Q. No. 2: Define International Relations. Discuss its changing/evolving scope.
Outline:
- Introduction
- Definition of International Relations
- Traditional Scope of International Relations
- Factors Behind the Evolution of IR
- Contemporary Scope of International Relations
- Thematic Expansion: From State to Society
- Theoretical Shifts and Multidisciplinary Nature
- Challenges and Criticisms
- Conclusion
- Introduction
International Relations (IR) has transformed from being a study of diplomacy and war to an expansive, multidisciplinary field encompassing a wide range of issues from climate change to cyberspace, from economic interdependence to human security. This expansion reflects the complexity of modern global affairs in a highly interconnected and interdependent world.
“The study of international relations is the study of the world and how it is held together—or pulled apart.” — Stanley Hoffmann
- Definition of International Relations
International Relations is a field of study that explores the interactions among sovereign states, as well as non-state actors (such as international organizations, multinational corporations, NGOs, and terrorist groups), in the international system.
According to Joshua Goldstein:
“International Relations is the study of relationships among the world’s governments, and the role of other actors, such as IGOs, NGOs, and MNCs.”
IR includes diplomacy, war, international law, economics, human rights, and globalization.
- Traditional Scope of International Relations
In its early 20th-century origin, especially post-WWI, the field was centered around:
- Diplomatic history and military strategy
- Balance of power and alliances
- International law and state sovereignty
- Foreign policy of great powers
- The study was state-centric and Eurocentric, rooted in Realist and Idealist schools.
Key Focus:
- Inter-state war and peace
- National interest and power
- International organizations like the League of Nations
- Factors Behind the Evolution of IR
Factor | Impact |
World Wars | Need to understand causes of war and peace |
Decolonization | Entry of new states into the international system |
Cold War | Ideological bipolarity & nuclear deterrence studies |
Globalization | Expanded IR to economics, trade, environment, and culture |
Rise of Non-State Actors | Shift from state-only focus to NGOs, IGOs, MNCs, terrorists |
Technological Revolution | Cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, information warfare |
Climate Change & Pandemics | New emphasis on global governance, human security |
- Contemporary Scope of International Relations
The scope of IR now includes:
- Security Studies
- From national to human and environmental security
- Includes terrorism, cyber warfare, and biosecurity
- International Political Economy (IPE)
- Studies trade relations, globalization, development, and inequality
- Focus on institutions like IMF, World Bank, WTO
- Global Governance and Multilateralism
- Role of UN, G20, WHO, EU in managing global issues
- Legal regimes, treaties, and cooperative frameworks
- Climate Diplomacy
- IR now involves negotiations on climate change, carbon emissions, and sustainable development (e.g., Paris Agreement)
- Migration and Refugee Issues
- Statelessness, asylum, and global migration management
- Feminist and Postcolonial Perspectives
- Inclusion of marginalized voices, gendered analysis, and Global South narratives
- Thematic Expansion: From State to Society
Old IR Focus | New/Evolving IR Focus |
States and sovereignty | Global civil society and interdependence |
Hard power and alliances | Soft power, norms, and transnational networks |
War and peace | Economic justice, climate, identity politics |
Diplomacy and treaties | Social media, cyber diplomacy, digital politics |
- Theoretical Shifts and Multidisciplinary Nature
- Realism → Neorealism → Neoclassical realism
- Liberalism → Neoliberal institutionalism
- Constructivism: Ideas and norms matter
- Critical Theories: Postcolonialism, Marxism, Feminism
- Draws on sociology, economics, law, psychology, anthropology
“IR is no longer just about states but about the complex web of actors and forces shaping our world.” — Robert Keohane
- Challenges and Criticisms
- Western bias in theory production (especially Realism and Liberalism)
- Over-institutionalization and underrepresentation of Global South
- Difficulty in addressing hybrid and transnational threats
- Calls for decolonizing the IR curriculum and theory
- Conclusion
The discipline of International Relations has expanded far beyond traditional boundaries. From nuclear deterrence and balance of power to climate change, digital warfare, and human development, IR has become a multi-dimensional and interdisciplinary science that reflects the complexity and connectivity of the modern world.
Bold Conclusion:
International Relations is no longer confined to the chessboard of state diplomacy—it is now a global theatre where power, people, and ideas intersect, shaping the destiny of nations and humanity alike.
Q. No. 3: Comparatively discuss the modernist IR theories (Realism and Liberalism) with post-modernist IR theories (Feminism and Constructivism).
