Q. No. 2: What Are the Essential Differences Between Liberal Internationalist and Realist Theories? In Your Opinion, Why Is Realism the Most Dominant Theory in the Discipline of International Relations?
Outline:
- Introduction
- Concept of Theories in International Relations
- Defining Liberal Internationalism
- Defining Realism
- Key Differences Between Liberalism and Realism
- Evolution and Historical Context of Both Theories
- Real-World Case Studies
- Scholarly Perspectives
- Why Realism is the Dominant Paradigm in IR
- Counterarguments: Liberal Gains and Criticism of Realism
- Conclusion
- Introduction
International Relations (IR), as a discipline, is built on multiple theoretical paradigms that seek to explain the behavior of actors on the global stage. Among these, Realism and Liberal Internationalism stand as the two most influential and long-standing frameworks. While both aim to explain how the international system operates, their assumptions, methodologies, and implications vastly differ.
Though Liberal Internationalism offers an optimistic and cooperative vision of world politics, Realism is often regarded as the dominant theory due to its pragmatic approach grounded in history, power politics, and survival instincts.
- Concept of Theories in International Relations
A theory in IR is a conceptual framework that explains patterns of behavior in international politics. Theories provide lenses through which one can understand and interpret:
- State behavior
- Power dynamics
- War and peace
- Cooperation and conflict
As Stephen Walt explains,
“Theories tell us what facts to look for, what they mean, and how they are connected.”
- Defining Liberal Internationalism
Liberal Internationalism, sometimes referred to as Idealism, emphasizes the potential for peace, cooperation, and international institutions in a rational world.
Core Tenets:
- Human beings are inherently rational and capable of moral progress.
- Democracy leads to peace (Democratic Peace Theory).
- International institutions (e.g., UN, WTO) can manage conflict.
- Economic interdependence discourages war.
- Rule of law, diplomacy, and multilateralism are key to stability.
Notable Proponents:
- Immanuel Kant – “Perpetual Peace”
- Woodrow Wilson – League of Nations
- John Ikenberry – Institutional liberalism
- Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye – Complex interdependence
- Defining Realism
Realism presents a more pessimistic but historically grounded view of international relations.
Core Tenets:
- The international system is anarchic — no supreme authority exists.
- States are primary, unitary, rational actors.
- Survival is the fundamental goal of every state.
- Power, particularly military, is the main currency.
- Morality is subordinate to national interest.
Branches of Realism:
- Classical Realism: Human nature drives power politics (Morgenthau).
- Structural/Neorealism: Anarchy compels states to compete (Waltz).
- Offensive Realism: States aim for hegemony (Mearsheimer).
- Defensive Realism: States seek security, not domination.
- Key Differences Between Liberalism and Realism
Aspect | Liberal Internationalism | Realism |
View of Human Nature | Rational and cooperative | Selfish and conflict-prone |
Anarchy | Can be managed via institutions | Anarchy compels states to act in self-interest |
Peace and War | Peace is achievable through democracy and trade | War is inevitable and recurring |
Main Actors | States, IGOs, NGOs, MNCs | Only sovereign states |
Goal of States | Cooperation, prosperity | Survival and security |
Role of Morality | Ethics guide policy | Morality is irrelevant in power politics |
Approach to Power | Soft power, diplomacy | Hard power, military might |
- Evolution and Historical Context of Both Theories
Liberalism’s Emergence:
- Dominated post-WWI diplomacy.
- Inspired Wilson’s Fourteen Points and the League of Nations.
- Failed to prevent WWII—seen as naive.
Realism’s Ascendance:
- Realism became dominant post-WWII.
- Explained failures of the League, rise of Hitler, and the Cold War.
- Emphasized containment, deterrence, and balance of power strategies.
- Real-World Case Studies
- US Withdrawal from Afghanistan (2021):
- Despite 20 years of liberal state-building, the US made a realist decision prioritizing national interest over human rights.
- Russia-Ukraine War (2022–):
- Realist scholars like John Mearsheimer predicted this conflict due to NATO’s eastward expansion.
- Russia’s invasion aligns with realist pursuit of buffer zones and strategic depth.
- UN and Multilateralism:
- While institutions have prevented some conflicts (liberal success), they failed in Syria, Yemen, and Gaza — where power politics prevailed.
- China’s Rise:
- Despite being part of the WTO and global economy (liberal interdependence), China’s assertive behavior in the South China Sea and Taiwan echoes realist ambitions.
- Scholarly Perspectives
Scholar | Theory | Key Contribution |
Hans Morgenthau | Classical Realism | Politics is governed by objective laws rooted in power |
Kenneth Waltz | Structural Realism | State behavior shaped by anarchy and relative capabilities |
Robert Keohane | Neoliberalism | Institutions facilitate cooperation in a rational world |
John Mearsheimer | Offensive Realism | States seek regional hegemony to ensure survival |
John Ikenberry | Liberal Internationalism | Post-WWII liberal order is rules-based and cooperative |
- Why Realism is the Dominant Theory in IR
- Relevance in Conflict-Driven World
- Realism explains conflict recurrence more effectively than liberal optimism.
- Most international crises (e.g., Middle East, Taiwan, Ukraine) show security-driven state behavior.
