state; and chargés d’affaires accredited to ministers of foreign affairs.  Apart from qualifying for these interesting careers, here are more reasons why you should consider studying diplomacy:

Studying diplomacy stop wars

Learning skills in these fields of study might help stop wars from happening and fix the climate crisis. Our planet is deteriorating in all aspects due to global warming — all countries must work together and this would require diplomatic experts to manage these connections.

Gaining skills you can use anywhere

Most International Relations and Diplomacy programmes are designed to prepare students for roles which involve communicating across a variety of cultures. As such, classes often provide insights into intercultural theory and approaches. Some of these skills include: research, analysis, public speaking, and other interpersonal skills that can build strong connections with stakeholders. 

More than just politics

While a degree in International Studies and Diplomacy often lead to politically-related jobs, your career options are not limited to only that. Other different career paths include international business, military intelligence, national security, activism, and so on — all of which can command pretty lucrative salaries. 

Many students also go on to become diplomats after their studies to work on a wide range of topics in areas like environmental issues, climate change, conflict resolution, technology, science, human trafficking, global health , and the preservation of cultural property. 

European Council President Charles Michel, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Parliament President David Sassoli attend a meeting as they visit the house of French political economist and diplomat Jean Monnet in Bazoches-sur-Guyonne, south-west of Paris. Source: Thomas Samson/AFP

Teamwork makes the dreamwork!

Diplomacy never works alone. Whether you are in a boardroom, or in an embassy, your job is always a collaborative one. Diplomats work with many agencies to learn how to connect people with several different skills to accomplish one big international goal. 

Broadening your cultural views

Just like studying abroad, you will be exposed to different cultures from all across the world and be required to be immersed in it to become a successful international diplomat. Part of the job is mastering another country’s language, with its cultures and traditions. Not only will this make you a global citizen, it is also very fulfilling. 

Modules in diplomacy

The main modules in Diplomacy programmes include strategy and decision-making, which is about negotiation and policy formation. There is also economic diplomacy which is all about negotiations for climate change agreement and trade negotiations. Another would be foreign policy analysis, an international relations theory. There would probably be a research workshop and a dissertation of approximately 15,000 words. 

Make a difference in the world

A lot of students who take on studying diplomacy do it because they have a deep-rooted personal motivation to make the world a better place. These people usually end up being diplomats, activists and ambassadors. They coordinate counterterrorism efforts, provide aid during natural disasters, promote the rights of women, children and trans people, and address issues surrounding food insecurity. In the private sector, they can be found coordinating charitable operations or lobbying national governments on particular legislations.

Popular stories

Beyond the boundary: these are india’s most educated cricket players.

Birds, bulls, critters and corn? The most iconic university mascots today

How to be smart, charming and powerful: The degrees of the world’s most famous villains

What are the most densely populated countries in the world?

Asia's secret weapon for diplomacy: International education

Degrees Explained: French Studies

From big tech to the climate crisis, a master’s degree to bring global change

Power, the State, and Sovereignty: Essays on International Relations

Stephen D. Krasner

Stephen Krasner has been one of the most influential theorists within international relations and international political economy over the past few decades.  Power, the State, and Sovereignty  is a collection of his key scholarly works. The book includes both a framing introduction written for this volume, and a concluding essay examining the relationship between academic research and the actual making of foreign policy.

 Drawing on both his extensive academic work and his experiences during his recent role within the Bush administration (as Director for Policy Planning at the US State department) Krasner has revised and updated all of the essays in the collection to provide a coherent discussion of the importance of power, ideas, and domestic structures in world politics.

Progressing through a carefully structured evaluation of US domestic politics and foreign policy, international politics and finally sovereignty, this volume is essential reading for all serious scholars of international politics.

10 Reasons Why You Should Study International Relations

Emmanuel Onalo

August 24, 2022

Are you searching for the reasons why you should study international relations ? In this post, we will talk about some of the reasons why you should study international relations. We will also talk about some of the best career paths for international relations graduates .

International relation is a course that introduces you to the world of politics and socio-historical impact of global development. You will get to learn about the different governing policies and political systems around the world. You will understand their connection with a wide range of international issues such as global ethics, climate change, global poverty, human rights, etc.

Get Up to $100,000 Student Loan for Your Master in US or Canada - See if you are eligible

There are other popular names used to refer to International Relationship, such as Global Affairs, International Affairs, Global studies or International studies. Because it is a relatively new discipline, the courses, curriculum, and academic approach may vary significantly from one institution to another.

Are you wondering why you should consider studying International Relations? Here are some of the reasons.

Table of Contents

1. You’ll develop transferable skills

International Relations programs are designed to help prepare students to develop communication skills that can be applied across diverse cultures. Apart from acquiring specialized knowledge centered around intercultural approaches and theories, students studying international relations will develop the following skills:

• Analytical and research skills to help solve complex problems
• Communication skills to communicate effectively and tell compelling stories
• Interpersonal skills help build an effective relationship with stakeholders, essential especially when you’re working in multicultural settings.
• Public speaking, verbal, and writing skills.

The skills you acquire while studying international relations can be applied in many other industries and areas. Even if you decide not to continue your career path in International relations, these skills will help you in your other areas of endeavor.

2. Address global contemporary issues

Studying International relations will position you to address contemporary global issues. The world is living in a time where the overall living standards is higher than what it ought to be. The human race is facing diverse challenges despite constant scientific discoveries and technological advancement. Human trafficking, kidnapping, insurgency, poverty, inequality, corruption are some of the problems faced by nations.

After graduating with an International Relations degree, you’ll be able to work with NGOs, private/public institutions, or local governments to address these trending issues. Whether you choose to implement public policies or collaborate with organizations to implement welfare projects, you’ll be helping to reduce the suffering and social injustice in the world.

Also read: Top 10 Scholarships to Study International Relations

3. International relations is far more than politics

Although a degree in International Relations prepares you for a career path in Politics , your career options and opportunities are in no way limited to politics alone. Because the skills acquired during the course of study are transferable, students who study international relations go further to work in different industries and careers including activism, national security, military intelligence and analysis, international business frontiers, and more.

Many graduates go on to become diplomats and work in a wide variety of areas like:

Preservation of cultural property

• Global Health
• Human trafficking
• Conflict resolution
• Climate change
• Environmental issues

4. You get to live a life of impact

Most people who get to study international relations do so because they are passionate about making the world a better place regardless of their career goals.

Individuals who use their degrees to work in politics (e.g. ambassadors, activists, diplomats) can achieve their goals by developing privacy policies that can help make the world a better place by improving the lives of people. For example, they can

• Address issues like poverty alleviation, nutrition and food insecurity
• Promote the rights of children and women
• Provide aid during a crisis and other natural disasters
• Coordinate counterterrorism efforts

Also, those who choose to go into the business path after their graduation can be agents of change. They can help champion an organization’s strategic and charitable operations.

Recommended For You: 10 Best Courses For A Career In Politics

5. you’ll be part of a team.

International relations is not a course that exists in isolation from other related courses. Whether you’re in a consulate/embassy or working as an ambassador, your job will be a collaborative one. For example, Diplomats collaborate with different agencies to establish ties between people around the world and also learn how to connect people across borders to achieve a common international goal. They work with people from all works of life including professionals from intelligence services, military, law enforcement, agriculture , trade, commerce, science, and technology.

6. You’ll experience cultural immersion

To be highly successful in your career as a business executive, lobbyist, ambassador or diplomat in a particular region, you’ll have to immerse yourself in other cultures. Part of the experience will require you to learn another country’s traditions, cultures, and language. In addition to making you highly proficient at your job, it will position you for deep personal growth which is incredibly fulfilling.

7. It’s a great career path

Depending on your aspirations, interest, and experiences, career opportunities related to International relations in the Public, Private, or NGO space are always in abundance. If you’re considering a career in government, you can opt-in for a role in intelligence or security. This will afford you the opportunity to be involved with international relations projects. More so, studying international relations is a great starting point to kickstart your ambition to be an ambassador or diplomat.

Also Watch: 9 Most Profitable And In Demand Careers To Pursue Today

8. you’ll gain real-life experience.

Studying international relations positions you to have real-life experience. It helps you to understand where and how strategies, policies, laws, and conflicts have an impact around the world. Most institutions around the world are now integrating compulsory study and work experience in the curriculum to help students have a practical application of what they learned within the four walls of a classroom.

9. Lucrative salary

According to data from Glassdoor , International Relations jobs have some of the best salaries. However, this depends on some factors like the country you reside. But one thing is certain: careers in international relations have very lucrative salaries. For example, here are the average salaries for some of the most popular jobs in international relations culled from Glassdoor

• Diplomat – 85,800 USD/year
• Political Risk Analyst – 61,830 USD/year
• International Marketing Manager – 65,540 USD/year
• Public Affairs Specialist – 59,720 USD/year
• Immigration Specialist – 50,170 USD/year
• Policy Analyst – 58,925 USD/year
• Intelligence Analyst – 68,340 USD/year

10. International relations is a popular course

Are you still wondering why you should study international relations? Take a look at some of the most renowned world leaders who studied the course.

• Shiva Keshavan (Olympic Athlete)
• Kevin Ford (Astronaut)
• Ron Silver (Actor)
• Ban Ki-moon (Secretary-General of the United Nations)
• Judith Goldstein (Stanford Professor)
• Nirmala Sitaraman (Indian Minister)
• John F. Kennedy (American President)

Career Path for International Relations Graduates

There are different career opportunities for graduates of international relations. The career paths are usually classified into three main sectors: non-profit (NGO). Private (business), public (government). The undergraduate courses are designed to offer a wide range of knowledge and cutting-edge skills to graduates. The above classification of career path positions graduates to switch from positions in charities, the private sector, and government.

It is a common practice for people who work in this sector to switch from one type of career path to the other. Some of the most popular career paths for international relations students include

• Civil Service

The civil service is the main public service provider offering graduates of international relations different career openings. Civil service job openings include the Ministry of Defence, Department of International Development, and Department of Foreign Affairs.

• Central Intelligent Agent

A career path in the central intelligence agency is one of the safe havens for international relations graduates. Gaining appointment in this sector is seen as a huge achievement and requires a rigorous application process but none the less, opportunities exist for graduates

• Political Affairs Officers

The best shot on this career path is working with the Department of Political Affairs at the UN. Political affairs officers work tirelessly to help nations resolve conflicts and prevent war. They work to proffer peaceful political solutions to foster peaceful coexistence between nations

Most international relations graduates pursue career paths in diplomacy. Diplomats are ambassadors appointed to represent their nation’s government in its relation with other organizations and governments. They work to protect the interest of their nation while working closely to promote friendship with other nations.

• International Banking Officer

This career path is one of the high demand positions sought after by international relations graduates. However, pursuing a career path in this sector will require further studies in addition to your international relations degree. Your main focus is to special in banking and finance with respect to international relations.

• International Affairs Officer

Another possible career option available for international relations graduates is to enter into the Armed forces as an international affairs officer. The armed forces of any nation play a key role in foreign policy implementation.

• Foreign Service Officer

The goal of a Foreign Service officer is to promote stability and advance his/her country’s interest in the eyes of the world. Pursuing a career as a Foreign Service officer will position you to serve in Africa, America. Europe, Asia or the Middle East at one of the consulates or embassies.

• Research Consultant

As a research consultant, your work is to undertake research, collect finding-based papers, report conclusions and make recommendations. Every year there are a number of globally interested Non-governmental organizations and private organizations who are searching for passionate and excellent research consultants to work with

International relations is a very marketable and lucrative course to study. The benefits that come from studying this course are so vast and cannot be overemphasized. At this point, we believe the information we have shared in this post is sufficient enough to help you make up your mind to study International Relations.

subscribe to our newsletter

Most recent.