Outline:
- Introduction
- Defining Modernist and Post-Modernist IR Theories
- Overview of Modernist Theories: Realism and Liberalism
- Overview of Post-Modernist Theories: Feminism and Constructivism
- Comparative Analysis
- Assumptions about Actors and Anarchy
- Power and Security
- Methodology and Epistemology
- Gender and Identity
- Norms and Social Structures
- Strengths and Criticisms of Each School
- Case Examples in Global Politics
- Conclusion
- Introduction
International Relations (IR) theory has evolved significantly, with modernist theories like Realism and Liberalism dominating the 20th century, while post-modernist approaches like Feminism and Constructivism emerged to challenge and diversify the field in the post-Cold War era. These paradigms differ not only in their assumptions but also in their methodologies, ethical concerns, and understanding of power, identity, and global structures.
“Theory is always for someone, and for some purpose.” — Robert Cox
(Emphasizing theory’s embeddedness in historical and political contexts)
- Defining Modernist and Post-Modernist IR Theories
Category | Definition |
Modernist Theories | Based on Enlightenment rationality, objective truth, and scientific analysis. Seek universal laws in IR. |
Post-Modernist Theories | Challenge objectivity, emphasize diversity of perspectives, power of discourse, and constructed realities. |
- Overview of Modernist IR Theories
- Realism
- Founders: Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hans Morgenthau
- Core Assumptions:
- State-centric system
- Anarchy (absence of central authority)
- States seek power and security
- International politics is a zero-sum game
- Key Concept: Balance of Power
- Quote:
“International politics is a struggle for power.” — Hans Morgenthau
- Liberalism
- Founders: Kant, Woodrow Wilson, John Locke, Keohane & Nye
- Core Assumptions:
- States are rational and can cooperate
- International institutions, trade, and democracy reduce conflict
- Promotes interdependence and norm-based order
- Key Concepts: Liberal institutionalism, Democratic Peace Theory
- Overview of Post-Modernist IR Theories
- Constructivism
- Founders: Alexander Wendt, Nicholas Onuf, Martha Finnemore
- Core Ideas:
- Anarchy is what states make of it
- Focus on ideas, identity, norms, and social construction
- Reality in IR is not fixed, but shaped by interactions
- Key Contribution: Explains how norms shape state behavior
- Quote:
“Structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces.” — Alexander Wendt
- Feminism
- Thinkers: Cynthia Enloe, J. Ann Tickner, Christine Sylvester
- Core Ideas:
- IR is gendered; it privileges male-dominated views of power and security
- Focus on marginalized voices, care ethics, and human security
- Challenges the public/private divide in global politics
- Quote:
“Where are the women?” — Cynthia Enloe
- Comparative Analysis
Category | Realism | Liberalism | Constructivism | Feminism |
View of World Order | Anarchic, self-help | Anarchic, but cooperation is possible | Socially constructed | Hierarchical, patriarchal |
Main Actor | State | State, institutions | States, norms, identities | Individuals (especially women) |
Goal of State | Survival and power | Peace, prosperity, cooperation | Shaped by identity and norms | Human security and equality |
Power | Military and material capabilities | Economic and institutional | Normative and ideational | Structural and discursive power |
Methodology | Positivist, rationalist | Positivist, empirical | Interpretive, intersubjective | Critical, gender-sensitive |
Key Focus | Security, conflict, balance | Interdependence, institutions | Norms, identity, discourse | Gender, marginalization, everyday politics |
Ethical Concerns | Amoral/limited | Ethical progress possible | Ethics shaped by social norms | Justice, inclusion, care ethics |
- Strengths and Criticisms of Each School
Theory | Strengths | Criticisms |
Realism | Clear framework; explains power politics, wars, and conflicts | Ignores non-state actors, morality, cooperation, identity, and change |
Liberalism | Highlights cooperation, role of IOs and democracy | Too idealistic; underestimates power and conflict |
Constructivism | Explains change in norms, ideas, identity | Abstract, less predictive, difficult to operationalize |
Feminism | Inclusive, ethical, exposes gender bias in IR | Accused of being too normative and lacking universal applicability |
- Case Examples in Global Politics
Issue | Modernist View | Post-Modernist View |
Russia-Ukraine War | Realism: Power struggle, NATO threat, national interest | Constructivism: Competing identities, nationalism |
UN Peacekeeping Missions | Liberalism: Multilateralism and cooperation | Feminism: Gendered impact of peacekeeping, local agency |
Global Climate Change | Not a priority in Realism; addressed in Liberal IOs like UNFCCC | Constructivism: Norms shaping environmental responsibility |
War on Terror | Realism: Security and retaliation | Feminism: Impact on women, militarization of development aid |
- Conclusion
The comparative study of modernist and post-modernist theories reveals a paradigm shift in how we understand world politics. While Realism and Liberalism provide structured, rational analyses based on state behavior, Constructivism and Feminism enrich the field with social, ethical, and identity-based interpretations. Together, these perspectives offer a holistic and evolving understanding of international relations.
