Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for IR

IR

Is International Politics All About the State and Power?

by

By Anahad Khangura

(NY Law 2021)

With the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the modern state system was established along with the significance of territorial sovereignty of the state. In the sphere of international relations, power, which can be further classified into military, economic or diplomatic powers of the state, has emerged as significant instrument which is utilised by states to regulate the affairs of the international relations. Nation-states aim to maintain a ‘balance of power’ through which states aim to maximise their security by creating an equal distribution of power to avoid accumulation of power in one state. States pursue this balance of power by either maximising their capacity or by creating alliances with other nations to augment their power collectively.

However, different schools of thought adopt a varied approach to the nature of power in international relations. The realist paradigm considers power particularly in the military aspect. Therefore, realism considers states as the chief actors who regulate power politics to secure their interests. The liberal paradigm focuses on the power and interests of states but in relation to other groups of society. Liberalism highlights the significance of cooperation between states and other actors to maintain their positions in international politics. Additionally, the neo-liberal institutionalists believe that states with converging interests create international institutions such as inter-governmental organisations (IGOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which digress power and sovereignty from the nation-state. The transnational nature of issues like climate change and disarmament, demand the involvement of international institutions which can facilitate effective communication between nation-states. In correspondence with the neo-liberal perspective, it can be said that the growing significance of non-state actors challenges the conventional ‘state-centric’ approach to international politics and subsequently replaces it with a ‘transnational’ system. In line with the neo-liberal institutionalists, it is imperative to acknowledge the significance of international institutions in international relations. Even though states remain the decisive factors in the international relations apparatus, the participation of international organisations cannot go unobserved. Therefore, international relations not only engage with the state and its powers but also with other significant agents such as international organisations, not-for-profit initiatives, and the civil society.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, the concept of war became distant for nations due to the devastation and havoc caused. Consequently, the role of international institutions began to expand as they emerged as instruments of maintaining world peace and order. For instance, in 1945, the United Nations (UN) emerged as an outcome of the turmoil caused by the Second World War to avoid potential destructive wars. Today, the UN holds a form of power which maintains a system of checks and balances on the behaviours of nation-states. Therefore, the notion of power is no longer confined to states, but it has been dispersed to other bodies as well. The fast-paced globalisation process has had a detrimental impact on the traditional perspective of the state and its powers. This has led to the expansion of the scope of international politics to include more actors. The ability of international institutions to influence the behaviour of states in the political realm has increased their significance and scope.

SIGNIFICANCE OF NON-STATE ACTORS IN WORLD POLITICS

In the context of the shifting power dynamic, a ‘polyarchy’ has emerged where nations and sub-national groups have created a pattern of coexistence. In the sphere of international relations, non-state actors can be defined as all those actors that are not states. This includes organisations and institutions operating at a global, national or local level. Non-state actors have emerged as important components of international relations as they maintain a system of constraints which holds states accountable for their actions. International institutions highlight the impact of government actions to the public which creates a standard of transparency between the officials and the public. The structure of international relations has emerged as a mutually dependent network where states cooperate with non-state actors to maximise their interests and to uphold world order.

The realm of international politics has been complicated due to two main reasons: primarily, the diversity of actors in the political system; secondarily, the linkages between various issues and their transnational nature. In order to maximise cooperation between nation-states, international organisations play a significant role by providing a medium of communication where the realisation of common goals could lead to a consensus regarding political matters. International organisations regulate international relations by facilitating effective inter-state cooperation to help states to achieve their objectives. Therefore, such organisations seek to maximise the advantages of nation-states by serving as instruments of communication and cooperation. Therefore, outcomes regarding security cannot be considered solely as results of state action as the contribution of international organisations is significant to the process.

However, the functioning of international institutions is regulated by the participation of states. Nation-states are the significant navigators of international institutions. In international organisations, the objectives and interests of some states are more significant than those of the others. More powerful states can sway international organisations in favour of their interests. However, great powers uphold their hegemony and maximise their interests at the expense of the benefits of smaller states. For instance, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is dominated by the Permanent Five (P5) nations which hold the power to veto resolutions which are opposed to their primary interests.