- Simplicity and Predictive Power
- Realism provides a clear framework: survival, power, self-help.
- It can predict behavior without assuming moral commitments.
- Sovereignty and National Interest
- In crises, states prioritize national interest over global obligations.
- Examples: India’s neutrality in Russia-Ukraine war, US unilateralism, China’s Belt and Road project.
- Institutional Limitations
- UN, WTO, and WHO often fall short in enforcing compliance or resolving conflicts.
- Realism fills that gap by assuming institutions reflect power asymmetries.
- Counterarguments: Liberal Gains and Criticism of Realism
- Liberal Successes
- European Union proves integration is possible.
- International law has curbed extreme behavior (e.g., ICC trials).
- Global issues (climate change, pandemics) demand cooperation.
- Criticism of Realism
- Too focused on conflict and power; neglects economic, cultural, and environmental factors.
- Ignores role of non-state actors (e.g., multinational corporations, NGOs).
- Cannot fully explain global governance trends or digital diplomacy.
- Conclusion
The debate between Liberal Internationalism and Realism reflects a deeper tension in IR between idealism and pragmatism, cooperation and conflict, morality and power. While Liberalism offers a normative model of a peaceful global order, Realism remains the dominant explanatory theory due to its historical grounding, empirical robustness, and adaptability.
Bold Conclusion:
In a world where war, power competition, and state-centric interests still dominate headlines, Realism continues to provide the most compelling explanation for international behavior—making it not only a theory of International Relations but a mirror of its enduring realities.
Q. No. 3: The Positivist and Post-Positivist Debate Offers a Striking Contrast in Terms of Approach and Methodology to the Study of International Relations. Describe, Compare and Critically Evaluate the Divergence Between the Two Debates. Are There Any Points of Convergence?
Outline:
- Introduction
- Concept of Theories in International Relations
- Defining Liberal Internationalism
- Defining Realism
- Key Differences Between Liberalism and Realism
- Evolution and Historical Context of Both Theories
- Real-World Case Studies
- Scholarly Perspectives
- Why Realism is the Dominant Paradigm in IR
- Counterarguments: Liberal Gains and Criticism of Realism
- Conclusion
- Introduction
International Relations (IR), as a discipline, is built on multiple theoretical paradigms that seek to explain the behavior of actors on the global stage. Among these, Realism and Liberal Internationalism stand as the two most influential and long-standing frameworks. While both aim to explain how the international system operates, their assumptions, methodologies, and implications vastly differ.
Though Liberal Internationalism offers an optimistic and cooperative vision of world politics, Realism is often regarded as the dominant theory due to its pragmatic approach grounded in history, power politics, and survival instincts.
- Concept of Theories in International Relations
A theory in IR is a conceptual framework that explains patterns of behavior in international politics. Theories provide lenses through which one can understand and interpret:
- State behavior
- Power dynamics
- War and peace
- Cooperation and conflict
As Stephen Walt explains,
“Theories tell us what facts to look for, what they mean, and how they are connected.”
- Defining Liberal Internationalism
Liberal Internationalism, sometimes referred to as Idealism, emphasizes the potential for peace, cooperation, and international institutions in a rational world.
Core Tenets:
- Human beings are inherently rational and capable of moral progress.
- Democracy leads to peace (Democratic Peace Theory).
- International institutions (e.g., UN, WTO) can manage conflict.
- Economic interdependence discourages war.
- Rule of law, diplomacy, and multilateralism are key to stability.
Notable Proponents:
- Immanuel Kant – “Perpetual Peace”
- Woodrow Wilson – League of Nations
- John Ikenberry – Institutional liberalism
- Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye – Complex interdependence
- Defining Realism
Realism presents a more pessimistic but historically grounded view of international relations.
Core Tenets:
- The international system is anarchic — no supreme authority exists.
- States are primary, unitary, rational actors.
- Survival is the fundamental goal of every state.
- Power, particularly military, is the main currency.
- Morality is subordinate to national interest.
Branches of Realism:
- Classical Realism: Human nature drives power politics (Morgenthau).
- Structural/Neorealism: Anarchy compels states to compete (Waltz).
- Offensive Realism: States aim for hegemony (Mearsheimer).
- Defensive Realism: States seek security, not domination.
- Key Differences Between Liberalism and Realism
Aspect | Liberal Internationalism | Realism |
View of Human Nature | Rational and cooperative | Selfish and conflict-prone |
Anarchy | Can be managed via institutions | Anarchy compels states to act in self-interest |
Peace and War | Peace is achievable through democracy and trade | War is inevitable and recurring |
Main Actors | States, IGOs, NGOs, MNCs | Only sovereign states |
Goal of States | Cooperation, prosperity | Survival and security |
Role of Morality | Ethics guide policy | Morality is irrelevant in power politics |
Approach to Power | Soft power, diplomacy | Hard power, military might |
- Evolution and Historical Context of Both Theories
Liberalism’s Emergence:
- Dominated post-WWI diplomacy.
- Inspired Wilson’s Fourteen Points and the League of Nations.
- Failed to prevent WWII—seen as naive.
Realism’s Ascendance:
- Realism became dominant post-WWII.
- Explained failures of the League, rise of Hitler, and the Cold War.