Bold Conclusion:
No single theory can fully explain the complexity of international relations. It is in the interplay between modernist and post-modernist lenses that scholars and policymakers find the most nuanced and actionable insights in navigating global politics.
Q. No. 4: Explain the concept of ‘Comprehensive Security’ differentiating it from the traditional concept of ‘Power’. Is it an appropriate concept for developing and poor countries?
Outline:
- Introduction
- Traditional Concept of Power and Security in IR
- Definition of Comprehensive Security
- Key Components of Comprehensive Security
- Comparison: Traditional Power vs. Comprehensive Security
- Relevance of Comprehensive Security for Developing and Poor Countries
- Case Studies: Application in the Global South
- Challenges in Implementing Comprehensive Security
- Conclusion
- Introduction
The traditional concept of power in international relations has long emphasized military strength, coercion, and state-centric security. However, the evolving nature of global threats—ranging from poverty and pandemics to climate change and cyber threats—has led to the emergence of a broader, more inclusive idea: Comprehensive Security.
“Security means far more than the absence of war. It means the absence of hunger, disease, and ignorance.” — UNDP Human Development Report, 1994
- Traditional Concept of Power and Security in IR
- Rooted in Realist thought (Morgenthau, Waltz)
- Power defined as:
- Hard power: military capability, territorial control, and political dominance
- Survival in an anarchic world
- Security meant defending borders and deterring aggression
| Focus: National sovereignty
| Means: Military alliances, arms buildup
| Goal: Survival of the state
“International politics is a struggle for power.” — Hans Morgenthau
- Definition of Comprehensive Security
Comprehensive Security is a holistic approach to security that recognizes multiple dimensions—military, economic, political, environmental, and human—that contribute to the safety and well-being of a nation and its people.
Barry Buzan (Copenhagen School) defines security as:
“The pursuit of freedom from threats in five sectors: military, political, economic, societal, and environmental.”
It integrates traditional and non-traditional threats, shifting the focus from just state sovereignty to human-centric development.
- Key Components of Comprehensive Security
Dimension | Focus |
Military Security | National defense and military preparedness |
Economic Security | Sustainable development, poverty eradication, food & energy access |
Political Security | Stability, good governance, human rights |
Social Security | Protection of identity, cultural values, social cohesion |
Environmental Security | Climate resilience, natural disaster preparedness |
Cybersecurity | Protection of digital infrastructure and data |
Health Security | Access to public health, pandemic preparedness |
- Comparison: Traditional Power vs. Comprehensive Security
Aspect | Traditional Power (Realism) | Comprehensive Security |
Main Actor | The State | State + Society + Non-State Actors |
Primary Goal | National survival | Human well-being and multidimensional safety |
Means of Security | Military force, deterrence | Development, cooperation, governance |
Nature of Threats | External (military aggression) | Internal & external (poverty, disease, climate) |
Approach | Reactive, confrontational | Preventive, inclusive, cooperative |
Scope | Narrow (sovereignty, territory) | Broad (economy, society, environment, health) |
- Relevance for Developing and Poor Countries
Comprehensive Security is particularly appropriate and essential for developing nations, including those in Africa, South Asia, and Latin America, due to the multifaceted nature of their insecurities.
Why It Is Suitable:
- Traditional military buildup diverts resources from social development
- Majority of threats are non-military:
- Food insecurity (e.g., Somalia, Yemen)
- Climate vulnerability (e.g., Pakistan floods 2022)
- Poor healthcare systems (e.g., Ebola in West Africa, COVID-19)
- Helps integrate sustainable development into national security
Amartya Sen argues that “development is the ultimate security,” linking poverty to vulnerability.
