International Relations

A Beginner's Guide

Charles Jones

• Publisher: Oneworld Publications
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781780743042
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Today, more than ever, we live in a global world. Whether it's war, economics, politics, or law, our lives are influenced by a complex web of cross-border transactions.Dr Charles Jones ably provides the building blocks to understand these interactions, outlining the competing theories that attempt to explain them. Arguing that the strength of International Relations lies in its contradictions – it's not a single discipline but a fascinating mess of history, politics, economics, sociology, law, anthropology, and cultural studies – he provides a lively discussion of the limitations of the field, but also why it is so essential.Covering conflict, history, and theory, and with a major focus on the global economy, this is the perfect primer for aspiring students of International Relations, workers in an international context, and citizens across the globe.

1
What is international relations?

Many people pay little attention to what’s going on beyond their own local community. For the poorest, the world over, securing food and shelter dominates their lives. For those with means and leisure, news bulletins and foreign holidays provide windows on the wider world, but the glass can be pretty frosty.

However, year after year more and more people cross national frontiers seeking employment or sanctuary. When they do so, they are responding to the kinds of forces examined in this book, most of all market incentives and organized violence. But Colombian taxi drivers in New York, Somali refugees in London, or North European tourists in Marrakesh have little incentive to move beyond the cultural bubble formed by their compatriots in Queens, Tower Hamlets, or the hotels of the Marrakech Palmeraie. Cheap transport, Skype, e-mail, and access to media in other languages make it easier than ever to opt out of integration. This sort of globalization often leads to merely superficial interaction between nations.

So who really cares about international relations? Who wants to know, and why? Who needs to know? In the past, this was quite simple. International relations were generally understood as relations between states, conducted through their heads of state, ministries of foreign affairs, diplomatic corps, and armed forces. It followed that international relations were the business of a restricted elite of experts, generally from wealthy and powerful families, who embarked on a career in public service with a good general education, learning the crafts of statesmanship, diplomacy, and soldiering on the job. It was also assumed that each state housed one nation, for whom the state could speak with authority. Hence ‘inter-national relations’.

There is ample reason to doubt the accuracy of this description of world politics. Many states have several distinct nations within their frontiers, keen to assert themselves in the wider world. Many are home to recently arrived communities whose members still identify with their country of origin as much as their new home, and may take an active part in its politics. Some states have a firm administrative grip on the whole of their territory; others control little beyond their seat of government, the remainder being governed by insurgent groups who effectively operate their own foreign policies. Some states maintain tight central control over external relations; others give considerable latitude to several ministries and other agencies to negotiate with their peers. Most are fully independent, but some have effectively lost sovereignty for a time following war or disaster, or else have sub-contracted some of their functions to non-governmental organizations staffed by expatriates. In short, the neat world in which professional diplomats and political leaders had exclusive command of international relations has long gone, if indeed it ever existed. Many others are now involved.

Commerce is also an important factor in international relations. Long-distance trade is as old as civilization itself, and merchants have always had a keen interest in knowing which routes were safest and which markets and commodities most profitable. More recently, cheap transport has made it commonplace to cross national frontiers in search of employment or higher education.

Many religions have spread beyond their country of origin, often following lucrative trade routes or victorious armies. The faithful cross boundaries for religious instruction, as pilgrims, as missionaries, and to find suitable marriage partners. Religious practice around the world is sometimes enjoined by law, sometimes merely consistent with it, and sometimes at odds with it. The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on contraception, abortion, and divorce, for example, are not reflected in French legislation any more than are the views of other faith communities on polygamy or the veiling of women. Religious leaders, like traders, have needed to understand and work within the wider world.

When journeys for leisure and business purposes are also considered, cross-frontier travel becomes a significant element in the world economy, estimated at around fourteen percent of world product.

Relations between states are no longer handled solely by heads of government and their foreign ministers. Ministries of commerce, environment, foreign aid, finance, and justice are just a few of those now dealing routinely with one another and with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), more or less independently of their countries’ foreign ministries. Very often such dealings are regulated by international agreements and are routinely handled by organizations such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.

Heads of government now often deal with urgent and conflictive issues by meeting face to face, a task which would once have been the province of diplomats. In some regions of the world, most notably Europe, relations between states have gone beyond co-operation to something approaching federation. This has required the creation of substantial administrative and political structures, such as the European Commission in Brussels and the parliament in Strasbourg.

