International relations

The United Nations Organization is one of the most representative inter-State agencies in international relations today

International Relations, Global Governance or international studies is the study that deals with foreign affairs and the major issues of the international system in political, economic, legal and diplomatic matters: the role of States, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational companies, and any other international actor. A critical theory from the South American periphery, "in the dimension of being, the study of international relations consists –in substance and principally although not exclusively– in the study of the relations of subordination and insubordination between the different Political Units with Territorial Seat (UPCAT) that make up the international scenario and the study of the relations of subordination and insubordination between these and the Political Units Without Territorial Seat (UPSAT)" While for Marcelo Gullo "in the dimension of should be, the study of international relations consists in the study of thought and possible actions to move from confrontation to solidarity, that is, in the study of thought and possible actions, for the construction of an organized universal community of villages". And it is precisely at the level of duty, affirms Gullo, "where the study of international relations finds its ultimate practical reason, its transcendent mission, its metaphysical reason."

According to Rafael Calduch, they are "all those social relations, and the actors that generate them, that enjoy the quality of internationality for contributing in an effective and relevant way to the formation, dynamics and disappearance of an international society considered as a differentiated society." Thus, international relations can be applied both to the object of study and to the academic discipline. In Spanish, that is why the name is assigned in lowercase to the set of relationships already mentioned and in uppercase -International Relations- to the academic corpus. Although the initial perspective was historical-political, currently, the rest of the components such as economic, cultural, sociological, among others, are privileged.

Although it has been considered a branch of the social sciences, they do not tend to highlight this discipline as an interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, or transdisciplinary field of study. Although international relations have been studied since the time of Thucydides, its ontological origin refers to the formal studies that led to the creation of a university degree, and with it, in a defined discipline, it happened until the century XX.

Its field of application is wide, standing out the analysis and formulation of the foreign policy of the States. Likewise, there are other fields such as political science, anthropology, geopolitics, international law, human geography, international political economy, sociology, to name a few. This field is based on the application and study of the disciplines that make up international relations: Law, Politics, Sociology or Economics, as well as their systematic international development. For this reason, graduates and experts in the study of international relations are experts in Economics and Political Science.

Currently, the following topics reviewed by this discipline stand out: globalization, the State, ecology and sustainable development, terrorism and organized crime, disarmament and arms control, nationalism, economic development, international finance, human rights, and others. The scholars of this doctrine are known as "internationalists" or political scientists.

By extension, the term "international relations" It also applies to the sphere or space where said relations between States and/or between international organizations are established and developed. Despite this, in the last decade a large part of internationalist doctrine has agreed that the term "Global Governance" better reflects the meaning of the doctrine.

Historical perspective

History

In general terms, tradition places the beginning of International Relations in the Westphalian treaties of 1648, at which time the Modern State emerged. Previously, the political organization of Medieval Europe rested under a vague hierarchical religious order. The Westphalian treaties are instituted under the legal concept of sovereignty, that is, national laws are the last authority within the national territory: they have no equal among fellow citizens or higher-ranking regulations abroad. If in Ancient Greece or Rome the authority of the cities were around them, only until the Westphalian system did the notion of national sovereignty develop.

The Westphalian Treaties promoted the construction of independent Nation States through the institutionalization of diplomacy and armies. This European system was exported to America, Africa and Asia through colonization. The current system results from the decolonizations that took place during the Cold War. If the Nation State is considered «modern», several States have not adopted it, while others that have done so could be classified as «postmodern». The modern International Relations try to explain the relations between these different types of States in question. "Levels of analysis" are one way of approaching the international system and include: an individual level; the State, an international level; that of transnational and intergovernmental affairs, and a global world level.

This, which is explicitly recognized as International Relations theory, did not develop before World War I. In any case, the theory of International Relations has been fed by contributions from other areas. Numerous authors cite the history of Thucydides' Peloponnesian Wars as the starting point of the realistic theory that is followed by Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan and The Prince from Machiavelli. Similarly, the liberal theory of International Relations has been influenced by Emmanuel Kant and by Jean Jacques Rousseau. However, the current notion of the Rights of Man is considerably different from that held by the followers of natural law who witnessed the first efforts undertaken to assert certain general rights on the basis of a common humanity. On the other hand, in the XX century, Marxism has had a certain influence on the foundation of the discipline of International Relations. On the other hand, the vision of international relations in the modern era has been influenced by liberal theory, especially in the period that followed the end of the Cold War.