- Emphasized containment, deterrence, and balance of power strategies.
- Real-World Case Studies
- US Withdrawal from Afghanistan (2021):
- Despite 20 years of liberal state-building, the US made a realist decision prioritizing national interest over human rights.
- Russia-Ukraine War (2022–):
- Realist scholars like John Mearsheimer predicted this conflict due to NATO’s eastward expansion.
- Russia’s invasion aligns with realist pursuit of buffer zones and strategic depth.
- UN and Multilateralism:
- While institutions have prevented some conflicts (liberal success), they failed in Syria, Yemen, and Gaza — where power politics prevailed.
- China’s Rise:
- Despite being part of the WTO and global economy (liberal interdependence), China’s assertive behavior in the South China Sea and Taiwan echoes realist ambitions.
- Scholarly Perspectives
Scholar | Theory | Key Contribution |
Hans Morgenthau | Classical Realism | Politics is governed by objective laws rooted in power |
Kenneth Waltz | Structural Realism | State behavior shaped by anarchy and relative capabilities |
Robert Keohane | Neoliberalism | Institutions facilitate cooperation in a rational world |
John Mearsheimer | Offensive Realism | States seek regional hegemony to ensure survival |
John Ikenberry | Liberal Internationalism | Post-WWII liberal order is rules-based and cooperative |
- Why Realism is the Dominant Theory in IR
- Relevance in Conflict-Driven World
- Realism explains conflict recurrence more effectively than liberal optimism.
- Most international crises (e.g., Middle East, Taiwan, Ukraine) show security-driven state behavior.
- Simplicity and Predictive Power
- Realism provides a clear framework: survival, power, self-help.
- It can predict behavior without assuming moral commitments.
- Sovereignty and National Interest
- In crises, states prioritize national interest over global obligations.
- Examples: India’s neutrality in Russia-Ukraine war, US unilateralism, China’s Belt and Road project.
- Institutional Limitations
- UN, WTO, and WHO often fall short in enforcing compliance or resolving conflicts.
- Realism fills that gap by assuming institutions reflect power asymmetries.
- Counterarguments: Liberal Gains and Criticism of Realism
- Liberal Successes
- European Union proves integration is possible.
- International law has curbed extreme behavior (e.g., ICC trials).
- Global issues (climate change, pandemics) demand cooperation.
- Criticism of Realism
- Too focused on conflict and power; neglects economic, cultural, and environmental factors.
- Ignores role of non-state actors (e.g., multinational corporations, NGOs).
- Cannot fully explain global governance trends or digital diplomacy.
- Conclusion
The debate between Liberal Internationalism and Realism reflects a deeper tension in IR between idealism and pragmatism, cooperation and conflict, morality and power. While Liberalism offers a normative model of a peaceful global order, Realism remains the dominant explanatory theory due to its historical grounding, empirical robustness, and adaptability.
Bold Conclusion:
In a world where war, power competition, and state-centric interests still dominate headlines, Realism continues to provide the most compelling explanation for international behavior—making it not only a theory of International Relations but a mirror of its enduring realities.
Q. No. 4: The Nation-State System Is in a Flux with an Independence Referendum in Scotland and Another Projected for Catalonia in September 2017. Critically Evaluate Reasons as to Why the Modern Nation-State in Europe Faces Internal Challenges to Its Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity.
Outline:
- Introduction
- The Nation-State System: Historical Background
- Nature of Internal Challenges in Europe
- Case Study I: Scotland’s Independence Drive
- Case Study II: Catalonia’s Secessionist Movement
- Structural Reasons Behind Challenges to European Nation-States
- Theoretical Perspectives: Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism
- Consequences for the Nation-State System
- Scholarly Perspectives
- Conclusion
- Introduction
The European nation-state, once a pillar of territorial unity and political authority, is now confronting increasing internal challenges to sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is exemplified by the Scottish independence referendum (2014) and the Catalan independence referendum (2017). These events underscore broader tensions within European polities—where cultural identities, economic grievances, and supranational influences question the viability of the traditional Westphalian model.
- The Nation-State System: Historical Background
The Westphalian system (1648) established the principle of state sovereignty within fixed borders. The nation-state model emerged in Europe as a combination of ethnic identity, language, and centralized authority. However, this model is increasingly strained due to globalization, devolution, and identity politics.
- Nature of Internal Challenges in Europe
Internal sovereignty challenges emerge when sub-national groups:
- Question the legitimacy of central authority
- Seek greater autonomy or full secession
- Believe their cultural, economic, or political identity is distinct
These are not mere administrative disagreements, but fundamental disputes about who holds the right to self-rule.
- Case Study I: Scotland’s Independence Drive
Scotland held a referendum in 2014 under the UK’s constitutional framework. Although the “No” vote won (55%), calls for independence have resurged post-Brexit.
Key Reasons:
- Historical grievance and distinct national identity
- Policy divergence from Westminster (e.g., immigration, welfare)
- EU membership: Scotland voted to remain in the EU during Brexit
- Resource nationalism: Control over North Sea oil revenues
“Scotland is not a region. We are a nation.” – Nicola Sturgeon
- Case Study II: Catalonia’s Secessionist Movement
In 2017, Catalonia held a controversial referendum despite Spanish constitutional prohibitions. The vote was declared illegal by the Spanish Constitutional Court, yet it saw a 91% pro-independence vote amid low turnout and police crackdowns.