Meanwhile, improvements in transport and communications have made it possible for large firms to operate globally. Transnational corporations such as Toyota, BP (formerly British Petroleum), HSBC (formerly the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation), or Coca Cola employ hundreds of thousands of people in dozens of countries. Strictly speaking, these firms are international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), but that phrase is more often used to describe not-for-profits such as Greenpeace, Oxfam, or Amnesty International. Finally, the world’s armed forces, once exclusively devoted to defence or conquest, are now very often charged with peacekeeping, state-building, and economic development tasks in parts of the world weakened by conflict or threatened by insurgency. Officers are called upon to use political and diplomatic skills as they strive to run hospitals or airports far from home.

Whole nations feel the effects of these cross-border flows. The numbers of migrant workers and the monies they send to their countries of origin (remittances) bear witness to this, as do the residents of the world’s semi-permanent refugee camps. Seeking asylum in countries less brutal than their own, refugees often experience hostility or indifference in their host countries.

Together, national politicians and civil servants with international responsibilities, the staff of international governmental organizations, entrepreneurs and managers operating across frontiers, the expatriate staff of NGOs, and the world’s officer corps number hundreds of thousands if not millions. As they channel resources from one country to another and engage in humanitarian interventions and post-conflict development programmes, these people conduct international relations and grow to understand them first hand. The best justification for the academic study of international relations, as it has developed over the past century, is its provision, for these practitioners, of a coherent view of the whole complex pattern of political, social, and economic relations within which they act: a gateway into their professions or an opportunity for critical reflection on existing practice.

If the extraordinary growth in the numbers directly and practically concerned in the conduct of international relations accounts for the demand for relevant reading and degree programmes, the supply side has been driven by a different set of concerns. The motives of educators have been various. Back in the 1920s some of the founders of university departments and organizations such as the US Council on Foreign Relations believed that the lack of democratic control over foreign policy had been a leading cause of war. They hoped that more-informed publics would be able to prevent any repeat of the catastrophe of August 1914, when Europe was plunged into four years of destructive warfare. Understanding the causes of war would help avert it. More broadly, they believed that understanding global markets and Great Power politics might help those at risk from these forces to achieve some degree of independence and freedom.

That liberal belief in the value of an informed citizenry survives in the school curricula of many wealthy democracies, but its scope has widened markedly. Pupils are urged from their earliest years to think not only about war, but also climate change, ecology, and global inequality. They are encouraged to empathize with their contemporaries in the world’s poorest countries. These educational initiatives, together with the public advocacy work of NGOs and the celebrity activism of George Clooney, Bono, and others, have raised public concern about foreign policy and encouraged feelings of moral responsibility. These may make it a little harder for governments to go back on their aid commitments or resort to force.

The media report daily on armed conflicts and extreme poverty, and concerned citizens in relatively wealthy and secure countries want to understand the links between these distant events and their own familiar worlds. How did cholera spread from Nepal to earthquake-stricken Haiti in 2010? What clothes and food can people buy and what journeys can they make in good conscience, sure that they are not profiting from child labour or contributing to environmental ruin? Public understanding of international relations matters, then, not just because citizens in democracies vote in governments, but because their daily private decisions have significant cumulative effects on people all over the world. Sometimes direct non-governmental global action is helped by the transnational character of its target. In July 2012 a global boycott of the Hyatt group, branded by some of its employees as the worst hotel employer in the USA, was supported by demonstrations in India, the UK, and elsewhere.

Scares over food security are a good example of governments and global businesses (in this case supermarkets) rushing to address consumer concerns because they know the electoral and market costs of a slow or inadequate response. In 1989 two Chilean grapes tainted with cyanide were discovered in a California supermarket; the USA promptly banned imports of Chilean fruit. In 2011 a premature and unjustified German claim that Spanish cucumbers were responsible for an outbreak of E. coli led to substantial losses for Spanish farmers. In 2013 governments, suppliers, and supermarkets took rapid action following the discovery of undeclared horsemeat in products on sale in Ireland and the UK. This was despite the fact that there was neither a threat to health nor any offence against religious sensibilities. In short, rising public awareness of global interconnectedness, together with sensitivity to real or imagined abuses or threats, may now have immediate and costly implications in distant places.

After primary and secondary education, the idealistic motives for the teaching and study of IR merge with the more practical needs of present and future participants in international relations. Many people working in international relations do so because they want to become global activists, trying to make the world a better place. They include not only aid workers and human rights advocates, but also those would-be bankers and soldiers who believe that economic growth will filter down to the world’s poor or hold that wealth and justice are unattainable without security. Practitioners moving back into the teaching of IR, public administration, and development management encourage the spread of best practice and critical reflection among those aspiring to global careers.

