What is the study of international relations

I course “International Relations” Variant I

Task 1. Find the translation and write down the transcription to the following words or phrases:

Scope, body of knowledge, subject matter, nonstate actors, coercive, scholar, occurrence, to blur, robust, assumption, definable, essence, to bear in mind, to perform analysis, the advent, to highlight, bold departure, hence, to avoid war, to emerge, problem-solving level, transnational basis, to guide, use of force, currently, meaningful difference, to create, multiple issues,.ad hoc conference, turbulence, domestic conditions.

WHAT IS THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?

Every academic discipline tries to develop its literature and history, scope and methods, and theoretical way of thinking to produce and organize a body of knowledge. Understanding how specialists in the field of international relations think and work will provide additional conceptual tools to deal with the subject matter of international relations. Thus, offering a profile of the international relations discipline will be useful.

International relations is the study of who gets what, when, and how in matters external to states or in matters crossing national boundary lines.

The who of international relations are primarily states or the countries of the world. In addition, nonstate actors, including terrorists, churches, international organizations, and associations representing ethnic groups, are increasingly being recognized as important in international relations. The goals of actors are the what of international relations, and these goals can be of a political, economic, social, or cultural kind. The when of international relations can range from continuous activity by states providing for the security of their populations to the episodic activity of a private international organization. The how of international relations refers to the instruments actors use to achieve goals. A wide range of instruments is available, including military force, propaganda, foreign aid, diplomacy, and numerous others.

Diplomacy, as a traditional tool in changing times, is helping to move the world from the model of international anarchy to the model of international society.

Today's diplomacy generally supports respect for the authority behind international law and international organizations and is the chief instrument for providing many more rules and norms to guide conduct in international society. Nonstate actors now join in diplomacy, often facilitating cooperation among the more primary state actors.

The orientation of diplomacy is clearly toward cooperation and the avoidance of conflict, especially the use of force. The interaction of the world is now one of interdependence created through the sharing of multiple issues that requires regularly engaging the problem-solving level of multilateralism. Multilateralism is simply diplomacy in which many actors meet in the same place, either in ad hoc conferences or in the more structured international organizations. Today there is a consensus on the diplomatic process and, to a lesser degree, on issues for which diplomacy is appropriate. Most actors today much prefer diplomacy over force, though they still have meaningful differences over issues.

Conditions supporting the international anarchy model of the realists definitely have faded; yet overstressing the positive effects of the diplomatic process can lead to exaggeration. Diplomacy is currently shaping an international society, but has not completed this task. In addition, the shared world culture, essential for an international community, is nowhere in sight. Differences in national cultures, national interests, and diplomatic styles can still occur and create turbulence in diplomatic relations.

Traditionally, the distinctive character of international relations has been the condition or anarchy—that is, the absence of a government, a legal and coercive center that can control the actors in a given political arena. Without the presence of government, some scholars view the use of force and the occurrence of war as normal outcomes. In fact, some scholars in the international relations field have treated the problem of war as the central concern of their discipline. These scholars often contrast international relations with the domestic politics of states. They see the central government of a country as regulating domestic politics and producing more stable and peaceful conditions than are possible in international politics.

In modern reality, lines between domestic and international politics have blurred, bringing the two kinds of politics closer together. Some scholars question whether a specialized international relations field, one within the broader discipline of political science, is even necessary. However, the continuation of many specialized courses and journals under the rubric international relations demonstrates that this field is alive and robust. Although the distinction between international and domestic politics is not always sharp, international specialists operate on the assumption that they have a definable field of study.

Actually, international relations are not nearly as anarchic as some might suppose. World anarchy, in essence the absence of world government, does not necessarily lead to disorder and violence Countries frequently choose to avoid war and follow the norms and rules of international law. Also, the many civil wars and revolutions taking place within countries prove that the presence of governments inside states is no guarantee of stable and peaceful domestic conditions. Sometimes the internal affairs of states turn into anarchy involving both the collapse of central government and chaotic violence. Ironically, it is the United Nations that must come to the rescue of internally disturbed states. The international level, supposedly without order, sends help down to the state level, presumably where order and peace reign almost by definition.