Key Reasons:
- Rich economic base and resentment over redistribution to poorer Spanish regions
- Strong linguistic and cultural identity
- Perception of Madrid’s centralization as repressive
- Historical memory of Franco-era suppression
“We are not criminals, we are democrats.” – Carles Puigdemont
- Structural Reasons Behind Challenges to European Nation-States
- Rise of Sub-National Identities
- Globalization paradoxically strengthens local identities.
- Regions with historical independence narratives push back against homogenization.
- Democratic Legitimacy and Devolution
- EU and democratic norms encourage greater autonomy, making full secession appear like the next logical step.
- Devolution grants power, but sometimes creates expectations that surpass compromise.
- Economic Inequalities
- Wealthier regions like Catalonia and Scotland argue they subsidize poorer regions, demanding fiscal autonomy.
- Supranational Governance (EU)
- EU membership creates post-sovereign opportunities, weakening attachment to the nation-state.
- The EU is seen as a buffer or alternative state-like structure, reducing the cost of secession.
- Failed Integration Policies
- Minority regions often feel underrepresented in national decisions.
- Cultural homogenization policies fuel alienation (e.g., language suppression in Catalonia).
- Global Information Flow
- Social media amplifies grievances, promotes identity-based mobilization, and transnationalizes secessionist rhetoric.
- Theoretical Perspectives
Theory | Explanation |
Realism | Internal instability weakens sovereignty, and states must ensure cohesion by asserting control (e.g., Spanish police in Catalonia) |
Liberalism | Self-determination and democracy allow legitimate secession if popular will demands it |
Constructivism | National identity is socially constructed; Catalonia and Scotland see themselves as nations without a state |
- Consequences for the Nation-State System
- Precedent Setting: Other regions (e.g., Flanders, Corsica, Bavaria) are inspired by Scotland and Catalonia.
- Weakening of Central Authority: Challenges the monopoly on legitimacy held by national governments.
- Fragmentation Risk: If unchecked, it may lead to Balkanization within advanced democracies.
- Rise in National Populism: Centralists counter with stronger nationalist rhetoric, deepening polarization.
- Legal-Political Deadlocks: Constitutions often lack mechanisms to handle peaceful secession democratically.
- Scholarly Perspectives
- Benedict Anderson’s concept of “Imagined Communities” explains why Catalans or Scots view themselves as distinct nations despite integration.
- Michael Keating emphasizes that regionalism and stateless nations are a product of both historical legacies and democratic aspirations.
- Robert Jackson warns that frequent referenda and secessionist movements can threaten the “quasi-sovereignty equilibrium” in modern states.
- Conclusion
The European nation-state faces serious internal challenges rooted in identity, economy, and democratic aspirations. Catalonia and Scotland are not isolated cases but manifestations of deeper contradictions within modern statehood: between legal sovereignty and moral legitimacy, between central control and popular self-determination.
Bold Conclusion:
Unless the modern European nation-state finds flexible constitutional, economic, and cultural frameworks to address sub-national demands, it risks persistent fragmentation and political instability in the 21st century.
Q. No. 5: The Rise of China is Being Heralded as a Return of ‘Balance of Power’ Politics in International Relations. As the World Moves Towards Multipolarity, Account for the Essential Features of the International Security Architecture and Its Evolving Dynamics.
Outline:
- Introduction
- Understanding “Balance of Power” Politics
- Rise of China and Return of Balancing Behavior
- Shift Toward Multipolarity: Key Global Trends
- Essential Features of the International Security Architecture
- Evolving Dynamics of the Security System
- Theoretical Perspectives
- Scholarly Views and Strategic Assessments
- Challenges to the Emerging Multipolar Security Order
- Conclusion
- Introduction
The post-Cold War unipolar moment led by the United States is rapidly giving way to a more complex multipolar global order, marked by the rise of China, resurgent Russia, and assertive regional powers like India and Turkey. In this context, international relations scholars and strategists witness the return of “balance of power” politics—a classical realist concept—reasserting itself in a global system that is no longer under the unilateral influence of one superpower.
- Understanding “Balance of Power” Politics
The concept of balance of power is a cornerstone of Realist theory, which suggests that states pursue power to ensure survival in an anarchic international system. When one state becomes too powerful, others counterbalance to restore equilibrium.
“The balance of power is not just a principle of policy—it is a law of history.” — Hans Morgenthau
Core elements of balance of power politics:
- Power aggregation to deter dominant states
- Alliances and counter-alliances
- Security dilemma and arms race tendencies
- Shift from unipolar to multipolar configurations
- Rise of China and Return of Balancing Behavior
China’s rise has been one of the most transformative developments in the 21st-century global order. From economic prowess to military modernization and strategic influence through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China poses a structural challenge to the post-WWII U.S.-led order.
Indicators of power transition:
- China’s GDP (PPP) surpassing the U.S.