- Case Studies: Application in the Global South
Pakistan
- Traditional focus on military power against India
- Shift towards:
- Climate adaptation after 2022 floods
- Food security and energy resilience through CPEC
- Health infrastructure post-COVID-19
Bangladesh
- Integrated disaster management and social security into national strategy
- Success in reducing cyclone-related deaths shows the impact of non-military preparedness
Rwanda
- Post-genocide governance focused on education, health, and stability
- Growth model emphasizes human security over military dominance
- Challenges in Implementing Comprehensive Security
Challenge | Impact |
Resource constraints | Poor countries may lack funds for health or environmental security |
Institutional weaknesses | Corruption, weak governance reduce implementation efficiency |
Geopolitical pressures | Militarization due to regional conflicts (e.g., India-Pakistan) |
Lack of awareness | Decision-makers may still prioritize traditional power metrics |
- Conclusion
The traditional concept of power is increasingly insufficient to address modern threats. Comprehensive Security offers a more realistic, inclusive, and sustainable framework, especially for developing countries where security cannot be achieved without development.
Bold Conclusion:
For the Global South, security is not just about tanks and borders, but about people and progress. Comprehensive Security is not a luxury—it is a necessity for a secure, resilient, and just future.
Q. No. 5: Identify and analytically explain the various conflict resolution methods
Outline:
- Introduction
- Definition of Conflict and Conflict Resolution
- Typology of Conflicts in International Relations
- Conflict Resolution Methods (Explained with Examples)
- Negotiation
- Mediation
- Arbitration
- Conciliation
- Peacekeeping
- Adjudication (Judicial Settlement)
- Preventive Diplomacy
- Track II and Multi-track Diplomacy
- Comparative Analysis: Strengths & Limitations
- Case Studies in Global Conflict Resolution
- Conclusion
- Introduction
Conflicts are inherent in international politics—arising from competing interests, identity, territory, or ideology. The goal of conflict resolution is not merely to end violence but to address the root causes, transform relationships, and prevent future escalation. In the 21st century, the focus has shifted from coercive solutions to dialogue, mediation, and cooperative strategies.
“Peace is not absence of conflict, but the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.” — Ronald Reagan
- Definition of Conflict and Conflict Resolution
- Conflict: A situation where two or more parties perceive that their interests, goals, or values are incompatible.
- Conflict Resolution: A structured process of resolving disputes and disagreements through peaceful means, with an emphasis on dialogue, understanding, compromise, and institutional mechanisms.
Burton (1990): Conflict resolution aims to “eliminate the root causes of conflict and not merely manage it.”
- Typology of Conflicts in IR
Type of Conflict | Examples |
Interstate Conflict | India-Pakistan (Kargil), Russia-Ukraine |
Intrastate Conflict | Syrian Civil War, Sudan, Afghanistan |
Ideological | Cold War (Capitalism vs Communism) |
Ethnic/Religious | Israel-Palestine, Rwanda |
Resource-based | Nile Water Disputes, South China Sea |
- Conflict Resolution Methods
- Negotiation
- Definition: Direct dialogue between conflicting parties to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
- Features: Voluntary, informal, non-binding
- Example: US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogues
- Strength: Flexible, confidential, builds trust
- Limitation: Power asymmetry can skew outcomes
- Mediation
- Definition: Involves a neutral third-party facilitator to assist parties in reaching a consensus.
- Actors: UN, NGOs, influential states (e.g., Norway, Qatar)
- Example: Camp David Accords (1978) — mediated by US between Egypt and Israel
- Strength: Less adversarial; preserves relations
- Limitation: Success depends on mediator’s credibility and party willingness
“Mediation offers a face-saving exit to warring factions.” — William Zartman
- Arbitration
- Definition: Legal process where a third party delivers a binding decision based on evidence and legal norms
- Example: South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China, 2016)
- Strength: Legally binding, faster than litigation
- Limitation: Requires prior consent; enforcement may be weak
- Conciliation
- Definition: A more formal version of mediation where a conciliator proposes solutions after reviewing both sides.