Step-by-step Guide to Obtaining Your Chinese Student Visa

Apply for the Group of Brazilian Universities (GCUB) Scholarships 2025 for international students

Ban Ki-Moon Centre For Global Citizens (Bkmc) Youth Agrichampions Program 2024

How to apply for the 2024 University of Saskatchewan Graduate Scholarship

African Economic Research Consortium AERC Masters Scholarship 2024/2025 for African Students

Black academics advancement programme (baap) 2025 for black south african academics.

© 2024 AFTER SCHOOL AFRICA

Explore Opportunities

Your email will NEVER be used for any other purpose.

You can see how this popup was set up in our step-by-step guide: https://wppopupmaker.com/guides/auto-opening-announcement-popups/

Download Chapter One of The Scholarship Digest 2019!

We interviewed Multi-Scholarship Award winners and put everything we learned into this book.

• Plus More than 1,400 carefully selected opportunities for Africans

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Conflict Studies
• Development
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Human Rights
• International Law
• Organization
• International Relations Theory
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Geography
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Sexuality and Gender
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Security Studies
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

International relations and the study of history.

• Constantinos Koliopoulos Constantinos Koliopoulos Department of International, European and Area Studies, Panteion University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.242
• Published in print: 01 March 2010
• Published online: 22 December 2017
• This version: 25 January 2019
• Previous version

International relations and history are inextricably linked, and with good reason. This link is centuries old: Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War , one of the very earliest and one of the very greatest historical works of all time, is widely regarded as the founding textbook of international relations. Still, those two disciplines are legitimately separate. A somewhat clear boundary between them can probably be drawn around three lines of demarcation: (1) past versus present, (2) idiographic versus nomothetic, and (3) description versus analysis.

The utility of history for the analysis of international affairs has been taken for granted since time immemorial. History is said to offer three things to international relations scholars: (1) a ready source of examples, (2) an opportunity to sharpen their theoretical insights, and (3) historical consciousness, that is, an understanding of the historical context of human existence and a corresponding ability to form intelligent judgment about human affairs. This tradition continued well after international relations firmly established itself as a recognized separate discipline some time after World War II, and would remain virtually unchallenged until the 1960s.

Since the 1960s, attitudes toward history have diverged within the international relations community. Some approaches, most notably the English school and the world system analysis, have almost by definition thriven on history. History plays a fundamental role in the critical-constructivist approach, while realist scholars continue to draw regularly on history. History is far less popular, though not absent from works belonging to the liberal-idealist approach. Postmodernism is the one approach that is almost completely antithetical to the analytical use of history. Postmodernists have characterized history as merely another form of fiction and question the existence of objective truth and transhistorical knowledge. One cannot exclude the possibility that postmodernism is correct in this respect; however, it is highly unlikely that uncountable generations of people have been victims of mass deception or mass psychosis regarding the utility of history, not least in the analysis of international relations.

• international relations
• interdisciplinarity
• English school
• critical-constructivist approach
• world system analysis
• liberal-idealist approach
• postmodernism

Updated in this version

Summary and keywords updated. Expanded discussion of Contemporary English school and realism. References updated and expanded.

Introduction

This article consists of two parts: one section deals with the relation between history and international relations as approached in the relevant literature; the remaining sections survey the ways in which history (referring both to the historical record and to the insights of historians) has been used in the study of international relations, from Thucydides to contemporary scholarship. Given the sheer magnitude of the international relations literature, a comprehensive presentation of the subject is out of the question. Instead, the focus will be on presenting the main strands of thought and particular salient points.

International Relations and History: The Elusive Boundary

Setting the boundary.

International relations used to be a mere branch of diplomatic history—actually, it was indistinguishable from diplomatic history. International relations began to emerge as a separate discipline in the aftermath of World War I with the creation of the chair of International Politics at the University of Aberystwyth, UK, and firmly secured its independence sometime after the end of World War II (Olson, 1972 ). It thus stands to reason that at the beginnings of the institutional life of the new discipline its proponents were keen on establishing its self-identity, although they duly recognized its dependence on the older discipline (Marchant, 1961 :19; McClelland, 1961 ). So, somehow there had to be a boundary between international relations and history. But where to set that boundary?

Setting it is not easy, especially when it comes to what Johan Galtung ( 1969 :266–270) has called “nomothetic, diachronic research.” To get an idea of the difficulties involved, one may consider the works of Thucydides ( 1972 ), Arnold Toynbee ( 1934–1961 ), and Paul Kennedy ( 1987 ). Although all three authors are primarily classified as historians, these works constitute borderline cases between history and international relations. It is not always fortunate to be a borderline case. Both historians and international relations scholars are generally happy to consider Thucydides as one of their own; Paul Kennedy is recognized as a leading historian and has also earned an important place in international relations literature; but in contrast to the dual citizenship of Thucydides and Kennedy, Toynbee ended up stranded in no-man’s land, disavowed by historians and not adopted by international relations scholars.

Most of the practitioners of history and international relations believe that the differences between the disciplines are real and important enough (Elman & Elman, 2001 ; Jervis, 2001 ; Schroeder, 2001 ). On the other hand, there is no absolute consensus as to what exactly these differences are. Opinions seem to cluster around three possible lines of demarcation: (1) past versus present, (2) idiographic versus nomothetic, and (3) description versus analysis. These lines are better viewed as continua rather than rigid categories, given that both history and international relations are quite heterogeneous (Levy, 2001 :40, 42–45); thus, although some historians have explicitly rejected the aforementioned lines and offered convincing counterexamples (Ingram, 1997 :53–54; Schroeder, 1997 :65–67, 2001 :405–406), it does seem that this demarcation captures the difference between international relations and history.

The past versus present continuum is arguably the most obvious difference between the two disciplines. Strictly speaking, “a non-experimental observational basis for a science is, in a certain sense, always ‘historical’ in character” (Popper, 1986 :38; see also Wright, 1965 :25). However, if the term “historical” is to have any meaning, it must be somehow synonymous with “past” (say, 20 years back), notwithstanding the existence of “contemporary history.” In this vein, history deals with the past and international relations deals with the present; even in the numerous instances when international relations deals with historical cases, it does so with an eye to the present, whereas history tends to deal with the past for its own sake (Ingram, 1997 :54; Elman & Elman, 2001 :7–8; Lebow, 2001 :111). In the same vein, international relations often aims consciously at policy relevance, a tendency relatively absent from history. It is no accident that the historian John Burrow ( 2008 :79, 271) classified as “political science” the explicitly policy-relevant historical works of Polybius and Machiavelli, while it has been pointed out that “some people undoubtedly choose to become political scientists rather than historians precisely because they want to influence policy” (Levy, 2001 :62).

Nevertheless, the past–present distinction is not as neat as one might think. To start with, the present is not so self-intelligible: historical context may matter a lot, and past influences may persist for long (Wright, 1965 :18; Bloch, 1992 :29–39). Moreover, historians often do have an eye for the present, or even for the future (Gaddis, 2004 :10); indeed, they use the pejorative term “antiquarian” for those among them who are considered bound to the past (Fischer, 1970 :140–142; Burrow, 2008 :468). Finally, salient past events still command widespread interest for their own sake, and international relations scholars who analyze them in the course of their theoretical quests cannot help improving the general understanding of those particular events (King, Keohane, & Verba, 1994 :35).

The idiographic versus nomothetic distinction is arguably the most important difference between international relations and history, subsuming most of the other differences (Galtung, 1969 :251–253; Levy, 1997 ; Elman & Elman, 2001 :13–16; Levy, 2001 ). This distinction is spelled out by Aristotle ( Poetics , ix, quoted in Finley, 1990 :11) in his powerful indictment against history: “Poetry is more philosophical and more weighty than history, for poetry speaks rather of the universal, history of the particular. By the universal I mean that such or such a kind of man will say or do such or such things from probability or necessity; that is the aim of poetry, adding proper names to the characters. By the particular I mean what Alcibiades did and what he suffered.”

Substituting international relations for poetry, this accounts for a fundamental difference between international relations and history. International relations scholars explicitly aim to arrive at general propositions of wider applicability (Hoffmann, 1961 :430; Kaplan, 1961 :8–10, 14; Wright, 1965 :16, 26, 438–439; Waltz, 1979 :1–17). On the contrary, although there are a few historians that, after Carl Hempel, search for “covering laws” in history (see Trachtenberg, 2006 :1–4), historians can be happy with pure idiography (Samuel Eliot Morison, quoted in McClelland, 1961 :34; cf. Lebow, 1981 :ix–x) or at least be reluctant to generalize from particular cases, because they place a high value on contingency (Hoffmann, 1961 :430–431; Wright, 1965 :16, 26, 438–439; Elman & Elman, 2001 :16–18; Jervis, 2001 :393–399; Gaddis, 2004 :12–15, 53–69; Burrow, 2008 :47–49, 79, 260, 270–271, 447).

The extreme forms of the idiographic tendency have received sharp criticism; among others it has been pointed out that the pure idiographers, in order to remain true to their convictions, should neither use census data nor even count the members of their own family (Galtung, 1969 :252–253; see also Fischer, 1970 :94–97). In turn, the historians have staged a two-pronged counterattack. To begin with, they have accused international relations scholars (and political scientists in general) of distorting reality in the process of generalization and of unduly neglecting contingency and path dependency (Schroeder, 1994 ; Ingram, 1997 ; Gaddis, 2004 :53–69, 71–89; Strachan, 2008 :36). This has fatal consequences for theory: “what [political scientists] don’t realize is that if they get the facts a little wrong, they don’t get the results a little wrong, they get them all wrong” (Jon Sumida, quoted in Lynn, 2001 :366). The second prong of the historians’ counterattack is of fairly recent vintage: instead of defending idiography, a number of historians have claimed that they, too, engage in generalizations: for instance, E. H. Carr ( 1990 :63, 64) has stated that “the historian is not really interested in the unique, but in what is general in the unique” and that “history thrives on generalizations.” Moreover, even historians who castigate political scientists/international relations scholars for their own brand of generalizations declare that historians “generalize for particular purposes; hence [they] practice particular generalization ” (Gaddis, 2004 :62, emphasis in text; see also Wright, 1965 :26, 438–439).

The first of these points is absolutely valid; international relations scholars have sometimes mentioned the need to take contingency into account (Hoffmann, 1961 :431; Wright, 1965 :1357–1358), though it is doubtful whether they have heeded this advice very much. Still, theory always involves abstractions from reality (Kaplan, 1961 ; Waltz, 1979 :1–17), and historians themselves admit that they, too, represent/construct reality (Gaddis, 2004 :135–145). As to the second point, it must be said that sometimes historians make “insidious generalizations” (Fischer, 1970 :124–125): they may openly disavow generalizations, but then proceed to bootleg them into their works without recognizing their existence or controlling their content (see also Wohlforth, 2001 :355–356).

Largely due to the idiographic–nomothetic distinction between history and international relations, scholarly works read differently in each of the two disciplines, at least nowadays: normally in works of international relations the theoretical sections are neatly separated from the narrative, and the inclusion of diagrams, figures, etc., is likely, whereas in historical works the theories, if they exist at all, are imbedded in the narrative, and one is unlikely to encounter any sophisticated artwork in the text (Elman & Elman, 2001 :27; Levy, 2001 :76). In the same vein, scholarly works cater to different expectations within the two scholarly communities: arguably the worst that can be said about an international relations work is that it is “descriptive,” whereas the worst that can be said about a historical work is that it is “incorrect” (Levy, 2001 :48–50).