The Leading Actors: States and Intergovernmental Organizations

The list of current and prospective participants in international relations includes a wide range of non-state actors, both intergovernmental and non-governmental, multipurpose and specialized. But a survey of leading actors can hardly exclude states themselves, which remain a source of welfare and mayhem. Indeed, the international organizations considered in this section and the next exist either by agreement between states or with their consent. The entire United Nations system was established by states and is funded by them. Charitable NGOs require permission to operate within the territories of states and are subject to scrutiny by state agencies. They work within parameters set by governments in both their host and home countries, the latter often among their principal donors.

States continue to maintain embassies and consulates in those countries where their firms and nationals are most active. Major states maintain armed forces able to rescue their nationals when violence flares and to participate directly in military operations when their interests are threatened, either unilaterally or as members of alliances such as NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) or the African Union. Heads of state and leading ministers meet bilaterally and in a variety of forums. Among the most important of these are the closely related G8 and the G20. The first of these is a regular meeting of the heads of government of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK, and the USA, with five additional states – Brazil, India, Mexico, the People’s Republic of China, and South Africa – increasingly attending as guests. The second was at first primarily concerned with financial management, but has since transformed into an additional forum for discussion of political and security issues by the heads of government of a slightly wider circle, including Argentina, Australia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Turkey.

States also continue to negotiate binding treaties and new conventions, often in close consultation with private interest groups and NGOs. They continue to set the terms on which firms do business within their territories and trade internationally. Some are tiny and impotent, but for the most part they are powerful and indispensable. Yet in all their external dealings and in many aspects of domestic policy, such as respect for human rights, states have progressively found themselves obliged to take heed of international organizations and international law. This is especially true when dealing with global trends – whether demographic, commercial, or environmental – that can’t be dealt with by any state acting alone.

Nearly all the world’s states – now approaching two hundred – belong to the United Nations Organization (UNO). Formed in 1945 as successor to the League of Nations, the UNO, more often referred to simply as the United Nations (UN), was created to maintain global peace and security. At the start there were fifty-one members, almost half of them American. As European empires were dissolved, fatally weakened by the Second World War, numerous new states were formed, chiefly in Asia and Africa. They duly joined the UN.

The chief elements of the UN are the Security Council (UNSC) and the General Assembly (UNGA). The Security Council has a restricted membership and agenda, bearing primary responsibility for averting threats to peace and security. By historical accident the five major victors of the Second World War are permanent members, each with a veto over any significant decision. These are China, France, Russia (as successor to the Soviet Union (USSR)), the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (USA). Ten states elected by the UNGA also serve two-year terms on the Security Council, with five renewed each year. During the Cold War the veto power of the permanent members effectively stymied UNSC action on any issue on which the USA and the Soviet Union disagreed, and these were numerous. The end of the Cold War brought a brief period of unanimity, during which Resolution 678 was passed, authorizing the use of force to reverse Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. As a result the USA assembled an impressive coalition to assist and legitimize a successful attack on Iraqi forces. But the moment passed, and more recent uses of force by the USA, notably the 2003 invasion of Iraq, have been less unambiguously legal and therefore less widely supported, in part for lack of clear UNSC authorization.

The General Assembly debates a wide range of topics and every member state has a single vote. Since the 1960s its voting system has secured a permanent majority for a coalition of the world’s newer and poorer states. Initially referred to collectively as the Third World, because of their resistance to close alignment either with the capitalist USA or the communist USSR, these states soon began to be called the Global South. Because they were no longer distinguished ideologically from the two superpowers, they were contrasted with wealthier states, which were almost exclusively located north of the tropics. Although the resolutions of the UNGA are not binding, this voting system allowed the new states to launch a North–South dialogue in the 1960s. The Cold War had been characterized as an East–West conflict; now the Global South sought to change the agenda by prioritizing national liberation and economic and social welfare over universalist ideology. One can get a sense of how the UN engages in the creation of international law and creates possibilities for the Global South to influence world politics from the history of third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III). This body deliberated between 1968 and 1982, producing a multilateral treaty or convention that had been ratified by 164 states by the end of 2012.

The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea – A Temporary International Governmental Organization

The third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) was established in 1968, first met in 1973, and then convened periodically until1982. The aim was to produce a convention (or multilateral treaty) covering a wide range of topics, including the definition of different categories of offshore waters, in each of which distinct laws applied, and the development of a regime to govern exploitation of seabed mineral resources. The conference created new laws, superseding or supplementing earlier conventions and codifying existing custom.

These issues were of great concern to many countries, ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• List of Figures
• Preface
• 1: What is international relations?
• 2: The shadow of history
• 3: The global economy
• 4: Armed conflict
• 5: Making sense of international relations
• Further Reading
• Acknowledgements
• Index