- Example: League of Nations’ efforts in minor border disputes
- Strength: Proactive; avoids hard litigation
- Limitation: Recommendations are non-binding
- Peacekeeping (UN Chapter VI.5)
- Definition: Deployment of neutral military/police forces under international command to monitor ceasefires and protect civilians
- Example: UN Peacekeeping in Congo (MONUSCO), Cyprus (UNFICYP)
- Strength: De-escalates violence; builds post-conflict confidence
- Limitation: Cannot enforce peace; limited mandate
- Adjudication (Judicial Settlement)
- Definition: Legal resolution through International Court of Justice (ICJ) or international tribunals
- Example: ICJ ruling on India-Bangladesh maritime boundary (2014)
- Strength: Rule-based, impartial
- Limitation: Only works if both parties recognize jurisdiction
- Preventive Diplomacy
- Definition: Early diplomatic measures to prevent escalation of conflict
- Tools: Fact-finding missions, confidence-building measures
- Example: OSCE’s early warning mission in the Balkans
- Strength: Cost-effective; proactive
- Limitation: Political will often lacking before violence erupts
- Track II and Multi-Track Diplomacy
- Track II: Informal, non-official dialogue by scholars, NGOs, former diplomats
- Multi-track: Involves religious, business, media, education actors
- Example: Backchannel talks during Oslo Accords (1993)
- Strength: Builds grassroots trust and flexibility
- Limitation: Non-binding; lacks enforcement power
- Comparative Table of Conflict Resolution Methods
Method | Binding? | Third Party? | Example | Best Use Case |
Negotiation | No | No | Iran Nuclear Talks (JCPOA) | Symmetric disputes, diplomacy |
Mediation | No | Yes | Camp David Accords | Civil wars, peace deals |
Arbitration | Yes | Yes (neutral) | South China Sea Ruling | Legal/resource-based disputes |
Conciliation | No | Yes | League of Nations’ Disputes | Less adversarial interstate issues |
Peacekeeping | No (de facto) | Yes (UN) | UN in DR Congo | Ceasefires, humanitarian crises |
Adjudication | Yes | Yes (Court) | ICJ India-Bangladesh Maritime Case | Boundary, maritime, legal conflicts |
Preventive Diplomacy | No | Yes | OSCE Missions | Early warning and de-escalation |
Track II/III | No | No | Oslo Backchannel Talks | Identity/ideology-based conflict |
- Case Studies of Conflict Resolution
Rwanda (1994) – Failure of Conflict Resolution
- UN peacekeepers had a limited mandate
- No diplomatic or preventive action taken before the genocide
Israel-Palestine (Oslo Accords)
- Track II diplomacy paved the way for formal agreements
- Highlights limits of agreements without trust and implementation
Good Friday Agreement (1998)
- Combination of negotiation, mediation, and power-sharing
- Ended decades of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland
- Conclusion
Conflict resolution is not a one-size-fits-all process. It requires contextual flexibility, political will, and institutional innovation. From hard legal tools like arbitration to soft strategies like mediation and Track II diplomacy, these methods serve as vital instruments for sustaining peace and order in an increasingly polarized world.
Bold Conclusion:
In an era where wars are no longer only fought with weapons but with ideologies, resources, and information—conflict resolution must evolve into a multidimensional, inclusive, and proactive practice to build lasting peace.
Q. No. 6: What is the role of economy in state behaviour? How does it influence the definition of National Interest and how is it used as a tool of achieving foreign policy goals? Discuss with examples
Outline:
- Introduction
- Understanding State Behavior in IR
- The Economy as a Core Component of State Power
- Economy and the Definition of National Interest
- Economy as an Instrument of Foreign Policy
- Case Studies
- China’s Belt and Road Initiative
- U.S. Economic Sanctions
- Pakistan’s IMF Agreements
- Theoretical Perspective: Liberalism vs Realism
- Challenges and Limitations
- Conclusion
- Introduction
The behavior of a state in international relations is shaped by several factors, including geography, military strength, ideology, and increasingly, economic power. In the 21st century, the economy is no longer just a domestic concern but a strategic foreign policy tool, influencing alliances, rivalries, and the very definition of a state’s national interest.
“Economic strength underpins political influence.” — Henry Kissinger
- Understanding State Behavior in IR
State behavior refers to how a country acts, reacts, and interacts in the international system based on its perceived interests, threats, and opportunities. Economic capacity now plays a foundational role in this behavior, determining:
- Trade relations
- Aid policies
- Strategic alliances
- Defense spending
- Development diplomacy
- The Economy as a Core Component of State Power
Economic power is part of the composite national power of a state. Joseph Nye categorized it into:
- Hard Power: Economic coercion like sanctions or debt traps
- Soft Power: Economic appeal via aid, investment, trade deals
- Smart Power: Combination of both to shape global behavior
Morgenthau acknowledged that “economic instruments are as vital as military ones in the pursuit of national interest.”