This brings us to the description versus analysis distinction between history and international relations (Aron, 1966 :2; Levy, 2001 :71–78; Wohlforth, 2001 :356; Trachtenberg, 2006 :37). This is a much more accurate distinction than the supposed distinction of narrative versus theory, because historians do use many a theoretical insight in their works (Levy, 1997 :27–29). Analysis and description can be conceived as ends of a continuum ranging from the pure analysis of game theory and formal modeling, through the sketchy and sparse illustrative examples of Kenneth Waltz ( 1979 ), all the way to the assertion of David Hackett Fischer ( 1970 :14–15, 131) that history should deal with what happened and how , leaving aside the question of why it happened—be purely descriptive, that is. Overall, historians have a greater taste for detail than IR scholars; in fact, the very use of the word detail is problematic, given that historians may argue that the so-called details are actually essential for highlighting the unique aspects of the case under examination. In the end, it all comes down to a different mix of what , how ( what often subsumes how ), and why .

As was pointed out, historians do use theories; in fact, some of them have protested their depiction as mere fact-mongers by political scientists/international relations scholars (Ingram, 1997 :53–54; Schroeder, 1997 :65–67, 2001 :405–406; Trachtenberg, 2006 :37). However, the problem is that more often than not their theories are unarticulated (Kaplan, 1961 :6; Elman & Elman, 2001 :7; Lebow, 2001 :112–113; Wohlforth, 2001 :355–356), hence difficult to put to test and check for internal consistency.

Two related issues are those of parsimony (Elman & Elman, 2001 :7–8; Jervis, 2001 :390–393; Lebow, 2001 :123–126; Levy, 2001 :54–59; Schroeder, 2001 :405–408) and morality (Elman & Elman, 2001 :25–27; Jervis, 2001 :399–400; Schroeder, 2001 :409–416). Parsimony is essential in theoretical analysis, but not necessarily so in description. Consequently, historians are relatively more tolerant than social scientists to over-determination. As to morality, although classical international relations scholars did devote attention to it (Carr, 1981 :135–155; Morgenthau, 2006 :235–269), the discipline (at least its realist paradigm) progressively distanced itself from questions of international morality. On the contrary, historians still struggle with the issue, taking various positions (Carr, 1990 :75–84; Bloch, 1992 :114–119; Gaddis, 2004 :122–128).

Bridging the Gap

Why bridge the gap between international relations and history? After all, the affinity between the two disciplines may be nothing more than an accident of birth; for instance, although Vitoria and Suárez, the founders of modern international law, were clergymen, bridging the gap between international law and theology is hardly a central issue nowadays. Is history useful to international relations (and vice versa), and if yes, what to do about it?

Much has been written about the general utility of history (see among others Thucydides, 1972 :I 22; Polybius, 1922–1927 :I 1, I 35; Ibn Khaldûn, 1967 :5, 11; Fischer, 1970 :314–318; Neustadt & May, 1986 ; Gaddis, 2004 :8–11; Guldi & Armitage, 2014 ) and about its specific utility to international relations scholars (Hoffmann, 1961 :430–431; Marchant, 1961 ; Hill, 1985 ; Trachtenberg, 2006 :39–50, 134–139). According to this literature, history offers three things to international relations scholars: first, a ready source of examples; second, an opportunity to sharpen their theoretical insights; after all, broadening one’s database is hopefully bound to broaden one’s vision as well; third, historical consciousness, that is, an understanding of the historical context of human existence and a corresponding ability to form intelligent judgment about human affairs.

This learning by vicarious experience that history offers is often put to use by explicit or implicit historical analogies (Polybius, 1922–1927 :III 32, XII 25b). In order to acknowledge the utility of historical analogies, one need not resort to platitudes about history repeating itself or people doomed to relive their past. As the historian John Lewis Gaddis ( 2004 :2) has put it, “science, history, and art [. . .] all depend on metaphor, on the recognition of patterns, on the realization that something is ‘like’ something else.” At the same time, the relevant literature does contain its fair share of warnings and suggestions regarding the use of historical analogies (Fischer, 1970 :243–259; Neustadt & May, 1986 ; Carr, 1990 :62). Of course, reliance on historical analogies presupposes at least some elements of continuity through history. Thucydides ( 1972 :I 22) believed he had found the perennial element of continuity in the unchangeable human nature (but see Fischer, 1970 :203–207); modern realists (Waltz, 1979 ; Gilpin, 1981 :211–230; Mearsheimer, 2001 ) and English school theorists (Bull, 1977 ; Wight, 1978 ) point out the durable macro-influence of international anarchy. Although the historically minded international relations scholars ought to keep their eyes wide open to changes and breaks with the past, it is equally true to say that rumors about the end of history were greatly exaggerated and that contemporary international relations does retain manifold and important elements of continuity from earlier historical periods.

Several analysts have taken this strand of the literature to its logical conclusion; they regard the academic distinction between history and the social sciences as accidental, artificial, and detrimental (Toynbee, 1956 :5; Wright, 1965 :1363–1364), and hail the supposed emergence of a “super social science” (Galtung, 1969 :280–285). These are probably extreme views; as the subsection “ Setting the Boundary ” demonstrated, the boundary between international relations and history exists not only due to institutional caprice, but due to good substantive reasons as well. Robert Jervis ( 2001 :387) soberly concluded that although a redrawing or even an abolition of disciplinary lines might perhaps look attractive, of course it cannot be done and the respective disciplines are bound to retain their specific mores and incentives. So, bridging the gap is just about the best that can be expected.

Various ways have been suggested for doing this (Elman & Elman, 2001 :28–35). Well-meaning historians (Renouvin & Duroselle, 1967 ) have argued in favor of pursuing international relations analysis through a purely inductive approach to the historical record, but this is nowadays regarded as unfeasible or even unnecessary (Fischer, 1970 :4–8). More to the point seems the call of Quincy Wright ( 1965 :701–715, 1355–1364) and E. H. Carr ( 1990 :66) for an interdisciplinary approach between history and the social sciences. The practitioners of the latter ought to develop greater historical understanding and, in the particular case of international relations scholars, they may need to delve deeper into historiography in the course of their research (Schroeder, 1997 :71; Larson, 2001 ). On the other hand, historians may have much to gain by incorporating the theoretical insights of the social sciences—indeed, if historians intend to write analytical history, as opposed to purely descriptive history, it is reasonable to ask how they purport to analyze past political events, domestic and international, without recourse to the findings of political science. Quite a few scholars have explicitly heeded this call to interdisciplinarity (e.g., Trachtenberg, 2006 ), although it seems to have been easier for international relations scholars to accept historians in their midst and accord them leading-scholar status than the other way around. In this interdisciplinary vein, Alexander George’s advocacy of collaborative teaching by historians and international relations scholars merits serious attention (George, 1997 :46).

However, the story does not necessarily have an interdisciplinary happy end. To start with, it has been pointed out (Fischer, 1970 :37) that an interdisciplinary approach must be handled with care lest it ends up combining the worst vices of historians (“stupidity”) and social scientists (“ignorance”). Furthermore, interdisciplinarity may well prove impractical or unfeasible: scholars, even if they have the inclination, may not have the time or the necessary background for drawing appropriately from another discipline (Lawson, 2008 :25–26). Interdisciplinarity may even be insidious, that is, aiming at the colonization of the turf of one discipline by another (Lawson, 2008 :26). Finally, it has been argued (Wohlforth, 2001 :352–353) that, in the final analysis, international relations and history are competitive ventures: both try to explain the same phenomena, each in its own way, which is considered better than the other’s.

Before the Discipline: From Thucydides to World War I

As mentioned, Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War is both a seminal historical work and the founding text of international relations. Thucydides’ celebrated explanation of the cause of the Peloponnesian War is that “what made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta” ( 1972 :I 23). This emphasis on power distribution and uneven development was a quantum leap in the study of international relations. A mere generation earlier Herodotus had been content to explain the Greek–Persian conflict solely on the basis of mythical incidents and human passions, but Thucydides marks the transition from mythology and crude psychology to international relations theory.

Stanley Hoffmann (quoted in Levy, 1997 :30) has claimed that Thucydides’ text contains neither explicit generalizations of an “if [. . .] then” nature, nor analytic categories. This is only partly true: although Thucydides did not use clearly defined analytic categories, he did offer quite a few general propositions; one need not go further than Book I of the History in order to encounter an explicit proposition on the dangers of appeasement: “If you give in, you will immediately be confronted with some greater demand, since they will think that you only gave way on this point through fear. But if you take a firm stand you will make it clear to them that they have to treat you properly as equals” (Thucydides, 1972 :I 140; see also I 76, IV 59, V 89). This combination of narrative and generalization accounts for the dual citizenship of Thucydides in the realms of history and international relations.

Polybius, who lived two-and-a-half centuries after Thucydides, operated on similar premises but on a far larger scale. The theme of Polybius’s History ( 1922–1927 ) is the rise of Rome to “universal” dominance within little more than a century ( 264–146 bce ). The chief contribution of Polybius to international relations was his “world systemic” approach. Echoing modern calls for systemic as opposed to “reductionist” approaches to international relations, he insisted that only universal history was meaningful history; local histories were bound to distort the picture by unduly magnifying relatively minor factors and events. To be sure, the Roman state did not cover the whole known world or even the whole civilized known world (to the east of the Roman domains the Parthians remained independent), but in Polybius’s time the Mediterranean basin was basically a self-contained international system. Polybius consciously aimed at providing political guidance to his readership. Among others, he set out to demonstrate the dynamics of security dilemma and imperialism, that is, how the Romans’ quest for security insensibly led them on the path to empire. In addition, Polybius ( 1922–1927 :VI) delved into the domestic structures of Rome and pointed out their profound impact on its international relations. Anyone interested in the subject of imperialism and empire-building may fruitfully read Polybius (admittedly a difficult work to read in its entirety), especially because facile analogies with the Roman Empire are much in vogue nowadays.

After Polybius, modern international relations scholars have to make a great time leap in order to find anything comparably useful among historical works; but when they find it, they will be amply rewarded with the work of the 14th-century Arab historian and statesman Ibn Khaldûn ( 1967 ). Ibn Khaldûn wrote a history centered on the Arab and Berber dynasties, mentioning also the non-Arab states of the Mediterranean basin and the Middle East. This was the laboratory that enabled him to work out a pattern of what many centuries later would be called “power transition” (Organski, 1968 :338–376). According to this pattern, a powerful state emerges when group solidarity is strong and the arts, crafts, and industries of civilization are well cultivated. However, the resultant wealth and the ruling dynasty’s striving after it weaken group solidarity and enervate both rulers and ruled, eventually leaving them prey to outsider groups with greater solidarity. This account of the rise and decline of states under the influence of their domestic structures still retains its intellectual power.

Machiavelli is of course the founder of modern political science. As a result, the best-known books of Machiavelli ( 2003 , 2008 ) read differently from the works of the earlier authors considered so far: instead of being historical works sprinkled with political maxims, they are political science works full of historical illustrations—the preferred structure of historically minded political science texts ever since. His historical examples come overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, from ancient Roman history. The focus in the Discourses is understandably different from that of The Prince : in the former, Machiavelli draws from republican Rome in an attempt to cultivate the civic spirit in his native Florence, whereas in the latter he draws from imperial Rome with a view to providing the Medici ruler of Florence with suitable rules of conduct.

Machiavelli’s younger contemporary Francesco Guicciardini demonstrates the difference between diplomatic history and international relations. The focus of his History of Italy (Guicciardini, 1984 ) is on international politics, its central theme being the subordination of Italy to powerful foreign states. Moreover, Guicciardini explicitly uses the concept of the balance of power in his work. Still, Guicciardini’s History has a rather strong idiographic bent, in clear contrast to Machiavelli’s attempt to formulate propositions of general applicability.