- Modernization of PLA Navy and Air Force
- Expansion into South China Sea, Indo-Pacific, and Africa
- Push for alternative institutions (e.g., AIIB, BRICS)
“China’s rise will inevitably provoke balancing behavior from others.” — John Mearsheimer
- Shift Toward Multipolarity: Key Global Trends
Emerging Pole | Strategic Assets |
USA | Global military footprint, dollar hegemony |
China | Economic growth, regional assertiveness |
Russia | Military revival, energy leverage, Eurasian focus |
EU | Regulatory power, multilateral diplomacy |
India | Strategic autonomy, Indo-Pacific presence |
Middle Powers | Turkey, Iran, Brazil shaping regional dynamics |
- Essential Features of the International Security Architecture
- Multipolar Security Alignments
- Emergence of non-Western alliances (e.g., SCO, BRICS+)
- Rebalancing of NATO, Quad, AUKUS
- Strategic Hedging and Flexible Partnerships
- States avoid binary alignments (e.g., India balancing U.S.-Russia-China)
- Regional Security Complexes
- Middle East, Indo-Pacific, and Eastern Europe are now distinct security theaters
- Technology-Driven Security
- Cyber warfare, space militarization, AI-based weapons systems
- Crisis of International Institutions
- UN Security Council gridlock and failure to prevent wars (e.g., Gaza, Ukraine)
- Erosion of Arms Control Norms
- Collapse of INF Treaty, uncertainty over New START
- Evolving Dynamics of the Security System
- From Collective Security to Selective Security
- U.S. and allies increasingly pursue interest-based coalitions
- Non-State Security Threats
- Rise of cyber actors, AI bots, and hybrid warfare (e.g., Russian operations in Ukraine)
- Geo-Economic Security
- Weaponization of trade and tech (e.g., U.S. semiconductor ban on China)
- Return of Military Modernization
- China’s naval expansion, Russian hypersonic missiles, India’s nuclear triad upgrade
- Shift in Security Definitions
- Climate security, health security (post-COVID), and energy security entering mainstream IR discourse
- Theoretical Perspectives
Theory | Explanation of Trends |
Realism | Power balancing and strategic rivalry explain multipolarity dynamics |
Neorealism (Waltz) | Structure of the system determines behavior—rise of China demands balancing |
Liberalism | Institutions are being bypassed; cooperation is weakening |
Constructivism | Security is socially constructed—China’s “peaceful rise” contested by narratives |
Marxism | View rise of China as part of global capitalist transformation |
- Scholarly Views and Strategic Assessments
- Henry Kissinger: Warns that multipolarity without strategic restraint risks great power war.
- Fareed Zakaria: Describes a “Post-American World” where power diffusion is structural.
- Joseph Nye: Emphasizes need for smart power strategies—combining force and influence.
- Barry Buzan: Predicts rise of regional security complexes led by key regional powers.
- Challenges to the Emerging Multipolar Security Order
- Lack of universal norms: No agreed-upon rulebook in a multipolar system
- Unpredictability and fragmentation
- Risk of regional wars escalating into global conflicts
- Technology gap between poles exacerbates asymmetries
- Overburdened UN system, struggling to enforce collective peace
- Conclusion
The rise of China symbolizes not just the reassertion of great power politics but the reconfiguration of global security architecture. As the world drifts from a U.S.-centric unipolar order to a competitive multipolar system, the dynamics of alliance-building, deterrence, and global governance are undergoing radical transformation.
Bold Conclusion:
In this age of multipolarity, international security will no longer be dictated by any single hegemon but shaped by the complex interplay of rising powers, shifting alliances, and new threats. Navigating this architecture requires strategic foresight, diplomatic flexibility, and a rethinking of old doctrines in light of new realities.
Q. No. 6: Define Globalisation and Its Attendant Manifestations in Global Politics. Do You Agree with the View That Economic Globalisation is a Form of Neo-Imperialism Which Only Stands to Exploit the Third World States?
Outline
- Introduction
- Definition of Globalisation
- Manifestations of Globalisation in Global Politics
- Understanding Economic Globalisation
- The Case for Economic Globalisation as Neo-Imperialism
- Counter-Argument: Globalisation as a Development Enabler
- Impact on Third World/Developing Countries
- Theoretical Perspectives
- Scholarly Opinions
- Critical Evaluation and Personal Stance
- Conclusion
- Introduction
Globalisation, a defining phenomenon of the post-Cold War era, has profoundly influenced global political, economic, and cultural interactions. While it is often hailed as a driver of growth and cooperation, many critics argue that economic globalisation, in particular, has morphed into a form of neo-imperialism, entrenching the dominance of developed nations over the Global South. This answer explores the nature and political manifestations of globalisation, and evaluates whether it serves as a tool of exploitation or development for Third World states.
- Definition of Globalisation
Globalisation is the process of increasing interconnectedness among states, economies, cultures, and societies, facilitated by advancements in technology, transportation, and communication.
“Globalisation is the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away.”