Additionally, human rights organisations have also emerged to challenge the sovereignty of states by upholding a medium of transnational constraints regarding human rights practices which the states are expected to observe. For instance, the European Commission of Human Rights has emerged as an agency which was developed by European nations by submitting a part of their sovereignty to help monitor human rights breaches in Europe. Therefore, these international institutions have emerged as important components of the international relations.

On the other hand, terrorist organisations and militant groups have also become important determinants of international relations. The multi-ethnic nature of almost all states has prompted a sense of victimisation amongst certain communities. Consequently, terrorism has been utilised as an instrument by individuals and communities to expose their grievances with the political system. Additionally, there have also been multiple cases of state-sponsored violence where governments have adopted a violent methodology to suppress weaker communities of society. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) can further exemplify the impact that terrorist organisations can have on the system of international politics. ISIS emerged as a terrorist organisation which challenged the sovereign territory of nations and declared its caliphate. Additionally, ISIS also managed to maintain a constant influx of finances and ammunition. The ability of terrorist organisations to function as independent bodies, with territory and financial support, questions the supremacy of nations in international relations.

Another significant aspect which has emerged is the participation and the involvement of civil society in the process of international relations. The progress of democratic states has escalated the impact and influence of civil society in politics. Individuals outside the political realm have the power to hold the government accountable for their actions by exercising their right to protest and voice dissent. The collective participation of the civil society can influence the flow of international relations.

CONCLUSION

The traditional approach to international relations upheld that states regulate power to maximise their interests. However, the globalisation process has undermined the superiority of states in international politics by introducing other agents as significant stakeholders. The contribution of non-state actors to international politics cannot be overlooked. States may continue to remain significant actors in international politics but the medium of cooperation and communication between states would not be attained without the involvement of international institutions. The contemporary understanding of power has divided power between different participants. An approach to international politics which solely focuses on the state and its powers could be inadequate. Therefore, a multi-pronged approach to international politics acknowledges a network of co-dependence between nation-states, non-state organisations and the civil society.

 

Anahad Khangura has recently received her Master’s degree in International Peace and Security from the War Studies Department at KCL. Her academic interests are inclined towards types of political violence and counterterrorism strategies. For her Master’s dissertation, Anahad evaluated the adaptability of terrorist organisations in light of a comparative analysis between Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hezbollah. You can follow her on Twitter: @Anahad15

Why do so few Scholars Study the Intersection of Climate and Security?

by

by Matthew Ader

Climate change or security, a question of the one or the other? (Image credit: Lisa Benson)

I have had two and a half hours of teaching on climate change and security in two years, and I am unlikely to get any more. BA and MA courses at the King’s Department of War Studies do not offer any modules about climate change. Neither do security studies courses at Exeter, St Andrews, Oxford, or Cambridge. The US has equally slim pickings. Where tuition does exist, it tends to focus on human security and development; not strategy and operations.

And yet climate change is reshaping the world in unpredictable ways. Multiple governments even named it as a major security threat. Academics correlate climate change, if a little tentatively, with increased rates of conflict. However, scholars of strategy and war do not seem to focus on it. I surveyed thirty-four International Relations and Security Studies journals – all those with an H-Index above 30. Since 1995, these journals have, between them, published 45 articles about the intersection of climate change and conflict. As a matter of contrast, just one of those journals, International Organization, published 4356 total articles in the same period.

This initial survey reveals a worrying gap in the literature. Security courses that rely on this research are the incubator for future policymakers and analysts, while academics are often called upon to advise governments. A failure to address climate change risks depriving the next generation of security leaders and thinkers of a solid grounding in an important subject. At best, this may leave governments scrambling to cope with unforeseen challenges. At worst, it could lead to the creation of bad policy – or even open the door for malign actors who take advantage of climate change to push other agendas.

Why has security academia not fully engaged in this subject? Partially, it is because academics are very busy and have many existing commitments. Undertaking novel research or designing new courses, especially when the literature is so sparse, is time-consuming. It is also risky; work on climate change may not be valued in the same way as more conventional topics when hunting for jobs. Worse still, there is little research funding in climate change and security. Ministries and Departments of Defence have declared climate change to be a threat but have yet to put their money where their mouth is. These challenges, combined with the broader structural precarity of academic careers, militate against researchers investigating climate change and security.

