Governments are responsible not only for the internal, domestic affairs of the state, but also for its interactions with other states. The history of these interactions has been one of conflict – expansionism and defence – but also of alliances and trade. And the modern world of international relations is similarly divided into questions of conflicting national interests and international cooperation.
Traditionally, international politics was concerned with military might and territorial matters, but with the growth of trade has increasingly involved economic cooperation between nations for their mutual benefit. Today, globalization is a buzzword describing the apparent disappearing of national borders in international transactions, and the rise of transnational corporations with huge economic power. But while the world seems to become smaller, there are still political, cultural and economic divisions. Far from becoming homogeneous, the world population remains divided between rich and poor countries.
International relations can take place at the highest level, between heads of state reaching agreements to avoid conflict, or working together on a matter of common concern, but normally the groundwork has already been done by their diplomatic services, who also manage relations between countries on a day-to-day basis. A section of the government department for foreign affairs in most countries is staffed by diplomats, who represent the state in its dealings with other nations. Some are stationed in embassies – branch offices of the government, in various other countries – from which they can communicate with the officials of that country.
The role of diplomats is to protect their country’s interests, and the interests of its citizens, abroad. This sometimes involves resolving conflicts of interest to avoid war, but for much of the time is concerned with trade agreements and maintaining friendly relations between countries through social and cultural exchanges.
The relationship a nation has with other countries is determined by the foreign policy of its government – the ways it interacts with them militarily, politically, economically and socially. Of primary concern is promoting and protecting the interests of the state, while ensuring peaceful relations with other nations. Foreign policy decided by sovereign states is supposedly free from outside interference, but in practice is shaped by the actions and attitudes of other nations. There may even be pressure from strategic allies or the international community to adopt a particular stance. Countries with superior military or economic power can influence smaller, less powerful nations, especially if they are dependent on foreign aid. Membership of defence alliances, such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact, aligned the political and military foreign policy of members with the superpowers of the USA and Russia. Transnational corporations can also affect the economic slant of a country’s foreign policy, which is often developed in conjunction with partners in a trading bloc, such as the EU.
The nature of defence and national security has changed dramatically with the advent of modern weaponry. Now war can be waged over long distances to devastating effect, the importance of international politics and diplomacy has increased. The Cold War that characterized much of the 20th century was based on the possession of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and the notion of ‘MAD’ (mutually assured destruction). Deterrence, often in the form of a sabre-rattling arms race, prevented the kind of large-scale conflict seen in two world wars, but resulted in a large number of small ‘proxy wars’ using conventional weaponry. International agreements limit the use and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but old habits die hard and the old powers are reluctant to totally relinquish their weaponry. New threats come from terrorism, and many countries have responded by an increased emphasis on intelligence and surveillance to ensure national security, often seeking international cooperation in dealing with a global concern.
Some nations have been aggressively expansionist, seeking to expand their territory by invading and occupying other countries. Empires have been built by nations extending their boundaries, annexing neighbouring countries or colonizing distant ones. In the lead-up to the Second World War, the nationalist movements of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy were seeking respectively Lebensraum and spazio vitale – ‘room for living’ – and later the Soviet Union sought to extend its communist empire. Sometimes expansionism is justified as regaining a territory previously lost or that traditionally belonged to a particular people, but generally it is regarded as an unwarranted act of hostility, met with international condemnation and armed resistance. Nowadays, nations expand their sphere of influence economically rather than by force, gaining access to resources in other countries through trade. When this occurs between nations with unequal economic and political power, it can be seen as a legitimized form of subjugation and exploitation, no better than colonialism.
Alliances are common during wartime and may dissolve with the end of hostilities, such as the cooperation between the UK, the USA and Soviet Russia during the Second World War. But in the second half of the 20th century, two major military alliances emerged: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), comprising most nations of North America and Europe; and, in response, the Warsaw Pact (officially the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance) between the countries of the Soviet Union and its satellites.
More recently, with the breakup of the Communist bloc, new alliances are being formed, with economic and trade alliances also agreeing to some mutual military assistance and cooperation, and the Non-Aligned Movement of mainly southern-hemisphere countries not associated with or against any major power bloc. In addition, a handful of states, such as Switzerland, have steadfastly maintained a strict neutrality, refusing to align with any participants in international conflicts.
There has always been conflict between nations and, despite an almost universal condemnation of the use of force, international conflicts frequently result in war. But can war ever be justified? This was a question first addressed by medieval Islamic and Christian philosophers, who came to the conclusion there is such a thing as a ‘just war’, if it satisfies three main criteria: it must have proper authority (declared by a state or ruler); just cause (to recover something that has been taken); and right intention (the goal of restoring the peace).
The idea of jus ad bello – the right to go to war – later became a matter for international agreement rather than moral philosophy, and more detailed criteria for justifiable use of force were established. These included the ideas of proper authority, just cause and right intention, but also added principles of proportionality, probability of success and last resort. The rules of jus in bello regulating conduct in war were internationally agreed by a succession of Geneva Conventions.