— Anthony Giddens
- Manifestations of Globalisation in Global Politics
- Political Integration
- Rise of intergovernmental organizations (e.g., UN, WTO, EU)
- Collective responses to global issues like climate change and terrorism
- Economic Interdependence
- Free trade regimes, global supply chains, outsourcing
- Expansion of multinational corporations (MNCs) and FDI flows
- Cultural Homogenization
- Spread of Western values, brands, media, and language
- Decline of indigenous cultures and identities
- Erosion of Sovereignty
- Supranational bodies influencing domestic policymaking (e.g., IMF, WTO)
- Influence of global capital markets on national decisions
- Understanding Economic Globalisation
Economic globalisation refers to the liberalisation of trade, investment, finance, and labor across borders. It is characterised by:
- Privatisation and deregulation
- Free-market capitalism as a global norm
- Policies prescribed by the Washington Consensus
- Rise of global financial institutions (IMF, World Bank)
- The Case for Economic Globalisation as Neo-Imperialism
Many scholars argue that economic globalisation resembles a new form of imperialism, where economic tools replace military conquest.
- Dependency and Unequal Trade
- Developing countries export raw materials, import manufactured goods
- Terms of trade remain unfavorable to the Global South
- IMF and World Bank Conditionalities
- Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) often mandate austerity, privatisation, and reduction of subsidies
- Social sectors like health and education suffer in poor nations
“The IMF acts as the economic arm of a global empire.” — Joseph Stiglitz
- Exploitation by Multinational Corporations
- Cheap labor, tax avoidance, and environmental degradation
- Weak labor protections and exploitation of informal economies
- Digital Colonialism
- Tech giants dominate data and digital infrastructure in the Global South
- Control over information ecosystems = control over political narratives
- Capital Flight and Debt Trap Diplomacy
- Repayment of external debt consumes huge portions of national budgets
- Global North offers debt, not development
- Counter-Argument: Globalisation as a Development Enabler
Some economists argue that globalisation has lifted millions out of poverty, especially in Asia.
- Growth and Innovation
- Countries like China, India, Vietnam have leveraged globalisation to industrialise
- Access to global capital and technology
- Trade as an Opportunity
- Comparative advantage fosters specialisation and exports
- Access to larger markets leads to foreign reserves and job creation
- Rise of the Middle Class
- Urbanisation, education, and digital connectivity have empowered populations
“Globalisation has done more to reduce world poverty than any development program.” — Jagdish Bhagwati
- Impact on Third World/Developing Countries
Positive Effects | Negative Effects |
Increased FDI and trade opportunities | Structural dependence on developed states |
Technology transfer and employment | Cultural homogenisation and loss of identity |
Connectivity and knowledge sharing | Sovereignty erosion and policy subordination |
Access to global markets | Rising inequality and capital flight |
- Theoretical Perspectives
Theory | Perspective on Globalisation |
Realism | Globalisation is a façade; states pursue national interest and power remains central |
Liberalism | Globalisation fosters cooperation, interdependence, and peace |
Marxism | Globalisation is modern capitalism expanding its control over labour and markets |
World Systems Theory | Globalisation entrenches core-periphery division (Wallerstein) |
Constructivism | Globalisation redefines state identities and interests |
- Scholarly Opinions
- Immanuel Wallerstein: Globalisation is a tool of exploitation within a world capitalist system.
- Noam Chomsky: “Neo-liberal globalisation serves the interest of elites, not populations.”
- Thomas Friedman: Globalisation is the “golden straightjacket”—you can’t grow without wearing it, but it squeezes political choices.
- Critical Evaluation and Personal Stance
While globalisation has provided opportunities for growth, its benefits are asymmetrically distributed. In many Third World countries, it has worsened inequalities, reduced policy autonomy, and entrenched a neo-colonial division of labor. The logic of profit maximisation over people’s welfare, driven by Western-led institutions and corporations, validates the neo-imperialism critique.
However, the experience of countries like China and Vietnam shows that globalisation can be managed if the state maintains strategic autonomy and invests in education, industry, and social protection.
Conclusion: Economic globalisation is not inherently imperialistic, but in its current neoliberal form, it largely functions as neo-imperialism in the Global South—unless countered with policy sovereignty, fair trade, and South-South cooperation.
- Conclusion
Globalisation continues to transform global politics, economics, and societies. However, unless structural reforms are introduced in the global economic order, the benefits of globalisation will remain concentrated in the hands of the powerful, while the Third World states will bear the burdens of inequality, debt, and dependency. A reimagined globalisation—one that prioritises justice, equity, and mutual respect—is the need of the hour.
Bold Conclusion:
Unless rebalanced, economic globalisation will remain less of a shared destiny and more of a disguised domination—repeating the empire in the language of markets.
Q. No. 7: Critically Evaluate the Strategically Competitive Dynamics of Pakistan-India Relations in the Context of Pakistan’s Growing Ties with China and India’s Increased Alignment with the United States
Outline
- Introduction
- Historical Overview of Pakistan–India Strategic Rivalry
- Pakistan’s Strategic Partnership with China
- India’s Strategic Convergence with the United States
- Key Areas of Strategic Competition
- The Role of External Powers in South Asian Security Architecture
- Theoretical Lens: Realism and Balance of Power
- Implications for Regional Stability and Peace
- Challenges to Strategic Equilibrium
- Conclusion
- Introduction
Pakistan and India, two nuclear-armed neighbors in South Asia, have historically shared an adversarial relationship characterized by conflict, mistrust, and strategic competition. In the 21st century, this rivalry has been reshaped by external alignments—specifically, Pakistan’s growing strategic cooperation with China and India’s increasing partnership with the United States. These realignments reflect broader geopolitical shifts in the Indo-Pacific and reinforce a new triangular competition that extends beyond the bilateral domain.