These generally applicable concerns are worsened by personnel policy. Security studies departments are not hiring climate change experts. For example, of the eighty academics in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, only two mention climate as a research interest. This makes cross-sectoral research more difficult. Even more concerning still is that such a deficit reduces opportunities for students interested in climate and security to study the issue. This, in turn, perpetuates the existing scarcity, creating a negative feedback loop. Of course, it would be unfair and inaccurate to blame this purely on hiring practices. A department cannot hire scholars who do not exist. However, it is at least partially a chicken-and-egg problem. The lack of cross-sectoral research and limited tuition opportunities addressing climate and security make it harder to attract additional academic talent to the field.

A related challenge is that climate change does not fit within traditional models of security analysis. It is not a human actor, it does not deploy discrete methods, and it is difficult to analyse through the conventional lenses of IR theory or grand strategy. Grappling with the climate requires scientific and geographical knowledge which falls outside the specialisms of most security scholars. For example, the fierce debate among geographers over the linkage between climate and conflict depends on comparing rainfall data against incidences of violence. Unless an academic is trained to a high level in meteorological modelling, they are unlikely to be able to engage with the discussion in depth. The one partial exception to this is the Human Security field. Human security, with its focus on different issues impacting ordinary people, has covered climate change in more detail. However, its perspective has more to do with development and local interventions than big-picture decision-making. While there are absolutely insights to be gained from that discipline for national policymakers, it does not answer the broader questions required to inform strategic decision-making.

Lastly, while we are seeing the impacts of climate change now, its most dramatic impacts lie in the future. Mass climate migration, unprecedented littoral urbanization, and irreversible water scarcity are not science fiction but their true implications are only just emerging. Scholars are understandably reticent to engage in speculation – it is risky and can lead to poor quality research. This is especially true for security studies and international politics, which are wildly unpredictable. As General McMaster noted, “we have a perfect record of predicting future wars…and that record is 0%.”

This is compounded by the creeping nature of climate change. On 12 September 2001, nearly every security scholar turned their attention to terrorism and the Middle East. I’m sure that a similar statistical analysis of journals from 1985 to 2000 would show relatively few articles about Salafi jihadism, but academics were able to apply their existing knowledge to the new problem. It is not clear that this will happen with climate change, because there will probably not be a single dramatic event which changes conversations and research priorities. Rather, it will incrementally alter global conditions over the span of decades, shaping a new normal.

Such a slow-moving emergency is unlikely to attract enough research to effectively inform policy – especially given that great power competition, terrorism, and biosecurity will, among other issues, remain pressing concerns throughout the period. This is worsened, as noted, by the requirement for expert scientific knowledge to properly study climate change. In short, there is unlikely to be a catalyst for the study of climate change, and if there is, security scholars may struggle to obtain the necessary scientific knowledge to properly engage with the issue in a timely fashion.

There is no single policy prescription that can magically fix this deficit. However, it is a problem – and it must be rectified. Climate change is actively reshaping the world. If security academics do not provide perspectives on it, the security implications may be ignored. Worse, they might be dishonestly weaponised to achieve a larger agenda. We have seen this already with alt-right groups using fear of climate migration as a recruiting tactic. The past four years have clearly shown that radical ideologies can find purchase at the highest levels of government. In the absence of informed views from authoritative sources, decisionmakers may turn to confident ideologues for answers.

At the end of that lecture on climate change, I asked the lecturer what the strategic plan was for dealing with the mass migrations, droughts, and water wars he predicted. He said that there was not a single one. The gap in the research is no one’s fault. But catastrophe does not care about intention. Policymakers will require effective advice to navigate the new challenges of this century. The academic community should mobilise to provide it – and security academics should lead the charge.

[1] This was achieved by searching their archives for all articles from 1995-2020 with “climate change” in the title and manually sorting through. This method is necessarily vulnerable to personal judgement and can exclude work on topics adjacent to climate change & security i.e. food scarcity.

Matthew Ader is a second-year student doing War Studies. He has worked as an intern in a number of security consultancy firms. His academic interests gravitate loosely towards understanding challenges and opportunities for Anglo-American strategy in the 21st century (and also being snide about Captain America’s command ability). He is also an editor for Roar News, and has written for a number of security publications – most especially Wavell Room. You can follow him on Twitter: @AderMatthew.