For Latin America, the creation of the Program of Joint Studies on the International Relations of Latin America (RIAL), in 1977, represents an important milestone in the history of the study of international relations in the region. Their presence brought a field of study in the process of consolidation as an autonomous science into dialogue, within the framework of the social sciences of the region, with the United States and Europe, and thus helped to give recognition to the region as an area of significant maturity. within the field of social studies and international politics in particular.

Study of international relations

Initially, international relations viewed as a distinct field of study was a British specificity. The first chair of International Relations was created in Wales in 1919 at Aberystwyth University as the Woodrow Wilson Chair and entrusted to Alfred Eckhard Zimmern through a gift from David Davies. At the beginning of the 1920s another chair was also created at the London School of Economics at the request of the Nobel laureate Noël-Baker. The first university fully devoted to International Relations was the Institut de hautes études internationales, founded in 1927 in Geneva by William Rappard. Its objective was to train diplomats associated with the League of Nations and was one of the first to issue doctorates in International Relations.

The Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University is the oldest school dedicated to International Relations in the United States. The Committee on International Relations of the University of Chicago was in 1928 the first to issue university degrees in these fields. Among the other schools we can mention: the School of International Service of the American University, the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia University, the School of International Relations of the University of St Andrews, the Elliot School of International Affairs of the George Washington University, the Fletcher School at Tufts University, and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Among other things in general as a graduate in international relations you will be able to:

• It develops strategic intelligence activities on foreign policy issues, international relations and international security.
• It detects and analyzes an international problem, its causes and possible consequences, and proposes alternative solutions.
• It promotes approximation and communication with the different actors of international society.
• It performs activities of representation of the country in international governmental and non-governmental forums.
• It develops public and private activities in the field of external trade relations.
• It designs and evaluates sectoral plans, programmes and projects linked to international technical cooperation.
• It advises and provides support in the process of drafting and sanctioning laws, in matters relating to foreign policy and international relations.
• Conducts research activities in the field of international relations in public and private institutions, the country or abroad
• Conducts advisory tasks in the visual, oral and written media, on issues related to international relations.
• Conducts private consulting activities on the international situation for decision-making.
• It develops political activities in the field of political parties, sectoral institutions and non-governmental organizations.
• Participates in the administration of international institutions.

The study of international relations from the angle of politics

Liberalism

The precursor of liberal international relations theory was idealism; however, this term was applied critically by those who saw themselves as "realists," such as Edward Hallett Carr. Liberalism holds that the preferences of the state, rather than its capabilities, are the determining factor. essential to their behavior. Unlike realism, where the State is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows plurality in the actions of the State. Thus, preferences will vary among States, depending on factors such as their culture, economic system, or type of government. Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is not limited to political security, but also to economic and cultural aspects. Thus, instead of an anarchic international system, there are various opportunities for cooperation and ample options for power, such as cultural capital. This branch is primarily based on the ideas of Immanuel Kant expounded in his book & # 34; Perpetual Peace & # 34;.

Idealism

The end of World War I implied a paradigmatic revolution in the study of world politics. Two very different perspectives on International Relations, such as Marxism and National Socialism / Fascism, competed with each other. However, the perspective known as political idealism, led by Woodrow Wilson, began to dominate International Relations studies.

Idealists shared a perspective on the world based on certain beliefs:

• (1) Human nature is essentially altruistic and therefore people are able to help and collaborate with each other;
• (2) Human misconduct is the result of structural institutions and arrangements, it does not come from the very nature of humans;
• (3) Therefore, war is avoidable, as it is the product of certain institutions that promote it, which could be neutralized;
• (4) international society should be reorganized to recognize war as an international problem and to eliminate those institutions that promote it, in favor of those that foster peace.

Flags of United Nations Member States at the headquarters of New York.

The main idealistic reform programs consisted mainly of three groups. One group advocated the creation of international institutions to replace the anarchic system of balance of power that prevailed in the pre-World War I era. This new system would be based on the principle of collective security, which claims that an act of aggression by any State would be perceived as aggression against all States. The League of Nations embodied this principle, reflecting the idealistic emphasis on the possibility of international cooperation as the primary mechanism for solving global problems. A second group of idealistic programs stressed the legal control of war. It sought to resolve disputes through legal mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration. Examples of these programs were the Permanent Court of International Justice and the ratification of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, which prohibited war as an instrument of national policy. A third set of idealistic programs focused on reducing state arms investment through arms control agreements and other means.