The concepts of the European state system and the balance of power played a prominent role in the works of several 19th-century political historians. Among them, Arnold Heeren ( 1834 ) elaborated on the idea that the European states constituted an international system; however, he insisted on excluding the Ottoman Empire from that system. The works of Leopold von Ranke, the exemplar of the 19th-century political historian, are also permeated by the concepts of great powers and the balance of power (Von Laue, 1950 ; Gilbert, 1990 :26, 29–30). Ranke found it natural to focus on the great powers, because great powers are the most influential international actors; in this focus, Ranke echoes many a present-day political realist (e.g., Waltz, 1979 ; Mearsheimer, 2001 ).

During the very long period that was briefly surveyed in this section, insights on international relations were, with the notable exception of Machiavelli, embedded in historical texts. Still, even within this older historical literature one may find variations along the lines depicted in the section “ International Relations and History: The Elusive Boundary ”—some of the works are closer to modern international relations than others. The soon-to-emerge discipline of international relations inherited the bulk of its intellectual baggage from this early historical literature.

The New Discipline and History: From the Interwar Years to the Late 1960s

The debt of the fledgling discipline of international relations to history was manifest from the very beginning and was reflected in the works of two of the founding fathers of modern international relations, namely E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau.

Carr was an accomplished historian in his own right. However, because in The Twenty Years’ Crisis (Carr, 1981 ) his chief aim was to attack the idealism that had dominated international relations after World War I, he concentrated on events of the period 1919–1939 and seldom ventured further back to the past. Be that as it may, Carr is the man who wrote What Is History? (Carr, 1990 )—another demonstration of the close relation between the two disciplines.

Morgenthau put his historical erudition on ample display in Politics Among Nations (Morgenthau, 2006 ). There were no detailed historical case studies in that book. However, to cite a few examples among very many, Morgenthau came up with a section on the Holy Alliance (an example of world government), a story about a sentry in the Russian imperial palace (demonstrating the Russian national character), and an account of a Spanish protest to the U.S. government for Spain’s not being treated as a great power after its defeat in the Spanish–American War of 1898 (highlighting the concept of prestige).

One of the true landmarks in the study of international relations is A Study of War by Quincy Wright ( 1965 ); the discipline was never the same after its publication. Wright was the quintessential interdisciplinarian; although he used insights from a variety of disciplines (international relations, history, psychology, economics, political science, anthropology, law, sociology), he stated very clearly that none of them could on its own deal satisfactorily with the phenomenon of war, hence the need for an interdisciplinary approach to the subject. History was the cornerstone of Wright’s monument, due to his belief that an understanding of the past forms and historical evolution of war was essential for its present understanding. The result was a 1,600-page behemoth that contained, among others, substantial sections on animal warfare and primitive warfare—because animal warfare was the predecessor of primitive warfare, which was the predecessor of historic warfare. The same method was applied to virtually every aspect of war (military strategy and tactics, war economics, war propaganda, legal treatment of war, etc.). Not least due to its solid historical foundations, A Study of War is still a very useful starting point for research on war and on many other aspects of international relations (e.g., international organization, state sovereignty, etc.).

An interesting if somewhat controversial case is that of Arnold Toynbee ( 1934–1961 ). His 12-volume magnum opus A Study of History regards the civilizations (e.g., Hindu and Western civilizations) as the only “intelligible fields of study,” far and above the level of “parochial states”; traces the evolution of civilizations throughout history; and comes up with an evolutionary pattern that is likely, though not certain, to be repeated. Toynbee’s main contribution is that he offered a truly universal outlook both in time and in space, covering virtually the whole world in a five-thousand-year time span. Although his proposed system is clearly untenable in its entirety, it may still offer intriguing insights that can be put to good use; he had an influence on both the English school of international relations and the world system approach, and Robert Gilpin ( 1981 :111, 161, 182–185, 203–204) successfully used some of his ideas.

Henry Kissinger ( 1957 ) exemplified the model of the historical case study in the analysis of international relations, occupying a middle ground between the old historical works containing political maxims and the new theoretical works using historical illustrations. Kissinger aimed explicitly at generalization from his case study. His analysis of the period 1812–1822 highlights the theme of revolutionary-imperialist policies versus conservative-status quo ones; Kissinger regarded this as a recurrent theme, and it was one that he undoubtedly found useful for explaining international politics after 1945 . At any rate, his work broke new methodological ground that would later be further cleared by specialized works on the technique of case studies (Eckstein, 1975 ; George, 1979 ; George & Bennett, 2005 ).

The 1950s and 1960s witnessed the increasing impact of the postwar behavioral revolution on international relations. The features of social science became more pronounced in the discipline, and scientific rigor was demanded from international relations scholars. New methods and techniques, such as game theory, formal modeling, and quantitative studies entered the field. Among these, one of the most important was the systemic approach. The analysis at the systemic level raised obvious questions about the evolution of international systems and invited comparisons among them; this was promptly done in the pioneering works of the systemic approach (Kaplan, 1957 ; Rosecrance, 1963 ), which tried to define the distinct characteristics and peculiar norms of various historical international systems (or even of hypothetical ones in Kaplan’s case).

The advent of those modern approaches met with a strong reaction (Bull, 1969 ) and caused the so-called Great Debate between traditionalists, who emphasized the importance of philosophy, history, and law in the study of international relations and argued in favor of a scientifically imperfect process of perception and intuition, in contrast to the modernists’ emphasis on deductive models, precision, and verification (Bull, 1969 ; Haas, 1969 ).

The objections of the traditionalists toward the scientific approach to international relations bear a certain resemblance to some objections of historians toward the work of international relations scholars, namely that the latter distort reality in their quest for scientific generalizations (see “ International Relations and History: The Elusive Boundary ”). For this article, much more important was the traditionalists’ accusation that the modernists were “cutting themselves off from history and philosophy” (Bull, 1969 :37). This accusation was not at all unfounded (Singer, 1969 :80): modernists were often ahistorical, especially in the rapidly developing subfield of strategic studies. Still, the accusation was only partly true. Many modernists studied history in the course of their works, and sometimes could rightfully claim that their scientific rigor enabled them to treat history better than traditionalists (Kaplan, 1969 :52, 56, 61).

Consider the case of quantitative techniques involving the use of historical databases. Many advocates of these techniques use history and care about it: why build and use these huge databases containing data going back to 1815 or earlier (Wright, 1965 ; Singer, 1979–1980 ; Correlates of War ), if one does not believe that these historical data are still relevant? There is of course a danger of distorting the data when sorting them into databases, but at least these databases are constructed after honest historical research (Singer, 1969 :68–71, 78–79; Haber, Kennedy, & Krasner, 1997 :36). Incidentally, Quincy Wright ( 1965 :15), the pioneer of quantitative international relations, has suggested that quantitative studies have to be juxtaposed with deep examination of particular cases; the former will come up with general propositions and the latter will check the validity of those propositions. In a similar vein, Nazli Choucri and Robert North ( 1975 ) used sophisticated quantitative methods for a systematic treatment of the historical data pertaining to World War I. The analysis pointed to a significant correlation between growth and international violence; this basically confirmed what had been known (or assumed) since Thucydides’ time, but it did lay the ground for further research on similar lines.

The advent of the new approaches and techniques did not bring an end to more traditional-style works. Power and the Pursuit of Peace by F. H. Hinsley ( 1963 ) was such a work. It drew heavily from the diplomatic history tradition, although Hinsley ( 1963 :277–279) readily used quantitative data supplied by Wright’s A Study of War . Hinsley argued that the plans for the elimination of war advocated since 1917 were merely reproductions or at best elaborations of earlier such plans. These earlier plans had been discarded in their day and had received devastating critiques during the 18th and 19th centuries . Consequently, Hinsley began with an examination of these early schemes and then made an inductive analysis of the modern international system from its beginnings to 1900 in order to establish the historical context in which these schemes were developed and failed to materialize. Finally, he subjected 20th-century international relations and international organizations to that same kind of analysis. The impact of international anarchy on the problem of war and peace is manifest throughout the book.

Peace and War by Raymond Aron ( 1966 ) is quite reminiscent of Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations : lengthy expositions, plentiful insights, and ambitious theoretical aims that were not completely achieved. Aron’s book is steeped in history, although, somewhat curiously, the part of the book titled “History” deals explicitly with contemporary international politics. Peace and War was arguably the last great work in the classical realist tradition of international relations.

Modern Trends in an Old Relationship: Non-Realists, Realists, and History

The late 1960s and the 1970s witnessed the emergence (or reemergence) of a number of approaches that attempted, with varying degrees of success, to challenge the dominant realist paradigm of international relations. The present section will focus on the use of history by some of these novel approaches and by modern realism.

One of the first challenges to realism, namely the English school, initially did not look like a challenge at all—in fact, even today there are those who consider it a branch of realism, but this issue is outside the scope of this article. The British Committee on the Theory of International Politics convened for the first time in 1958 , and its focus was decidedly traditional and agreeable to classical realists. Thus, Diplomatic Investigations (Butterfield & Wight, 1966 ), the first book under the committee’s auspices, received a laudatory review from Hans Morgenthau ( 1967 ). Diplomatic Investigations set a pattern that would be followed by many classical English school texts (e.g., Wight, 1978 ), that is, selecting a number of important international relations concepts (diplomacy, law, collective security, etc.) and examining them from a historical angle.

The English school thrived on history, placing an explicit premium on the historical understanding of international politics and, at least during its first three decades, emphasizing the elements of continuity in international relations. On the other hand, this historical understanding laid bare the path dependency of many international developments and in this way introduced an element of change in the analysis.

Two central concepts in the English school were the international system and the international society (Butterfield & Wight, 1966 ; Bull, 1977 ; Wight, 1977 ; Bull & Watson, 1984 ; Watson, 1992 ). In both cases the English school theorists avoided unnecessary jargon and gave a historical (or even macro-historical) treatment to those subjects. Among others, they examined issues like the expansion of international society, the peculiar characteristics of various state systems – with Martin Wight ( 1977 :25) coming up with the highly interesting example of the Near Eastern system of the latter half of the 2nd millennium bce , a system composed of state systems rather than states, given that each of the units of the system headed a suzerain state system—or the oscillation of the international system between anarchy and empire.

Contemporary English school scholars consciously aim at engaging with the whole of human history. Buzan, Jones, and Little ( 1993 ) used the example of the expansion and contraction of the Roman Empire as a case study to illustrate system transformation. Apart from the highly important Roman case, their forays into ancient history led them to examine some unduly neglected cases like Carthage or the Hellenistic monarchies. This broad historical sweep coupled with systemic analysis continued into their later work as well (Buzan & Little, 2000 ). Taking this trend even further, Suzuki, Zhang, and Quirk ( 2014 ) examined a number of non-European international systems from the late 15th until the mid- 19th century , that is, before the onset of undisputed Western global dominance. In view of the current emergence, or rather reemergence of non-Western powers, their work provides a much-needed corrective to the Eurocentrism prevalent in international relations.

Ever since World War I, the liberal-idealist tradition in international relations has tended to emphasize change rather than continuity. Consequently, whenever its advocates employ historical analysis, they tend not to go too far back in time. For instance, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye ( 1977 ), in what was a significant synthesis of liberalism and realism in matters of international political economy and international regimes, did not go further back than the 1920s in their discussion of the international money and ocean regimes, nor further back than 1918 in their discussion of U.S. relations with Canada and Australia. The pattern was repeated by Keohane ( 1984 ) in his discussion of the international political economy, where he focused on the post–World War II period and only rarely touched upon the Pax Britannica.