- Economy and the Definition of National Interest
National Interest is the guiding principle of a state’s foreign policy, often including:
- Economic prosperity
- Strategic autonomy
- National security
- Global prestige
As states become more interdependent, economic objectives shape how national interest is framed, e.g.:
- Energy security in India’s Middle East policy
- Market access as a goal in U.S. trade diplomacy
- Debt sustainability as part of Pakistan’s economic sovereignty
- Economy as an Instrument of Foreign Policy
Economic tools are used to coerce, persuade, reward, or isolate in pursuit of foreign policy objectives. These include:
- Trade Agreements
- States use preferential trade access to build influence.
- Example: EU Association Agreements with Eastern European states.
- Foreign Aid
- Conditional aid promotes ideological alignment or policy reforms.
- Example: U.S. aid to Egypt in exchange for support for Israel peace.
- Sanctions and Embargoes
- Used to punish rogue behavior or force compliance.
- Example: U.S. sanctions on Iran to curb nuclear ambitions.
- Investment and Loans
- Economies use FDI and concessional loans to extend influence.
- Example: Chinese investments in Africa and Asia under BRI.
- Debt Diplomacy
- Lending with strategic intent, sometimes creating dependency.
- Example: Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port lease to China.
- Case Studies
China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
- Uses infrastructure investment and soft loans to expand geopolitical influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe.
- Influences the foreign policy orientation of participant states (e.g., Pakistan, Kenya, Serbia).
United States and Economic Sanctions
- Sanctions on Russia, Iran, North Korea used to achieve goals without military intervention.
- Part of U.S. coercive diplomacy—targeting economic pain to extract political concessions.
Pakistan and the IMF
- IMF programs influence not just macroeconomic stability but foreign policy alignments (e.g., reduced military spending, reform in tax systems).
- Economic dependency sometimes restricts policy autonomy.
- Theoretical Perspective: Realism vs Liberalism
Theory | View on Economy in State Behavior |
Realism | Economy supports military and strategic objectives; focus on autonomy. |
Liberalism | Economic interdependence fosters cooperation and peace through trade. |
Neo-Marxism | Economy as a tool of exploitation; unequal global capitalist structure. |
“Where goods cross borders, armies do not.” — Frederic Bastiat (Liberal View)
- Challenges and Limitations
- Economic coercion can backfire (e.g., Russia’s economy adapted post-sanctions)
- Dependency traps can erode sovereignty (e.g., African debt to China)
- Global crises (COVID-19, inflation, war) expose vulnerabilities in overdependence on global economy
- Conclusion
The economy is now a central pillar of state behavior, not only defining national interest but also serving as a multifaceted tool in diplomacy. Whether through investment, sanctions, or trade alliances, states project power and protect interests through economic means.
Bold Conclusion:
In the modern international system, economic diplomacy has become the new battleground of geopolitics—reshaping alliances, altering national priorities, and redefining what it means to be powerful.
Q. No. 7: Identify the different types of non-State actors in International Relations and their impact on the international system.
Outline:
- Introduction
- Defining Non-State Actors (NSAs)
- Evolution of NSAs in the Global Arena
- Types of Non-State Actors
- Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)
- International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs)
- Multinational Corporations (MNCs)
- Terrorist and Insurgent Groups
- Religious Movements and Faith-Based Actors
- Media and Technology Giants
- Transnational Advocacy Networks
- Diaspora Communities
- Impact of Non-State Actors on the International System
- Theoretical Perspectives on NSAs (Realism vs Liberalism vs Constructivism)
- Challenges Posed by NSAs
- Conclusion
- Introduction
International Relations (IR), once dominated by the state-centric Westphalian model, now operates in a multifaceted global system where non-state actors (NSAs) play influential roles. From humanitarian assistance to cyberwarfare, NSAs are reshaping diplomacy, economics, and security.
“We are witnessing the diffusion of power from states to non-state actors.” — Joseph Nye
- Defining Non-State Actors (NSAs)
Non-state actors are entities that operate in the international arena but are not affiliated with any government. They have transnational influence, varying degrees of legitimacy, and can support or challenge state authority.
Krahmann (2005): NSAs are “organizations or individuals that are not allied to any state but exert influence on international politics.”