- Historical Overview of Pakistan–India Strategic Rivalry
- Rooted in the partition of 1947 and Kashmir dispute
- Multiple wars: 1948, 1965, 1971, and Kargil in 1999
- Nuclearization of South Asia post-1998 heightened deterrence but increased instability
- Diplomatic efforts like Agra Summit, Lahore Declaration, and Composite Dialogue failed due to trust deficit
- Pakistan’s Strategic Partnership with China
- Economic and Infrastructure Linkages
- China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): $62+ billion investment under BRI
- Infrastructure modernization, energy projects, and Gwadar Port
- Military and Technological Cooperation
- Joint development of JF-17 Thunder, missile tech transfers
- China supports Pakistan in international forums (e.g., UNSC on Kashmir)
- Strategic Balancing Against India
- China views Pakistan as a counterweight to India’s rise
- Pakistan leverages China’s support to counter Indian hegemony
“Pak-China friendship is higher than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans.” — Zhou Enlai
- India’s Strategic Convergence with the United States
- Indo-US Defense and Strategic Pacts
- Foundational Agreements: COMCASA, BECA, LEMOA
- Regular military exercises (e.g., Malabar)
- Strategic Indo-Pacific Alignment
- Member of Quad (US, India, Japan, Australia)
- Shared concerns over China’s expansionism
- Economic and Technological Ties
- Trade and investment partnerships, civil nuclear cooperation (123 Agreement)
- US supporting India’s inclusion in NSG and UNSC permanent seat
“The U.S.-India relationship is destined to be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century.” — Barack Obama
- Key Areas of Strategic Competition
Domain | India | Pakistan |
Military Modernization | Acquiring S-400, Rafales, aircraft carriers | China-backed upgrades, tactical nukes |
Diplomacy | Active global lobbying (NSG, FATF) | China-backed counters, OIC support on Kashmir |
Technology | Investment in cyber, space, AI defense systems | China-Pakistan AI and defense collaboration |
Kashmir Policy | Revocation of Article 370, demographic shift | Internationalizing the issue via China, OIC, UN |
- The Role of External Powers in South Asian Security Architecture
- United States: Tilted towards India as part of its China containment strategy
- China: Deepened Pakistan ties, opposes India’s rise as regional hegemon
- Russia: Tilting towards India but also reaching out to Pakistan for regional balancing
- Gulf States: Previously neutral, now drifting toward India for trade; Pakistan losing clout post-Yemen crisis
- Theoretical Lens: Realism and Balance of Power
Classical Realism:
- States seek power and security in an anarchic international system
- Alliances shift based on national interest, not ideology
Neorealism (Waltz):
- Power transition theory explains why US backs India to balance China
- China backs Pakistan to contain Indian hegemony
Constructivism:
- Narratives of “strategic threat” and national identity continue to shape perceptions
- Both sides socially construct the other as a security rival
- Implications for Regional Stability and Peace
- Strategic Instability
- Two-front military posturing: India against China and Pakistan
- Nuclear deterrence prevents full-scale war but not skirmishes
- Risk of Escalation
- Incidents like Pulwama-Balakot or Doklam-Galwan can spiral
- Diplomatic Stalemates
- No sustained talks since 2015; Track-II diplomacy struggling
- FATF, UNSC lobbying further deepens divides
- South Asia’s Marginalization
- Focus on security alliances reduces space for SAARC, regional cooperation
- Challenges to Strategic Equilibrium
- Absence of confidence-building mechanisms (CBMs)
- Cybersecurity threats and misinformation fueling escalation
- Increasing involvement of external powers heightens stakes
- Strategic decisions influenced by domestic politics and populism
- Arms race and doctrinal changes (e.g., India’s proactive war strategy)
- Conclusion
The strategic landscape of South Asia is increasingly shaped by external alignments: Pakistan-China on one side, India-US on the other. These partnerships amplify existing rivalries and add new layers of competition, particularly in the military, technological, and geopolitical spheres. While these alignments offer short-term strategic leverage, they also risk hardening positions, escalating regional conflicts, and reducing space for diplomacy and reconciliation.
Bold Conclusion:
In the shadow of global power realignments, Pakistan and India’s rivalry is no longer a regional contest—it is embedded in the great game of 21st-century geopolitics. Navigating this competitive triangle demands strategic restraint, robust diplomacy, and a shift from zero-sum to cooperative thinking.
Q. No. 8: The Non-State Actor as a Military Competitor Is Gaining Ground in the Middle East with the Rise of ISIS. What Strategies Can the United Nations and Major Powers Implement to Ensure Peace and Security in Iraq and Syria?
Outline
- Introduction
- The Rise of ISIS and Non-State Military Actors in the Middle East
- Challenges Posed by ISIS to Peace and Security
- Role of the United Nations in Conflict Resolution
- Strategic Role of Major Powers: US, Russia, China, and EU
- Multi-Pronged Strategies for Peace and Security
- Military Strategy
- Political and Diplomatic Solutions
- Economic Reconstruction
- Countering Extremism and Terror Financing
- Humanitarian Assistance
- Theoretical Perspectives
- Case Studies: Successes and Failures
- Critical Evaluation
- Conclusion
- Introduction
The rise of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) as a powerful non-state actor has fundamentally reshaped the security landscape of the Middle East. Evolving from the remnants of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS combined guerrilla warfare, ideological extremism, and territorial ambition to challenge the sovereignty of Iraq and Syria, ultimately declaring a caliphate in 2014. The group’s hybrid nature — combining military, ideological, and cyber warfare — presents unique challenges for traditional state-centric security frameworks.