History plays a fundamental role in the critical-constructivist approach. This approach does not accept existing orders and institutions as given, but attempts to find out how they came about and consequently how they might change (Cox, 1986 ). It goes without saying that this emphasis on path dependency delights historians (Gaddis, 2004 :81), irrespective of whether they share the Marxist perspective of early critical theory. Later critical-constructivist works retained a historical focus but quite often leaned toward postmodernism. In this vein, Jens Bartelson ( 1995 ) used the Foucauldian concept of genealogy in order to examine the evolution of the concept of sovereignty from the Renaissance to the present. The critical-constructivist approach may offer highly original insights and highlight many situations. However, there is a potential pitfall that its advocates must be aware of. As Marc Bloch ( 1992 :26–29, 129–145, 154–156) has pointed out, the past meaning of words and institutions may well highlight their present meaning, but it may also prove irrelevant to it; and it is their present meaning that we are basically interested in—especially in international relations.

One of the most interesting approaches to contemporary international relations is world system analysis. History is a vital ingredient of world system analysis; in fact, it has been said that the very emergence of this kind of analysis during the early 1970s was an intellectual reaction to social science models that were then in vogue and were deemed excessively abstract and ahistorical (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 1990 :164). World system analysis began with the pioneering work of Immanuel Wallerstein ( 2011 ). Wallerstein argued that from the 16th century onward the globe had been unified into one world system comprising the economically advanced and exploitative states at the systemic core, the economically backward and exploited states at the systemic periphery, and the Janus-looking states of the semi-periphery. Wallerstein demonstrated that the Marxist approach could be successfully transplanted from the domestic sphere of class relations to the global sphere of interstate relations. At the same time, he provided a breadth of historical sweep that had rarely been seen since Toynbee.

Another important practitioner of world system analysis is George Modelski ( 1986 ). Modelski takes his cues not from Marx but from Talcott Parsons. He argues that global wars tend to recur at hundred-year intervals (long cycles). As a result of these wars, the last five centuries have seen an equal number of world leaderships: Portuguese, Dutch, British (twice), and American. At a later stage of research, Modelski and William Thompson ( 1996 ) juxtaposed long cycles of global war and global leadership with the notorious Kondratieff waves in economy, and moved their analysis further back in time to begin with the Chinese Sung state in the 10th century ce . Actually, later works on world system analysis (Frank & Gills, 1993 ; Denemark, Friedman, Gills, & Modelski, 2000 ) featured an even broader historical sweep, namely five thousand years; Toynbee would have approved.

In the meantime, the realists had not been sitting idly by. Kenneth Waltz ( 1979 ) provided a powerful structural analysis proving that realism remained as strong as ever. Still, Waltzian neorealism drew increasing fire for being static and ahistorical. However, the resources of realism proved inexhaustible. Robert Gilpin ( 1981 ) came up with an analysis of international change at various levels (systems change, systemic change, and interaction change, focusing on the first two), built on the idea that as the relative power of international actors increases, they will seek to change the international environment accordingly. Gilpin’s systemic analysis is historically informed (drawing among others from Ibn Khaldûn and Toynbee) and to a great extent traces the origins of international change at the unit level. Gilpin’s work, coupled with the elaborated power transition theory (Organski & Kugler, 1980 ) and the argument of Paul Kennedy ( 1987 ) that the fall of great powers is often due to strategic overextension, offers a powerful blend of theory and history.

History features prominently in other strands of realism as well. The advocates of so-called neoclassical realism (states care primarily about power, security, etc., but perceptions and domestic structures do play an important role) have dealt extensively with matters such as the structure of the international system and the origins of World War II (Schweller, 1998 ). Stephen Krasner ( 1999 ) came up with a realist examination of the concept of sovereignty, arguing that what he dubbed organized hypocrisy (the presence of longstanding norms that are frequently violated) has been a permanent feature of international relations. John Mearsheimer ( 2001 ) demonstrated the applicability of offensive realism (states aim not merely at a balance of power but at power and security maximization) by a series of detailed case studies of great-power behavior during the 19th and 20th centuries . Finally, Henry Kissinger ( 2011 ) delved fairly deeply into Chinese history in order to demonstrate the conceptual way in which the Chinese approach international relations, in contrast to an arguably different way in which the Americans do so.

All this emphasis on history would not sit well with postmodernists—with the probable exception of the concept of genealogy. According to leading postmodernists Foucault and Baudrillard (both quoted in Trachtenberg, 2006 :12), reality and truth do not exist. Everything is discourse, shaped by perspectives and power relations; in fact, genealogy is a style of historical thought that exposes and registers the significance of these power–knowledge relations (Devetak, 1996 :184). In the same vein, history is just another form of fiction (White, 1973 ). At any rate, postmodernism doubts whether political practices and responses have any transhistorical validity (Devetak, 1996 :187).

The postmodernist views on truth and reality have received some powerful blows (Sokal, 2008 ; see also Fischer, 1970 :42–43; Gaddis, 2004 :143; Trachtenberg, 2006 :7–14, 29). As regards the relative character of all historical judgments, the inseparability of observers from things observed, or even the relation between power and knowledge (in the form of falsification of the historical record), all this has been known all along (Thucydides, 1972 :V 11; Ranke, quoted in Gilbert, 1990 :17; Carr, 1990 :7–55, 170–173; Gaddis, 2004 :9–10) without leading to sweeping negations of the existence of reality and of objective truth.

It is fitting for this article to close with tackling the postmodernist notion that no “transhistorical” knowledge exists. This runs counter to millennia of conventional wisdom, according to which historical knowledge can serve as a guide for the present and the future. Of course, postmodernists argue that their task is precisely to warn against and undermine such conventional wisdoms that are supposedly based on the power of dominant groups. However, it does smack of self-importance on the postmodernists’ part to claim that uncountable generations of people have been victims of mass deception or mass psychosis regarding the utility of history, not least in the analysis of international relations.

Links to Digital Materials

• The Correlates of War Project . The mecca of quantitative data on the study of war.
• Buzan, B. (2014). The English School: A Bibliography . An extensive bibliography that is bound to be of use to historically minded international relations scholars.
• Aron, R. (1966). Peace and war: A theory of international relations ( R. Howard & A. B. Fox , Trans.). Malabar, FL: Krieger. (Originally published in 1962.)
• Bartelson, J. (1995). A genealogy of sovereignty . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Bloch, M. (1992). The historian’s craft ( P. Burke , Trans.). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. (Originally published in 1949.)
• Bull, H. (1969). International theory: The case for a classical approach. In K. Knorr and J. N. Rosenau (Eds.), Contending approaches to international politics (pp. 20–38). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics . Houndmills, UK: Macmillan.
• Bull, H. , & Watson, A. (1984). The expansion of international society . Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
• Burrow, J. (2008). A history of histories . New York, NY: Knopf.
• Butterfield, H. , & Wight, M. (1966). Diplomatic investigations: Essays in the theory of international politics . London, UK: Allen and Unwin.
• Buzan, B. , Jones, C. , & Little, R. (1993). The logic of anarchy: Neorealism to structural realism . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
• Buzan, B. , & Little, R. (2000). International systems in world history: Remaking the study of international relations . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Carr, E. H. (1981). The twenty years’ crisis, 1919–1939 . London, UK: Macmillan. (Originally published in 1939.)
• Carr, E. H. (1990). What is history? London, UK: Penguin. (Originally published in 1961.)
• Choucri, N. , & North, R. C. (1975). Nations in conflict: National growth and international violence . San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
• Cox, R. W. (1986). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. In R. O. Keohane (Ed.), Neorealism and its critics (pp. 204–254). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
• Denemark, R. A. , Friedman, J. , Gills, B. K. , & Modelski, G. (2000). World system history: The social science of long-term change . London, UK: Routledge.
• Devetak, R. (1996). Postmodernism . In S. Burchill & A. Linklater , with R. Devetak , M. Paterson , & J. True (Eds.), Theories of international relations (pp. 179–209). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
• Dougherty, J. E. , & Pfaltzgraff, R. L., Jr. (1990). Contending theories of international relations: A comprehensive survey (3rd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
• Eckstein, H. (1975). Case study and theory in political science. In F. Greenstein & N. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science (Vol. 7, pp. 79–137). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Elman, C. , & Elman, M. F. (2001). Introduction: Negotiating international history and politics. In C. Elman & M. F. Elman (Eds.), Bridges and boundaries: Historians, political scientists, and the study of international relations (pp. 1–36). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Finley, M. I. (1990). The use and abuse of history . London, UK: Penguin. (Originally published in 1975.)
• Fischer, D. H. (1970). Historians’ fallacies . New York, NY: Harper and Row.
• Frank, A. G. , & Gills, B. K. (1993). The world system: Five hundred years or five thousand? London, UK: Routledge.
• Gaddis, J. L. (2004). The landscape of history . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Galtung, J. (1969). The social sciences: An essay on polarization and integration. In K. Knorr & J. N. Rosenau (Eds.), Contending approaches to international politics (pp. 243–285). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• George, A. L. (1979). Case studies and theory development: The method of structured focused comparison. In P. Lauren (Ed.), Diplomacy: New approaches in history, theory, and policy (pp. 43–68). New York, NY: Free Press.
• George, A. L. (1997). Knowledge for statecraft: The challenge for political science and history. International Security , 22 (1), 44–52.
• George, A. L. , & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Gilbert, F. (1990). History: Politics or culture? Reflections on Ranke and Burckhardt . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Guicciardini, F. (1984). History of Italy ( S. Alexander , Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Originally published in 1561.)
• Guldi, J. , & Armitage, D. (2014). The history manifesto . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Haas, M. (1969). A plea for bridge building in international relations. In K. Knorr & J. N. Rosenau (Eds.), Contending approaches to international politics (pp. 158–176). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Haber, S. H. , Kennedy, D. M. , & Krasner, S. D. (1997). Brothers under the skin: Diplomatic history and international relations. International Security , 22 (1), 34–43.
• Heeren, A. H. L. (1834). A manual of the history of the political systems of Europe and its colonies . Oxford, UK: Talboys.
• Hill, C. (1985). History and international relations. In S. Smith (Ed.), International relations: British and American perspectives (pp. 126–145). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Hinsley, F. H. (1963). Power and the pursuit of peace: Theory and practice in the history of relations between states . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Hoffmann, S. H. (1961). International relations: The long road to theory. In J. N. Rosenau (Ed.), International politics and foreign policy: A reader in research and theory (pp. 421–437). New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.
• Ibn Khaldûn (1967). The Muqaddimah: An introduction to history ( F. Rosenthal , Trans., N. J. Dawood , Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Originally written in 1377.)
• Ingram, E. (1997). The wonderland of the political scientist. International Security , 22 (1), 53–63.
• Jervis, R. (2001). International history and international politics: Why are they studied differently? In C. Elman & M. F. Elman (Eds.), Bridges and boundaries: Historians, political scientists, and the study of international relations (pp. 385–402). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Kaplan, M. A. (1957). System and process in international politics . New York, NY: John Wiley.
• Kaplan, M. A. (1961). Problems of theory building and theory confirmation in international politics. In K. Knorr & S. Verba (Eds.), The international system: Theoretical essays (pp. 6–24). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Kaplan, M. A. (1969). The new great debate: Traditionalism vs. science in international relations. In K. Knorr & J. N. Rosenau (Eds.), Contending approaches to international politics (pp. 39–61). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Kennedy, P. (1987). The rise and fall of the great powers: Economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000 . New York, NY: Random House.
• Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Keohane, R. O. , & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition . Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
• King, G. , Keohane, R. O. , & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social enquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Kissinger, H. (1957). A world restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the problems of peace, 1812–1822 . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
• Kissinger, H. (2011). On China . New York, NY: Penguin.
• Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Larson, D. W. (2001). Sources and methods in Cold War history: The need for a new theory-based archival approach. In C. Elman & M. F. Elman (Eds.), Bridges and boundaries: Historians, political scientists, and the study of international relations (pp. 327–350). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Lawson, G. (2008). For a public international relations. International Political Sociology , 2 (1), 17–37.
• Lebow, R. N. (1981). Between peace and war: The nature of international crisis . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Lebow, R. N. (2001). Social science and history: Ranchers versus farmers? In C. Elman & M. F. Elman (Eds.), Bridges and boundaries: Historians, political scientists, and the study of international relations (pp. 111–135). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Levy, J. S. (1997). Too important to leave to the other: History and political science in the study of international relations. International Security , 22 (1), 22–33.
• Levy, J. S. (2001). Explaining events and developing theories: History, political science, and the analysis of international relations. In C. Elman & M. F. Elman (Eds.), Bridges and boundaries: Historians, political scientists, and the study of international relations (pp. 39–83). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Lynn, J. A. (2001). Reflections on the history and theory of military innovation and diffusion. In C. Elman & M. F. Elman (Eds.), Bridges and boundaries: Historians, political scientists, and the study of international relations (pp. 359–382). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Machiavelli, N. (2003). Discourses on Livy . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1531.)
• Machiavelli, N. (2008). The prince . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1532.)
• Marchant, P. D. (1961). International relations as an autonomous discipline. In J. N. Rosenau (Ed.), International politics and foreign policy: A reader in research and theory (pp. 18–23). New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.
• McClelland, C. A. (1961). The social sciences, history, and international relations. In J. N. Rosenau (Ed.), International politics and foreign policy: A reader in research and theory (pp. 24–35). New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics . New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
• Modelski, G. (1986). Long cycles in world politics . Seattle: University of Washington Press.
• Modelski, G. , & Thompson, W. R. (1996). Leading sectors and world politics: The coevolution of global economics and politics . Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
• Morgenthau, H. J. (1967). Review of H. Butterfield and M. Wight, Diplomatic Investigations . Political Science Quarterly , 82 (3), 461–463.
• Morgenthau, H. J. (2006). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (7th ed.) ( K. W. Thompson & W. D. Clinton , Rev.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. (Originally published in 1948.)
• Neustadt, R. E. , & May, E. R. (1986). Thinking in time: The uses of history for decision-makers . New York, NY: Free Press.
• Olson, W. C. (1972). The growth of a discipline. In B. Porter (Ed.), The Aberystwyth papers (pp. 3–29). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Organski, A. F. K. (1968). World politics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Knopf. (Originally published in 1958.)
• Organski, A. F. K. , & Kugler, J. (1980). The war ledger . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Polybius . (1922–1927). Histories (6 vols.) ( W. R. Paton , Trans.). Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Originally written in the 2nd century bce .)
• Popper, K. (1986). The poverty of historicism . London, UK: Ark. (Originally published in 1957.)
• Renouvin, P. , & Duroselle, J. B. (1967). Introduction to the history of international relations ( M. Ilford , Trans.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. (Originally published in 1963.)
• Rosecrance, R. N. (1963). Action and reaction in world politics: International systems in perspective . Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
• Schroeder, P. W. (1994). Historical reality vs. neo-realist theory. International Security , 19 (1), 108–148.
• Schroeder, P. W. (1997). History and international relations theory: Not use or abuse, but fit or misfit. International Security , 22 (1), 64–74.
• Schroeder, P. W. (2001). International history: Why historians do it differently than political scientists. In C. Elman & M. F. Elman (Eds.), Bridges and boundaries: Historians, political scientists, and the study of international relations (pp. 403–416). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Schweller, R. L. (1998). Deadly imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler’s strategy of world conquest . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
• Singer, J. D. (1969). The incompleat theorist: Insight without evidence. In K. Knorr & J. N. Rosenau (Eds.), Contending approaches to international politics (pp. 62–86). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Singer, J. D. (1979–1980). The correlates of war (2 vols.). New York, NY: Free Press.
• Sokal, A. (2008). Beyond the hoax: Science, philosophy and culture . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Strachan, H. (2008). Strategy and the limitation of war. Survival , 50 (1), 31–54.
• Suzuki, S. , Zhang, Y. , & Quirk, J. (2014). International orders in the early modern world: Before the rise of the West . Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
• Thucydides . (1972). History of the Peloponnesian War ( R. Warner , Trans.). London, UK: Penguin. (Originally written ca. 431–399 bce .)
• Toynbee, A. J. (1934–1961). A study of history (12 vols.). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Toynbee, A. J. (1956). A study of history: What I am trying to do. In M. F. Ashley Montagu (Ed.), Toynbee and history: Critical essays and reviews (pp. 3–7). Boston, MA: Porter Sargent.
• Trachtenberg, M. (2006). The craft of international history: A guide to method . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Von Laue, T. H. (1950). Leopold Ranke: The formative years . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Wallerstein, I. (2011). The modern world system (4 vols.). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Vols. 1–3 originally published 1974–1989.)
• Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Watson, A. (1992). The evolution of international society . London, UK: Routledge.
• White, H. (1973). Metahistory . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Wight, M. (1977). Systems of states ( H. Bull , Ed.). Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press.
• Wight, M. (1978). Power politics ( H. Bull & C. Holbraad , Eds.). Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press in association with the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London.
• Wohlforth, W. C. (2001). Postscript: Historical science and Cold War scholarship. In C. Elman & M. F. Elman (Eds.), Bridges and boundaries: Historians, political scientists, and the study of international relations (pp. 351–358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Wright, Q. (1965). A study of war (2nd ed., with a commentary on war since 1942). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Originally published in 1942.)