United Nations Headquarters in New York.

It is usually considered that the first representative work of idealism is Perpetual Peace, by Immanuel Kant.

Political realism

Realism as a political theory was built on the basis of understanding History as the result of the natural tendency of human beings to covet power and desire the domination of others. Following this assumption, it was determined that the possibility of eradicating the instinct for power is a utopian aspiration. This leads to perceiving international politics as a never-ending struggle for power between the actors on the international stage who try to dominate the world and those who try to resist this external domination.

Political realism assumes that the International System is anarchic, in the sense that there is no authority superior to the States capable of effectively regulating relations between them. In addition, it assumes that sovereign States are the main actors that make up the International System instead of being international institutions, non-governmental organizations or multinational corporations. According to realism, each state is a rational actor that seeks to maximize its political position within the system by accumulating military power resources. These attempts to maximize power ultimately lead to a balance of power between the actors and to stability in the International System.

Military exercises carried out in 2007 by India, Japan and USA. U.S.

This realist perspective, also known as classical realism, began to take shape in the 1940s and 1950s under the rising tensions of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The postulates of classical realism that the structure of the International System and the desire to accumulate power determine the behavior of all States seemed very persuasive, considering the environment of the time.

In the following years, classical realism came under attack from critics who pointed to behaviors in the SI that could not be adequately explained by realist arguments. For example, the new institutions taking hold in Western Europe, where the cooperative search for mutual advantage prevailed rather than individual attempts to maximize power, ran counter to the assumptions of classical realism.

Despite these criticisms, realism continues to have relevance through new realist theories adjusted to contemporary news. For example, neorealism or structural realism proposes that the structure of the International System, instead of the desire to accumulate power, exclusively dictates the foreign policy decisions of political leaders.

The work of Hans Morgenthau, especially Politics Among Nations, is considered a representative synthesis of political realism.

English School

The English school finds its sources at the beginning of the XIX century with authors such as Graham Wallas or Alfred Zimmern. His approach is not positivist but rather rational and normative. Analyze International Relations from the angle of the Great Society or international society. On these points, it is an idealist variant of the liberal school that, unlike the realists, does not focus exclusively on interstate relations. Two major variants are perceptible:

• A pre-eminent solidarity stream that emphasizes international law and collective security.

• A particularist current that puts more emphasis on interstate cooperation.

Some important authors of this movement are: Henry Bull, Barry Buzan, Thimothy Dunne, Martin Wight.

Structural Neorealism

According to the Professor of Geopolitics of the University of the Americas based in the city of Quito, the State continues to be an important actor, but it is not the only determinant since the international system acquires relevance, since it is considered that it is possible use war to achieve peace, but with limits. In this period the theory of suspicion arose and, consequently, the preventive war. Therefore, it is necessary to make regional and supranational agreements. In addition, new actors are emerging in the international context, such as international organizations, transnational companies and atypical actors such as terrorism. One of the most representative authors of this current is Kenneth Waltz.

Neoliberalism

Unlike liberalism, which conceives of states as the main actors in international relations, neoliberalism asserts that there is a global community governed by other more important actors, such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international organizations and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), among others. Its most representative authors are Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye.

Complex interdependence

From the postulates, an ideal model of world politics is elaborated as opposed to the characteristic model of political realism. This is the complex interdependence model. In most cases, the international reality will respond, according to these authors, to an intermediate situation between both models, which does not prevent the need for the complex interdependence model to adequately analyze this reality.

This model has three main characteristics:

• a. The existence of multiple channels that connect to societies: it is inter-State relations, trans-governmental relations and transnational relations.

• b. The agenda of inter-State relations consists of multiple problems that are not arranged in a clear and consistent hierarchy. This absence of hierarchy between problems means, among other things, that military security does not consistently dominate the agenda. Many problems arise from what is normally considered internal politics, and the distinction between internal and external problems is diluted.

• c. Military force is not used by Governments, with respect to other Governments within the region or with respect to problems, when complex interdependence prevails. However, it may be important in the relations of these governments with governments outside the region or other problems.