- Evolution of NSAs in the Global Arena
- Post-WWII: Rise of IGOs and INGOs (UN, Red Cross)
- 1970s–1990s: MNCs and transnational movements gain influence
- Post-9/11: Emergence of non-state security threats
- Post-2010s: Social media, cyber actors, and big tech reshape diplomacy
- Types of Non-State Actors
- Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)
While composed of states, they function autonomously in many ways.
- Examples: United Nations, WTO, EU, ASEAN
- Impact: Set global norms, mediate conflicts, coordinate development
- International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs)
Operate across borders, mostly humanitarian, developmental, or advocacy-based.
- Examples: Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières
- Impact: Promote human rights, influence policy, respond to crises
- Multinational Corporations (MNCs)
Private companies with global operations.
- Examples: Apple, Shell, Huawei, Nestlé
- Impact: Influence trade policy, labor standards, technological power
Susan Strange: “MNCs are now more powerful than many nation-states.”
- Terrorist and Insurgent Groups
Use violence to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals.
- Examples: Al-Qaeda, ISIS, TTP, Boko Haram
- Impact: Undermine state sovereignty, necessitate global counterterrorism
- UN Security Council (Res. 1373): Treats terrorism as a transnational threat
- Religious Movements and Faith-Based Actors
Play roles in peacebuilding or radicalization.
- Examples: Catholic Church (Vatican diplomacy), Hezbollah
- Impact: Influence identities, drive social mobilization, mediate in conflicts
- Media and Technology Giants
Control information flows and narratives.
- Examples: Twitter (X), Facebook, Google
- Impact: Shape public opinion, cyber diplomacy, digital surveillance
- Transnational Advocacy Networks (TANs)
Coalitions that promote specific causes.
- Examples: Environmentalists, feminist networks, anti-globalization groups
- Impact: Influence international treaties (e.g., Kyoto Protocol, CEDAW)
- Diaspora Communities
Influence both host and home country policies.
- Examples: Jewish-American lobby in U.S., Indian diaspora in UK/USA
- Impact: Mediate conflicts, lobby foreign aid, transfer remittances
- Impact of Non-State Actors on the International System
Positive Impact | Negative Impact |
Promote peace, democracy, and human rights | Terrorism and armed insurgency |
Fill humanitarian and governance gaps | Spread of misinformation and cyber threats |
Encourage economic globalization and FDI | Tax evasion, environmental degradation by MNCs |
Lobby for environmental and gender justice | Challenge state sovereignty and undermine governments |
Mediate in peace negotiations (e.g., NGOs in South Sudan) | Use of religion for radicalization (e.g., ISIS propaganda) |
- Theoretical Perspectives on Non-State Actors
Theory | View on NSAs |
Realism | NSAs are marginal; the state remains the only unit of analysis (power-centric) |
Liberalism | NSAs are vital for cooperation, peace, and interdependence (pluralist view) |
Constructivism | NSAs shape norms, ideas, and identities in world politics (e.g., climate change activism) |
Alexander Wendt: “Anarchy is what states make of it”—and NSAs play a role in shaping that meaning.
- Challenges Posed by NSAs
- Accountability gaps (e.g., MNCs in developing countries)
- Sovereignty erosion (e.g., IMF or religious radical networks)
- Unequal influence (Big Tech monopolies)
- Militant threats (transnational terrorist networks)
- Fake news & digital interference in elections
- Conclusion
Non-state actors have become indispensable actors in global governance, conflict, diplomacy, and economic interdependence. While they complement state efforts in many areas, they also challenge traditional notions of sovereignty and security, compelling the international system to adopt a more inclusive and multi-actor perspective.
Bold Conclusion:
In the 21st-century global order, diplomacy is no longer a monopoly of the state. Non-state actors—armed with capital, information, and ideology—have redefined the rules of international engagement.
Q. No. 8: Identify and discuss the determinants of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy.
Outline:
- Introduction
- Definition and Purpose of Foreign Policy
- Overview of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Objectives
- Major Determinants of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy
- Geostrategic Location
- Security and Defence Considerations
- Kashmir Dispute
- Relations with Major Powers
- Economic Interests
- Islamic Identity and Ideology
- Domestic Political Environment
- Regional Environment and Neighborhood
- Global and Multilateral Engagement
- Case Studies and Examples
- Challenges in Balancing Determinants
- Conclusion
- Introduction
Foreign policy serves as a strategic extension of a state’s domestic priorities and identity, and in the case of Pakistan, it has been significantly shaped by regional conflicts, security imperatives, religious sentiments, and geopolitical calculations. Since its inception in 1947, Pakistan’s foreign policy has reflected both aspirational goals and strategic necessities.