Pacifism and anti-war movements
The protracted and large-scale devastation of the First World War proved a turning point in international attitudes to war. It was the prompt for greater international cooperation to prevent similar conflicts, exemplified by the formation of the League of Nations, which later became the model for the United Nations. But it also acted as a spur to grassroots movements opposed to the concept of war and pacifist organizations in countries around the world.
During the First World War, some British conscripts refused to fight on religious or political grounds, and established a right to conscientious objection, which is now internationally (but not universally) recognized. The peace movement gained significant support in the wake of the First World War, but waned during the Second World War, which was seen as a more ‘just’ conflict. With the arrival of nuclear weapons and the Cold War, however, pacifist organizations flourished once more, and their influence helped to change US policy during the Vietnam War.
Although ‘globalization’ is a recently coined word, the idea is not a new one. For thousands of years, people have travelled to other countries and established links for exchanging goods and ideas, and commercial trade between nations has long been a source of economic prosperity. What has changed, however, is the speed and ease with which we can communicate, travel and move goods around the world. International trade has expanded massively in recent years, helping to increase prosperity in the developed world. Interdependence between rich and poor countries has sometimes been mutually beneficial, but often the least developed countries do not benefit as much as their richer trading partners. There are a number of reasons for this: richer countries tend to trade with one another in higher value goods and services (often in trading blocs such as the EU), and with poorer countries to provide raw materials and cheap labour; and the poorer countries are often in competition with one another providing similar resources.
Transnational corporations (also known as multinational companies, or simply multinationals) sell their products around the world but tend to have their headquarters in one of the most developed countries, and factories or processing plants in less developed countries where production costs, especially labour, are much cheaper. This is, of course, advantageous to the multinational, but is also beneficial to developing countries, creating jobs, providing education and new skills, improving the infrastructure and generally assisting to develop the country’s economy.
But there are disadvantages, too, not least of which is that the profits from these companies go back to their home countries, and only a little is reinvested. Working conditions are often very poor, since one of the attractions for the multinational is that there are fewer regulations on employment practices in poorer countries. Also, if the company decides to move out, the loss of jobs can cause major social problems.
Globalization offers the potential to reduce poverty in the less developed countries through international trade and the location of transnational corporations’ production facilities. But unless regulated by international agreements the benefits are heavily one-sided. Unfair trade deals and exploitation by multinationals hinder rather than help developing countries. Growing awareness of this continuing inequality has resulted in the formation of a movement opposing the injustice of this aspect of globalization. Loosely known as the anti-globalization movement, it would more accurately be described as a movement against corporate or neoliberal globalization, as its criticism is directed against the unregulated power of transnational corporations to maximize their profits by exploiting the resources and workforce of poor countries. It is not opposed to international trade per se, and one offshoot of the movement has been the establishment of the Fairtrade Foundation to ensure producer countries receive fair payment for their goods and labour.
Until comparatively recently, treaties between nations have been strictly between the signatories, with no international recognition of their validity. In an increasingly globalized world, however, with much greater international trade and cooperation, the need arose for internationally recognized agreements and some laws to regulate international relations.
Some supranational organizations, such as trading blocs or defence alliances, have laws agreed by all the member states, but there are also truly international laws to which the majority of the countries of the world are signatories. These cover issues that are generally beyond the scope of individual sovereign governments – such things as international commerce, copyrights and patents, human rights, territorial disputes and the conduct of war. Matters of international law are decided in the International Courts in The Hague, established after the Second World War.
The United Nations was established in 1945 to replace the unsuccessful League of Nations, with the aims of maintaining international peace and security, promoting sustainable development, protecting human rights, upholding international law and delivering humanitarian aid. It consisted initially of 51 member states, but has grown to a membership of 193 – virtually every nation in the world. Although it has no real executive or legislative power, the UN has considerable influence as a medium for expressing the views of its members, each of whom is represented at the General Assembly.
The UN’s various roles are divided between its five principal, active organs –the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Secretariat, the International Court of Justice. Other specialized agencies, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank Group, and the World Health Organization, are autonomous organizations that coordinate with the UN Economic and Social Council.
Since the Enlightenment, various movements have called for the establishment of a world government, a global political authority. For some, this meant the domination of a single ideology, such as communism or fascism, but for others it was a utopian dream of world peace as a single nation. In 1954, peace activist Garry Davis set up the World Service Authority to promote global citizenship and world government, which continues to issue World Passports, despite not being recognized by more than one or two nations. At present, the world consists of some 200 separate independent nations and there is no institution with global jurisdiction. The International Courts can decide only on issues of international law, and the UN has little real authority over its members. It seems that even with increased globalization, the notion of a supranational government – let alone a single world government – is still a distant prospect. It is possible, however, that environmental crises, such as resource depletion and climate change, may hasten further international cooperation.