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 04 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|109.248.223.228]
• 109.248.223.228

Character limit 500 /500

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Importance of International Relations.pdf

Related Papers

Widening the World of International Relations

Ersel Aydinli

Naomi Kariuki

International Relations and Diplomacy for the Curious

Nicholas Wright

Global Networks

Annette Freyberg-Inan

Inspired by recent research on the dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks, in this article I apply its basic arguments and findings to the study of integrative processes in the international system. Employing the logic of network models we can learn, by analogy, from fields as diverse as neural science and forest fire prevention, much about the likely changes caused in the international political environment by increased interaction among its various units. I first explain recent developments in network theory and demonstrate their relevance for the study of international politics and economics. I then develop the most important insights to be transferred from network theory to the study of globalization. Network theory suggests that our world truly ‘shrinks’ only to the extent that relations among international actors cross pre-existing alliances or cooperative arrangements. Making the world a single place seems to require flexibility in forming attachments with other actors which goes beyond culturally and historically justified efforts at exchange and cooperation.

Sughra Batool

Shubham Srivastava

Journal of global media studies : gms = ジャーナル・オブ・グローバル・メディア・スタディーズ

Atsushi Shibasaki

Globalization: The Key Concepts, 2nd edition

Thomas Hylland Eriksen

Although the term globalization is recent and came into widespread use only in the early 1990s, the phenomena to whidt it refers are older, since transnational connections have existed far longer. However, global consciousness, the awareness of being part of global networks, is recent as a mass phenomenon. Globalization refers to transnational connectedness and encompasses impoftant economic, political, cultural, and environmental dimensions. lt creates new opportunities and constraints, possibilities and vulnerabilities. ln most parts of the world, there is a continuous tension between globalizing and localizing tendencies, and this relationship constitutes the central dialectic of globalization.

sajjad Ali balouch

Definitions of IR Jeromy Bentham was the first person to use the word "international", in the later 18 th century, with regards to defining the relations between nation-states. A restricted definition of IR confines its focus to official relations and excludes relations other than the official from the purview of international relations. From a broader view, IR may refer to all forms of interactions between members of separate societies, whether government sponsored or not. The study of IR includes analysis of foreign policies or political processes between nations, and also focuses on international trade and civil society interaction. Ingredients of IR The study of IR involves looking at the nature and principal forces of international organization as well as the political, social, economic organization of political life. IR is also concerned with an examination of elements of national power, including the limitation of national power and examining how it can be controlled. IR also focuses on the instruments available for promotion of national interest, with foreign policies of major powers and of smaller (strategic) powers and considers other historical ingredients as a background for events affecting the current sphere of International Relations. International Politics vs. International Relations IR is wider in scope than international politics. International politics focuses on various styles of politics: the politics of violence, the politics of persuasion, hierarchical policies and pluralistic politics. Yet IR embraces the totality of relations among people and groups of people in global society, which go beyond looking at political forces to an examination of socio-cultural and economic processes as well. League of Nations WWI had caused 20 million deaths in 4 years. For the first time ever, there was a global consensus on the need for collective security and a focus on the need for prevention of war. Nations attempted to put to practice the ideas of public voting by diplomats in international organizations; the rule of law; the promise of disarmament and foreign policies based on disarmament via the formulation of the League of Nations.

RELATED PAPERS

Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology

Mohammad-Kazem Zarabian

Juscimar Silva

arXiv: Differential Geometry

Alfonso Romero

Revista Sustentabilidade e Gestão

SORAYA EL-DEIR , Marcos Pereira de Araújo

Sandy Manchare

Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science

Sri Maharani

Journal of Medical Microbiology

Elisabeth Nagy

Research, Society and Development

Jamile de Almeida Santos

Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal

Alaa Mosleh

REVISTA CIÊNCIAS EM SAÚDE

Michael Machado

Carlos Alberto Gonzalez Caldera

Mateus Pediriva

Nicola Lupo

michael busler

Mitochondrion

Nourhene Fendri

eProceedings of Applied Science

Anang Sularsa

Journal of the American Chemical Society

Sun Palumbo

Journal of Learning for Development

Anwar Rumjaun

Kidney International Reports

hjhjgfg freghrf

Rafał Sulikowski

World Journal of Surgery

Dan Rodriguez

International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research

Buhari Muhammad

Borbála Paksi

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Cooperation Importance in International Relations Essay

Nowadays, it became a commonplace practice among many Western (specifically American) politicians to suggest that the realities of post-modernity presuppose the eventual transformation of the very paradigm of international relations (I.R.) from having been concerned with the ongoing competition between the world’s countries, into the instrument of prompting these countries to choose in favour of cooperating with each other instead. For example, in 1992 the future U.S. President Clinton stated, “In a world where freedom, not tyranny, is on the march, the cynical calculus of pure power politics simply does not compute. It is ill-suited to a new era” (Kegley, 2008, p. 39).

In the aftermath of Russia’s recent reclaim of Crimea, the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry again pointed out that the 21 st century’s politics are somehow different from those of the 19 th century: “The U.S. and our allies must not hesitate to use 21st-century tools to hold Russia accountable for 19th-century behaviour” (Crittenden 2014, par 7). While coming up with this kind of statements, the mentioned politicians revealed the fact that, willingly or unwillingly, they can be well deemed the proponents of the Constructivist paradigm of I.R. In its turn, political Constructivism derives out of the assumption that, as time goes on, the principle of competition affects the geopolitical positioning of the world’s states to a progressively lesser degree – not the least, due to these states’ formal willingness to observe the provisions of the so-called ‘international law’, supposedly enforced by the U.N. Hence, the Constructionist belief that, “The external environment does not determine a state’s behaviour… regulative and constitutive norms, shared understandings, and common practice (do)” (Jervis, 1998, p. 976).

Therefore, it is indeed fully appropriate to refer to political Constructivism as being conceptually incompatible with political Realism – the theory, which promotes the idea that historical progress has no effect, whatsoever, on the actual nature of international politics. The line of political realists’ argumentation, in this respect, can be outlined as follows: Given the fact that the realities of today’s living grow ever more technologically advanced, there can be only a few doubts that humanity indeed remains on the linear path of progress. Because humanity consists of human societies (the most powerful/advanced of which enjoy the benefits of statehood), we can well assume that the earlier mentioned progress is being reflective of the fact that these societies continue to develop, in the qualitative sense of this word. And, as biologists are well aware of – completion is the actual ‘fuel’ of development. Any possible objections to this idea, political realists reject by the mean of pointing out to the sheer universality of the Darwinian laws of evolution.