These three characteristics of complex interdependence give rise to different political processes, which translate power resources into power as control of results. The objectives would also vary depending on the problem areas, as would the distribution of power.no

South American Critical Theory

Elaborated by Marcelo Gullo, it affirms that the hypothesis on which international relations are based, conceptually, " resides in the fact of the existence, in any regional or international scenario, of a unity policy –or a group of political units– that tries to impose its will on the other political units that are forced, in this way, to choose between submission (subordination) or resistance (insubordination)." For this theory, one of the fundamental problems of international relations is the identification of the actors, given that the behaviors, systems, structures, and interaction processes cannot be correctly analyzed if, previously, the actors are not clearly identified. To err in the identification of the actors leads, inexorably, to a wrong analysis. It is for this reason that Gullo elaborates two types of ideal actors: Political Units with Territorial Seat (UPCAT) and Political Units without Territorial Seat (UPSAT). For the South American Critical Theory "the concept of UPCAT includes any organized political community that has effective control of a territory and that of UPSAT to any individual or group of individuals (organized formally or informally) that, without owning –or interest them – the formal effective domain of a territory, they try to achieve their goals, whatever these may be, to impose their will on the UPCAT. It does not matter what the ultimate goals are – religious, philanthropic, economic – of an individual or a group of individuals: if they try to fulfill them by imposing their will on all the UPCATs present on the international scene or on a group of them, that individual or that group of individuals becomes, de facto, an actor in international relations".

According to Gullo, "while the UPCAT concept allows us to cover both the Mesopotamian cities of Ur, Lagash, and Uruk, the Greek polis, the Islamic caliphate, the Inca, Persian or Roman empires, as well as the the current nation-states, UPSAT makes it possible to include from the ancient nomadic peoples to the modern international financial oligarchy."

Furthermore, the concept of UPSAT, maintains Marcelo Gullo "allows to contain organizations and even individuals who –although only on special historical occasions due to their power, prestige or wealth– are real actors, although sometimes they pass unnoticed, from international politics, like the Vatican or Freemasonry, the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Club, Al Qaeda or the Royal Dutch Shell, George Soros or the Dalai Lama."

International regimes

The word regime refers to the way of governing oneself in a thing. It includes institutions, regulations or practices of a government in general. It is the set of regular or stable conditions that accompany or cause a succession of phenomena.

Interdependence relationships frequently take place, and are affected within the framework of a set of rules and procedures that regulate behavior and control its effects. These series of government agreements that affect interdependence relationships constitute what experts call international regimes.

Regarding the expression of the complex interdependence that characterizes International Relations today, marked by the joint game of diplomatic-strategic relations and economic-international relations, the theory of international regimes constitutes one of the developments most interesting theorists of the 1980s XX century.

The theory of international regimes seeks to explain, in a complex context in which conflict continues to be a reality, the existing order situations in a specific field of international activity. Keohane and Nye define international regimes, in this sense, as networks of rules, norms, and procedures that regulate behavior and control its effects.

The theory of international regimes comes to represent, in some way, an approximation or reconciliation between the realist and idealist, or better, neorealist and globalist interpretations of international relations, entering fully into the currently dominant current in this field that affirms the pluralism paradigms.

Exactly, the paradigmatic plurality that arises after the Cold War, makes it possible to approach or meet the different explanatory currents of international relations, since they study the same reality, but from different perspectives without being totally distant, since the axis Central to the analysis continued to be the State, along with other actors that have been incorporated thanks to Globalization, a process that obviously requires another way of being explained, as well as the same International Relations that now also deals with looking at the world. taking into consideration issues such as the environment, gender, culture, among others.

Public international law, is a normative set that regulates relations between international subjects. Its legal framework is treaties and agreements, its basic principles are:

1. Respect for the sovereignty of States.
2. Non-intervention and interference.
3. Respect for agreements and treaties.

Hermeneutics

Since the publication in 1981 of his fundamental work, the Theory of Communicative Action, Jurgen Habermas has extended his analysis and reflections towards the foundation of discursive ethics, the defense of democracy deliberation and the principles of the rule of law, as well as the normative bases required to configure and even constitutionalize a global public sphere in which international relations can be established on a plane of true common understanding:

I suspect that another form of separation of powers should be introduced. I also think, of course, that such transformations of political institutions should take place within the framework of the constitutional principles now recognized, based on the universal content of those principles.

To this end, Habermas has established a form of open negotiation that allows all aspects of international problems to be resolved (if you really want to resolve them). Civil society being part of this dialogue, especially in those spaces where neither the State nor the market nor the institutions as such have responded adequately to provide a solution to the underlying issues that concern the population such as poverty, migration, etc.. For this reason, it is vitally important to create a dialogue between all those involved with clear and common communication channels and codes.