“Foreign policy is not merely about diplomacy, it is a reflection of a country’s identity, interests, and fears.” — Henry Kissinger
- Definition and Purpose of Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is the framework of principles and decisions adopted by a state to protect and promote its national interest in its relations with the international community.
- Overview of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Objectives
As per Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the core aims include:
- Preservation of sovereignty and territorial integrity
- Promotion of economic development
- Resolution of Kashmir issue
- Strengthening ties with Muslim and developing countries
- Engagement with major powers
- Promotion of peace and security
- Major Determinants of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy
- Geostrategic Location
- Pakistan is located at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East.
- Acts as a gateway to oil-rich Gulf states and landlocked Central Asia.
- This makes it a pivotal state in regional and global power politics.
- Example: Pakistan’s centrality in China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Afghan transit routes.
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Pakistan’s geography gives it “a strategic location next to the world’s most turbulent region.”
- Security and Defence Considerations
- National security is a dominant factor, especially after partition and subsequent wars with India (1947, 1965, 1971).
- Deep involvement of the military in foreign policy formulation.
- Nuclear policy, counterterrorism partnerships, and strategic deterrence all emerge from security concerns.
- Kashmir Dispute
- The unresolved Kashmir issue remains a permanent irritant in Indo-Pak relations.
- Influences Pakistan’s diplomatic alignment, defense posture, and engagements with multilateral forums (e.g., OIC, UN).
- Central to public opinion, political rhetoric, and military planning.
- Relations with Major Powers
- Strategic partnerships are influenced by global power dynamics:
- China: All-weather strategic partner (CPEC, military cooperation)
- USA: Historical ally, especially during Cold War and War on Terror (but increasingly mistrustful)
- Russia: Growing warmth in military and energy sectors
- Gulf States: Economic ties, remittances, energy security
- Economic Interests
- Trade, aid, remittances, and FDI are central to foreign relations.
- IMF, World Bank, and FATF compliance shape policy directions.
- Economic diplomacy is now rising—focus on connectivity (CPEC), trade with Central Asia, and GSP Plus with EU.
- Islamic Identity and Ideology
- Pakistan’s foreign policy historically reflects its Islamic ideological foundation.
- Close relations with OIC countries, support for Palestine, and Islamic solidarity during global crises.
- Sometimes creates a conflict between ideology and pragmatism, e.g., ties with Iran vs. Saudi bloc politics.
- Domestic Political Environment
- Civil-military imbalance, political instability, and democratic transitions impact foreign policy consistency.
- Shifts in political regimes often lead to policy discontinuity.
- Example: Civilian governments emphasizing diplomacy vs. military-driven strategic realism.
- Regional Environment and Neighborhood
- Relations with India, Afghanistan, Iran, and China drive reactive foreign policy.
- Border management, security concerns, and refugee issues from Afghanistan.
- Balancing ties with Iran-Saudi rivalry and India-China power dynamics.
- Global and Multilateral Engagement
- Active participation in United Nations, OIC, SCO, SAARC, and NAM.
- Alignments with international norms like anti-terrorism, climate change, and peacekeeping.
- Need to project a responsible international image while safeguarding sovereignty.
- Case Studies and Examples
Event | Foreign Policy Determinant Involved |
CPEC Agreement with China | Economic interest + Geostrategic location |
Nuclear tests (1998) | National security and strategic parity with India |
Joining U.S.-led War on Terror | Security + relations with major powers + economic need |
Kashmir lobbying at UN/OIC | Ideological + national interest + diplomatic pressure |
FATF Compliance Measures | Economic stability + global integration |
- Challenges in Balancing Determinants
- Ideological goals vs economic pragmatism (e.g., balancing ties with Iran and Saudi Arabia)
- Dependence on external aid limits sovereign decision-making
- Civil-military tensions dilute consistent policy formulation
- Navigating great power competition (e.g., U.S.-China rivalry)
- Conclusion
Pakistan’s foreign policy is multi-determined, navigating a complex interplay of security, economics, ideology, and geopolitics. Its strategic location, historical rivalries, and economic dependencies have shaped a foreign policy that is often reactive yet evolving towards economic diplomacy and regional integration.
Bold Conclusion:
For Pakistan to play a proactive role on the global stage, its foreign policy must shift from reactive security obsession to multidimensional diplomacy rooted in economic development, regional harmony, and principled pragmatism.