After all, the representatives of the Homo Sapiens species, out of which human societies consist, are thoroughly ‘biological’, which means that Darwinian laws apply to them (and consequently to human societies/countries), as much as they apply to plants and animals. This, of course, suggests that, regardless of what happened to be the officially adopted political/social ideology in a particular country, this country can never cease being completely preoccupied with ensuring its ‘place under the Sun’ – even if the latter can be accomplished at the expense of denying the same opportunity to other competing countries. Hence, the main principle of Realism’s methodological approach to dealing the IR-related subject matters: “The international environment severely penalizes states if they fail to protect their vital interests… (states) behave as unitary – rational agents… states in anarchy are preoccupied with power and security, are predisposed towards conflict and competition, and often fail to cooperate” (Grieco 1988, p. 488).

According to the theory of political Realism, the actual agenda of just about every country on this planet is being solely concerned with:

• political/economic expansion,
• maintenance of political stability within,
• destabilization of competing states.

What it means is that the very idea of cooperation between the states, embodied in the continual existence of a number of international organizations (such as the U.N.), is essentially misleading, because it is utterly arrogant of the true nature of IR. It appears that the very emergence of Constructivism, as a political theory, was meant to serve as the tool for the most powerful Western countries, to continue enjoying their undisputed dominance.

The fact that it is specifically the theory of political Realism, which adequately describes the mechanics of how the geopolitical interrelationship between the world’s countries, can be easily illustrated, in regards to the outbreak of the so-called ‘orange revolutions’ in Tunis, Libya, Egypt, Syria and the most recently – Ukraine. The most peculiar aspect of these ‘revolutions’ is that they were wholeheartedly supported by only the world’s country, which along with promoting the idea of international cooperation, claims to possess the unilateral right to interpret the meaning of the notion of democracy – the U.S. (Byman 2012).

The official (Constructivist) reason for America to adopt the earlier mentioned stance, has to do with this country’s formal commitment to the ideals of democratic living. It is needless to mention, of course, this America’s stance can be best described as being rather irrational, as it correlates with the Constructivist assumption that a particular country’s role, in the arena of international politics, should be discussed within the context of ‘good’ vs ‘evil’ –something that only irrationally minded people may find plausible.

Nevertheless, in light of the Realist idea that just about any world country never ceases to act as a ‘rational agent’, the nature of America’s affiliation with the mentioned ‘orange revolutions’, appears to have very little to do with the country’s commitment to the ideals of democracy. Rather, it reflects the American policy-makers’ strive to prevent the collapse of the U.S. economy, due to the staggering budget deficit of $12 trillion. What can be considered the most effective strategy, in this respect? It would be contributing to the escalation of international tensions – preferably to the point when they are being transformed into the armed conflict (Talbot 2000).

Apparently, ever since 2010, these policy-makers realized that it represents the matter of crucial importance for the U.S. to restore the investment-appeal of its currency – something that could be done by the mean of setting the ‘spots of instability’ all over the world. The logic behind this is simple – in times of instability, corporate investors are naturally driven to acquire the currency of what happened to be the most military potent country. What it means is that, by having turned Tunis, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine into the battlegrounds of a civil war, America was able to increase the appeal of its ‘treasury bonds significantly’, the selling of which abroad represents the actual key to the country’s continual prosperity. The reason for this is that, for as long as the world’s countries are willing to acquire the ‘U.S. treasuries’, the FRS is being in the position to continue increasing its production of tons and tons of the valueless ‘green paper’ (the U.S. currency), so that it could be traded in exchange for the world’s de facto valuable natural resources (Chen 2010).

Given the fact that, as it was illustrated earlier, the promotion of a particular country’s agenda can be only ensured at the expense of suppressing that of the competing states, it is fully explainable why the functioning of the world’s major international organizations (the U.N., the U.N. Security Council, the OSCE, etc.), cannot be discussed outside of what accounts for the balance of geopolitical powers on Earth. As of today, the subtleties of this balance are being concerned with the ongoing economic, political and potentially military confrontation between the U.S. and its allies, on the one hand, and the countries of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), on the other.

In its turn, this presupposes that the concept of ‘international law’, in the classical sense of this word, is nothing but a myth. After all, as the Realist theory and the current international developments imply, in the arena of international politics, there can be only one law – the ‘law of jungles’. What it means is that the very nature of IR naturally implies that, contrary to what many people believe it to be the case, the functioning of the mentioned international organizations has very little to do with the country-members’ willingness to cooperate. Rather, these organizations are there to serve the purpose of providing an official ‘cover’ for the West to pursue with the policy of exploiting the rest of the world economically, under the excuse of promoting the ideals of democracy – pure and simple.

The validity of this statement can be well illustrated, in regards to the fact that even though, in the discursive sense of this word, there is no difference there between the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo and the 2014 declaration of independence by the Crimea, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) addressed both events in the diametrically opposite manners. Whereas the ICJ thoroughly supported Kosovars as ‘fighters for freedom’, who well deserved to have a country of their own, it denied the same right to the Russian-speaking Crimeans, who in the aftermath of the 2014 CIA-sponsored ‘orange’ coup in Kyiv, refused to continue living in the country, ruled by the essentially Nazi-government. In the eyes of the ICJ, the latter is nothing but ‘lowly separatists’ and the recently held Crimean referendum, during the course of which 96.7% of the peninsula’s residents voted in favour of joining Russia, has no legal power, whatsoever (Yonah 2014).

Another example. During the 2012 Presidential elections in Russia, the OSCE’s high-ranking officials never ceased screaming ‘bloody murder’ on account of what they considered these elections’ lack of commitment to the democratic standards of political voting, adopted in the West. In regards to the Presidential in Ukraine (scheduled to take place on May 25, 2014), the same officials are now singing an altogether different ‘song’. According to the OSCE, these elections will be thoroughly legitimate and ‘democratic’. This is despite the fact that, as of today, Ukraine remains in the state of a civil war, and the fact that one of the Presidential candidates (Dmytro Yarosh) is the head of the neo-Nazi paramilitary organization ‘Right Sector’, which in turn is being placed in charge of guarding the polling stations, where citizens are expected to cast their ballots (McLaughlinn 2014).

Nevertheless, it would be wrong to refer to the above-mentioned, as the indication that the continued functioning of a number of different international organizations, such as the ICJ and OSCE, reflects these organizations’ tendency to apply ‘double standards’ when it comes to addressing geopolitical dynamics in the world. Because it is specifically Western countries, which control the organizations in question, there is nothing incidental about the concerned phenomena. While acting on behalf of the West, these organizations remain fully observant of the only de facto principle of ‘international cooperation’ – favouring just about anything that can weaken Russia/China (the West’s main rivalries) and condemning those international developments that may potentially benefit the mentioned countries.

Therefore, contrary to what many naïve people believe, the qualitative essence of today’s IR is the same, as what it has always been, throughout the course of history. Apparently, there can be only two modes for just about any country’s existence – growing progressively more powerful, by the mean of sucking ‘life juices’ out of its less fortunate competitors or becoming ever more weakened, as the ultimate consequence of having proved evolutionary unfit (a ‘failed state’). What it means is that, in full accordance with the provisions of political Realism, there is simply no way for the world’s countries to refer to the notion of cooperation, as such that has a value of a ‘thing in itself’. If they do, it is solely for the purpose of concealing whatever happened to their ‘realist’ agenda. America’s struggle to ensure that the ideals of ‘democracy’ prevail in specifically the world’s resource-rich countries, illustrates the validity of this suggestion more than anything else does.

Works Cited

Byman, D 2012, ‘Regime change in the Middle East: problems and prospects’, Political Science Quarterly , vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 25-46. Web.

Chen, S 2010, ‘Super imperialism: the origin of fundamentals of U.S. world dominance’, World Review of Political Economy , vol.1, no. 2, pp. 336-345. Web.

Crittenden, M 2004, Kerry accuses Russia of stoking fresh unrest in Eastern Ukraine . Web.

Grieco, J 1998, ‘Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest Liberal institutionalism’, International Organization , vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 485-507. Web.

Jervis, R 1998, ‘Realism in the study of world politics’, International Organization , vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 971-991. Web.

Kegley, C 2008, World politics: trend and transformation , Cengage Learning, Boston. Web.

McLaughlin, D 2014, ‘Right Sector trades violent protest for ballot box: As he bids for presidency, leader denies fascism and Russophobia’, Irish Times , 10 March, p. 8. Web.

Talbot, K 2000, ‘The real reasons for war in Yugoslavia: backing up globalization with military might’, Social Justice , vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 94-116. Web.

Todes, D 2009, ‘Global Darwin: contempt for competition’, Nature , vol. 462, no. 7269, pp. 36-37. Web.

Yonah, J 2014, ‘Comparing Crimea and Kosovo’, Jerusalem Post , p. 14. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, May 25). Cooperation Importance in International Relations. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cooperation-importance-in-international-relations/

"Cooperation Importance in International Relations." IvyPanda , 25 May 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/cooperation-importance-in-international-relations/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Cooperation Importance in International Relations'. 25 May.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Cooperation Importance in International Relations." May 25, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cooperation-importance-in-international-relations/.

1. IvyPanda . "Cooperation Importance in International Relations." May 25, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cooperation-importance-in-international-relations/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Cooperation Importance in International Relations." May 25, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cooperation-importance-in-international-relations/.

• Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
• Objective Structured Clinical Examination
• International Court of Justice: Definition, History and Importance
• International Court of Justice in Hague
• Chad Vs Libya Territorial Dispute Of the Aouzo Strip
• Principle of International Law
• Article 30 of the Convention Against Torture
• Terrorism: the Victim of Terrorism and of Mechanisms to Combat It
• Classical and Structural Realism
• Legal & Ethical Environment for Business
• The USA as the Policeman of the World
• "The Future Attempt" by Joseph Nye
• Great Debates on International Relations Theories
• The International Relations’ Theories Concept and Aspects
• “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory” by Robert Cox

15 Pros and Cons of Studying International Relations

In today’s interconnected world, international relations play an important role. They encompass political, economic, social, and environmental relationships among sovereign countries, international institutions, non-governmental organizations, international corporations, as well as public institutions at various levels. Understanding this complex field is crucial to comprehending global issues. Studying international relations offers rewarding insights into the political-economic as well as social dynamics shaping our world. However, like any other major discipline, it has both advantages and disadvantages to consider when deciding whether to pursue it or not. Here are some pros and cons that should be considered while choosing whether it’s worth studying international relations:

Pros of Studying International Relations

Studying international relations offers a myriad of benefits for those interested in understanding global dynamics and pursuing careers in diplomacy , government, non-profits, or academia. Here are some of the pros of studying international relations:

#1. Wide-ranging career opportunities

Studying international relations opens many career options in both the public and private sectors. Graduates use their skills for diplomacy, government agencies, non-profit organizations, think tanks, and multinational corporations.

For example, a degree in international relations can lead to such positions as a diplomat representing one’s country in foreign affairs or an analyst at an international organization like the United Nations.

#2. Greater cultural understanding

International relations studies train students to become culturally competent by exposing them to other cultures, languages, and common societal norms. Such knowledge is critical in helping a person navigate across global relationships and work effectively with persons from diverse backgrounds.

So, US citizens, when studying the politics of the Middle East, can gain insight into the complex interplay between religion and politics in countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

#3. Development of critical thinking skills

Analyzing complex global issues requires strong critical thinking skills. International relations courses teach students to critically evaluate arguments, gather evidence from various sources, and draw logical conclusions based on empirical data.