- The Rise of ISIS and Non-State Military Actors in the Middle East
- ISIS emerged post-2003 Iraq War and during the Syrian civil war.
- Capitalized on Sunni marginalization, state collapse, and sectarianism.
- Controlled territory across Iraq and Syria (~100,000 sq. km at its peak).
- Funded via oil smuggling, looting, extortion, and foreign donations.
“ISIS is the first non-state actor to hold territory, run institutions, and project regional governance.” – Charles Lister (Middle East Institute)
- Challenges Posed by ISIS to Peace and Security
- Collapse of state authority in Iraq and Syria.
- Human rights violations, mass killings, and displacement.
- Terrorist attacks globally, including in Europe and South Asia.
- Spread of violent jihadist ideology via digital propaganda.
- Disruption of humanitarian access and infrastructure.
- Role of the United Nations in Conflict Resolution
Despite structural constraints, the UN has a central role in peacebuilding:
- UNAMI (United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq) supports governance, reconciliation, and elections.
- Special Envoys for Syria (e.g., Geir Pedersen) lead political mediation under UNSC Resolution 2254.
- Humanitarian Operations through OCHA, UNHCR, WHO etc.
- Limited by Security Council vetoes, particularly in Syrian context.
- Strategic Role of Major Powers
Actor | Role in the Region |
United States | Airstrikes (Operation Inherent Resolve), support for Kurdish forces, training Iraqi army |
Russia | Military support for Assad regime, airpower, anti-ISIS and anti-rebel operations |
China | Indirect role—concerned with Xinjiang spillover; provides aid, non-interventionist |
European Union | Refugee resettlement, de-radicalization programs, humanitarian support |
- Multi-Pronged Strategies for Peace and Security
- Military Strategy
- Strengthen local armed forces (Iraqi Army, Syrian Democratic Forces)
- Promote joint operations under UN/NATO/AU mandates
- Establish no-fly zones, safe zones for civilians
- Disarm, demobilize, reintegrate (DDR) ISIS defectors
- Political and Diplomatic Solutions
- Revive Geneva and Astana Peace Processes
- Support inclusive governance in Iraq and Syria (Sunni, Kurds, Shia)
- Encourage federal models and local autonomy where necessary
- Prevent foreign intervention from fueling proxy wars
- Economic Reconstruction
- Rebuild war-torn infrastructure (schools, hospitals, roads)
- UNDP and World Bank programs to stimulate employment
- Conditional aid tied to governance and accountability reforms
- Countering Extremism and Terror Financing
- Crackdown on terrorist financing networks
- Monitor crypto-currency transactions
- Invest in digital surveillance, AI tools, and interagency coordination
- Strengthen FATF mechanisms and compliance
- Humanitarian Assistance and Refugee Support
- Increase funding for UNHCR, WFP, UNICEF
- Establish legal repatriation programs
- Provide trauma counseling, education, and healthcare to displaced populations
“Stability cannot come from drone strikes alone — it needs justice, jobs, and dignity.” — Ban Ki-moon
- Theoretical Perspectives
Theory | Application |
Realism | State actors prioritize national interest; ISIS exploited power vacuum |
Constructivism | Identity politics, ideology, and social narratives fuel rise of ISIS |
Liberalism | Multilateral cooperation (UN, NATO) is essential for conflict resolution |
Marxism | Explains how economic disenfranchisement and inequality drive rebellion |
- Case Studies: Successes and Failures
Successes:
- Fall of Mosul (2017): Iraqi army, US-led coalition ousted ISIS
- Raqqa liberation: Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces with US support
Failures:
- UN failure in Syria due to Russian and Chinese vetoes at the Security Council
- Western interventions lacked post-conflict planning, e.g., Iraq War (2003)
- Critical Evaluation
- Lack of coordination among international actors often prolongs conflict.
- Proxy wars (e.g., Iran-Saudi, US-Russia) complicate peace processes.
- UN’s moral authority is undermined by geopolitical rivalries.
- Major powers prioritize counterterrorism over state-building.
- Civilian casualties in drone and airstrikes erode trust among local populations.
- Need for grassroots peacebuilding, not just top-down diplomacy.
- Conclusion
The rise of ISIS reflects a deeper crisis of governance, identity, and geopolitical contestation in the Middle East. While military defeat of ISIS is largely achieved, the underlying conditions that facilitated its emergence remain unaddressed. The UN and major powers must adopt holistic strategies—blending military, political, economic, and humanitarian tools—to rebuild trust, governance, and resilience in Iraq and Syria.
Bold Conclusion:
Unless the international community moves beyond militarism and proxy rivalries to invest in inclusive peace, the vacuum left by ISIS will only give birth to its next incarnation—perhaps more dangerous, more decentralized, and more ideologically adaptable.