#4. Enhanced communication skills

If you want to get a degree in international relations, effective communication is a must. For example, diplomats have to negotiate treaties or even mediate conflicts while considering multiple perspectives and ensuring clear communication to reach mutually beneficial outcomes.

So, an important “pro” of studying international relations is that you’ll greatly improve your written and verbal communication skills. You’ll be able to engage with diverse audiences and convey complex ideas clearly both in your native and foreign language.

#5. Social awareness

The next benefit of this degree is that you can foster a sense of social responsibility. By exploring issues like poverty, human rights violations , global health crises, and inequality, you will take a deep look at the most acute world issues. Thus, IR is inspiring students to work towards making positive global changes.

#6. Knowledge of current events

Apart from enhanced communication and social awareness, you will concentrate on contemporary global issues like climate change, human rights violations, or political conflict. IR students keep themselves updated regarding current affairs through coursework. It helps them understand the real-world implications of these events.

#7. Personal development

By examining different perspectives and analyzing complex issues, students become more intellectually mature and develop their individual points of view on global matters—enhancing personal growth outside academia too.

#8. Ability to navigate global networks

Studying international relations enables students to develop skills necessary for building as well as maintaining valuable connections within a global network of professional people.

For example, alumni associations or professional organizations devoted to international relations enable graduates to broaden their connections by attending conferences, workshops, and networking events. These networks help in career advancement while offering collaboration opportunities across various fields.

#9. Engaging Coursework

An international relations curriculum often covers exciting topics like global governance structures (such as United Nations), globalization impacts on societies (such as migration patterns), human rights issues (such as refugee crises), and environmental sustainability (such as climate change agreements). This engaging coursework keeps students up-to-date with current events while expanding their knowledge base.

#10. Policy analysis skills

International relations teach students to analyze and evaluate public policies, making them able contributors toward effectively formulating well-informed policies.

#11. Problem-solving abilities

Students studying international relations develop problem-solving skills in finding out solutions for complex global problems. They learn how to assess multiple factors influencing an issue and formulate effective strategies based on that analysis.

For instance, when taking into account the humanitarian crisis caused by contemporary conflicts, students gain insight into different stakeholders’ motivations and recommend policies addressing root causes as well as short-term relief efforts.

#12. Pursuit of peace and justice

Studying international relations often ignites a passion for tackling global issues related to peacebuilding initiatives or promoting social justice across borders. It inspires students to make positive changes at both local and global levels through activism or public service careers.

Many international relations graduates opt to work for non-governmental organizations involved in humanitarian aid projects or human rights advocacy groups to contribute to global betterment.

#13. Historical contextualization

Understanding international history enables students to contextualize current events within broader historical narratives and appreciate the long-term implications of certain political processes.

#14. Flexibility for further studies or specialization

A degree in international relations provides a solid foundation that allows individuals to further specialize or pursue advanced degrees in fields such as law, public policy, business administration, or regional studies (e.g., Middle Eastern studies).

For instance, someone interested in security studies could further specialize by pursuing a Master’s degree focusing on counter-terrorism strategies or cybersecurity policies.

#15. Understanding core institutions

Students gain a comprehensive understanding of key institutions in global governance, such as the United Nations or World Trade Organization which are crucial for comprehending global affairs.

Cons of Studying International Relations

Studying international relations can be rewarding and open one’s horizon to many possibilities. But it is necessary not to forget the challenges and drawbacks involved. Here are some of the cons of studying international relations:

#1. Complexity and frustration

Achieving this degree involves understanding complex concepts, theories, and international systems. Sometimes the sheer depths of the subject matter can overwhelm students in their assignments.

Understanding different ideologies, political systems, and world issues calls for dedication as well as persistence. This complexity could make it quite hard for students to grasp and analyze all the interconnected issues.

#2. Emotional toll

Studying international relations requires a body of knowledge about troublesome events across the globe, such as war crimes, human rights violations, and poverty . Students likely would experience an emotional toll in dealing with difficult subjects by merely being exposed to them.

#3. Constant change and uncertainty

International relations are affected by ever-changing political landscapes, economic trends, and technological advancements accompanied by a shifting societal structure. The permanent flux makes forecasting global outcomes difficult.

Brexit is a prime example where many experts underestimated the impact it would have on the European Union (EU) member-states economies and Britain’s geopolitical standing on the global stage.

#4. Complicated data analysis

Many theories in international relations use quantitative analysis to make sense of global trends and patterns. This aspect might be difficult if you have a problem working with statistics or data analysis software.

#5. Language barriers

International relations entail studying different cultures and getting their perspectives understood. Language can be a barrier to effective communication in diplomatic negotiations or while conducting fieldwork.

Take, for example, diplomatic negotiations between Chinese officials speaking Mandarin and American diplomats speaking English; misinterpretations due to cultural nuances or language disparities can potentially derail productive discussions.

#6. Ethical dilemmas

Studying international relations confronts students with ethical dilemmas related to governance systems, human rights abuses, environmental concerns, global inequality, and military interventions. Balancing different perspectives can be emotionally challenging.

#7. Limited practical experience

While studying international relations provides theoretical knowledge, it often lacks hands-on experience, which can make it challenging to apply concepts in the real world.

#8. Lack of tangible results

Efforts to resolve conflicts or address global challenges in international relations often yield limited tangible outcomes. Despite efforts, achieving lasting peace or resolving complex issues can be elusive or take years to materialize.

For example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has persisted for decades, with numerous peace processes and diplomatic negotiations failing to achieve a sustainable solution that satisfies all parties involved.

#9. Career uncertainty

While students studying international relations might want to work for a specific country, it does not promise particular job opportunities. Graduates might face stiff competition in getting jobs in desired fields, with volatility of the job markets.

Many graduates of an international relations degree find themselves applying for such varied roles as policy analysts, journalists, consultants or higher education because of the scarcity of specialized positions.

#10. Security risks

International relations students working in conflict-prone regions may face security risks associated with political violence of terrorism .  Journalists covering war zones are not immune to physical danger as they document conflict situations and report on geopolitical developments across the world.

#11. Bias in academic discourse

Scholars’ biases and inte­llectual frameworks rooted in their specific cultural or national backgrounds often shape inte­rnational relations theories, pote­ntially thwarting objective analysis for students.

#12. Need for constant learning

In the ever-changing landscape of international relations, professionals must continuously update their knowledge and skills throughout their careers. This requirement for life-long learning can be grueling in terms of both effort and time investment.

#13. Personal sacrifice

A future caree­r in international relations of­ten de­mands long working hours and frequent travels. So, it puts at risk your pe­rsonal relationships and results in limited stability or social life­ for the individuals involved.

What's the importance of international education?

You are here: american university school of international service news what's the importance of international education.

Back to top

We spoke with SIS Hurst Senior Professorial Lecturer and AU VP of Campus Life Fanta Aw about the importance of international education.

What is international education?

International education is about the mobility of students and scholars who go to another part of the world to study, research, or teach. It's not only about the mobility of students, both in and out of the US, but it's also about research scholars who come to the US to do research, faculty who go to other destinations to teach, and those who do community-based service learning. The primary goals of international education are furthering knowledge and cultural capital, learning about places and cultures, and gaining intercultural skills in the process.

International education has existed throughout time and, throughout time, people have sought education elsewhere in order to better their lives, in order to contribute to their societies and communities, and in order to better equip themselves as citizens of their respective countries. It's not just the US that's been engaged in this activity; many nation states have participated in this kind of work.

What is the importance of international education, and who benefits from it?

You can think about the benefits of international education on several levels. One is international education and the benefit to the individual in pursuit of education, research, or teaching. Another way to think about it is through the nation states engaged in international education: how and why might a government decide to provide scholarships or other mechanisms encouraging citizens to acquire an education overseas? It may be trying to equip citizens with a level of education and knowledge so they can return and contribute to the economy or to in-demand fields in their country. International education may be a form of cultural diplomacy. Employers also have a stake in international education. Some employers incentivize their employees to go and acquire credentials elsewhere because, in this global economy, companies need a workforce with the capacity, skills, and talents to compete globally.

Why would you encourage SIS students to study internationally?

I think international education, particularly in a global economy, is a very important part of a 21st century education. In the world that we live in, no one is an island to themselves, so we need to expose students to the world out there. There are opportunities to learn from all different parts of the world. And now more than ever, isolationists are not who we want to be.

For any student of international relations to have a nuanced understanding of the field, there is value studying abroad. One, studying abroad provides you with varying perspectives on a subject matter. And two, studying abroad contextualizes international relations so that you understand the global dimensions of your work. If you are studying international relations, you need to understand the frame of reference for that work. If you are a student of international development, how do you best study the different aspects and complexity of issues in international development? If you are a student of peace and conflict resolution, how do you study that topic both from a theoretical perspective and from lived experiences of folks in conflict zones and in conflict situations around the world? As you think about all the different fields of study at the School of International Service (SIS), it is important to have a clear understanding of real, lived experiences and of the human condition. Through international education, students are exposed to different perspectives and important nuances.

It's important, particularly for US students, to study abroad. European students understand the value of studying abroad because there is a lot more mobility in the European Union. African students are the most mobile of any group of students in the world. Students in Asia and other places all understand the value of studying outside of their home countries. But how you immerse yourself in the social, cultural, and all the different aspects of a new place is also important. And sometimes what we see is that students move around and study abroad, but they live in bubbles where they try to replicate what they have experienced here in the United States. That's not the real value of an international education. International education requires immersive learning.

I think that we are quite fortunate that, at SIS, most students understand the value of international engagements. They understand that it is not enough to study a country or topic in a classroom setting-you need to go and experience what you study.

Do you have suggestions for how SIS students studying abroad can immerse themselves in new places and cultures?

First, find yourself in situations where you are uncomfortable, where you struggle because you need to communicate with people who speak a different language. There is growth and learning in that. And there is value in learning another language. Being either bilingual or multilingual is a real asset; you can navigate the world in different ways and also gain insight and perspective. Language is a powerful tool for understanding culture.

Second, it's important to not be in a bubble. Part of not being in a bubble is venturing out and discovering the world. And in that process of learning about the world, you will actually learn a lot about yourself. As you go and discover the world abroad, find intentional ways to engage. Engage with the people that you encounter. Engage in subject matters in different ways and with a different lens. Challenge yourself. In that process, you will grow intellectually, personally, and socially.

The third thing I would say to students is that it is all about perspective. Part of learning and understanding the complex, challenging issues of our time requires that you be exposed to multiple perspectives on issues. You can learn that in a classroom or from a theory, but there is nothing that can substitute the human relations part of perspective. When you are overseas, you see the issues on the ground from a different perspective, and that can only enhance and enrich your learning.

Lastly, take advantage of the fact that you have international students on your campus. International students are important cultural translators and cultural ambassadors. The fact that we have international students from all parts of the world means that your learning can begin on this campus. If you read about a specific issue or a specific part of the world, talk to someone who may be from there. Their perspective may not fully represent all people from that part of the world, but it can certainly provide you with another insight. Let's increase engagement between our domestic and international students. It will serve all of us well because our international students have a lot to offer.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

1 The Importance of International Law

• Published: April 2001
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter discusses that across the board, international law is an important part of the structure of our international society. It adds that states accept it as such, and their record in observing it bears comparison with the level of law observance in many countries. It stresses that international law is a part of the structure for it is an integral part of it and not an optional extra; and that it is but one part in the overall equation — important, but not to the exclusion of other parts. It explains that the importance of international law is a function of its effectiveness and its ability to respond to change. Both, at the present time and for the most part, are adequate, but perhaps only just. It adds that neither can be taken away for granted. It clarifies that both need attention and development within a framework of respect for the international rule of law, if a stable international order is to prevail.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.