{"id":342799,"date":"2025-07-15T00:53:47","date_gmt":"2025-07-14T19:23:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/?p=342799"},"modified":"2025-07-16T16:11:03","modified_gmt":"2025-07-16T10:41:03","slug":"psir-power-50-day-32-capsule-key-concepts-in-international-relations-practice-qs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/psir-power-50-day-32-capsule-key-concepts-in-international-relations-practice-qs\/","title":{"rendered":"PSIR Power 50 \u2013 Day 32 Capsule: KEY CONCEPTS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS + Practice Qs"},"content":{"rendered":"

Download PDF<\/a><\/p>\n

Hello aspirants,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Today\u2019s revision capsule of PSIR optional preparation covers KEY CONCEPTS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS<\/u><\/strong>.<\/strong> There are four 20-markers, eleven 15-markers, and three 10-markers<\/strong> from this topic in the last 12 years.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

KEY CONCEPTS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

    \n
  1. NATIONAL INTEREST<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Details & Scholars<\/strong>Constant-permanent \/ Variable<\/strong>Core = security-sovereignty-strategic autonomy; Variable = e.g. India\u2019s non-alignment<\/strong> \u2192 multi-alignment<\/strong>.Realist view<\/strong>Hans Morgenthau<\/strong>: rooted in human nature & power-desire.Liberal view<\/strong>Pursued through cooperation, trade, institutions.Constructivist view<\/strong>Alexander Wendt<\/strong> et al.: socially constructed by culture & ideology.Marxist critical view<\/strong>Charles Beard, Raymond Aron, Joseph Frankel, Burchill Scott, Mohammad Younus<\/strong> \u2013 national interest masks ruling-class \/ imperial ambitions; \u201cobfuscation of class conflict.\u201dTwo-part realist classification<\/strong>Core & Variable (Morgenthau).Robinson\u2019s sixfold list<\/strong>Primary, Secondary, Permanent, Variable, General, Specific.Components<\/strong>Economic, Security, Geopolitical, Ideology\/Culture.Historical evolution<\/strong>From Peace of Westphalia<\/strong>, Cold War, post-Cold War.Pseudo-concept debate<\/strong>\u201cVague & subjective,\u201d yet defended by realists.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

      \n
    1. POWER<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Dimension<\/strong>Content<\/strong>Central realist maxim<\/strong>Morgenthau: \u201cWhatever be the ultimate end, power is the most ultimate end.\u201dEvolution<\/strong>From Thucydides, Machiavelli<\/strong> (military) \u2192 economic & soft<\/em> dimensions (liberals) \u2192 social norms (Wendt<\/strong>).Elements<\/strong>Political stability, Geography, Demography, Military, Economic status, Social cohesion, Intelligence (RAW, IB, CIA, Mossad), Technology\/R&D, Leadership (Kautilya \u2013 Saptanga; \u2018King as Nabhi\u2019<\/strong>).Determinants & Hierarchy<\/strong>Superpowers (USA, USSR), Great Powers (Russia, France, UK), Middle Powers (India, Australia, Turkey, Israel, Italy, Germany, Pakistan), Small Powers (Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bhutan).Soft Power<\/strong>Joseph Nye<\/strong> \u2013 \u201cability to make others want what you want.\u201d Culture, movies, education.Smart Power<\/strong>Suzanne Nossel<\/strong>; popularised by Nye \u2013 calibrated mix (Carrot + Stick).Fast Power<\/strong>John Chipman<\/strong> \u2013 agility, speed, tech-driven \u201csurvival of the fastest.\u201d<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. POLARITY OF POWER<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Type<\/strong>Stability verdict (Structural Realists Kenneth Waltz, John Mearsheimer) & Examples<\/strong>Unipolarity<\/strong>2nd-most unstable; post-1991 USA \u201chyperpower overstretch.\u201dBipolarity<\/strong>Most<\/em> stable; Cold War, nuclear deterrence.Multipolarity<\/strong>Least<\/em> stable, accidental war risk (Mearsheimer); classic Europe, emerging with China\/India rise.<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

          \n
        1. BALANCE OF POWER<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Definitions by Morgenthau<\/strong> (policy, state of affairs, equal distribution) & Ernst Haas<\/strong> (eight meanings).<\/em><\/p>\n

          Assumptions:<\/em> anarchy, states pursue interest, war readiness, no preponderance.<\/p>\n

          Forms:<\/em> Internal vs External balancing; alliances, arms race, buffer partitions.
          \nCritiques:<\/em> Stephen Walt \u2013 \u201cbalance of threat\u201d<\/strong>; stability-instability paradox<\/em>; relevance fades in unipolarity but returns with new multipolarity.<\/p>\n

          Golden age:<\/em> A.J.P. Taylor<\/strong> \u2013 1848-1914 Europe; Concert of Europe<\/em> (1815).
          \nHegemonic Stability Theory<\/em>: Charles Kindleberger, Robert Gilpin<\/strong> \u2013 Pax Britannica \/ Pax Americana.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

            \n
          1. COLLECTIVE SECURITY vs COLLECTIVE DEFENCE<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
            Collective Security (liberal)<\/strong><\/td>\nCollective Defence (realist)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            UN, League of Nations, \u201csecurity of one is security of all.\u201d<\/td>\nNATO Article 5 \u2013 bloc vs specified threat.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Universal, enemy undefined; aims to forestall conflict.<\/td>\nExclusive alliance, pre-named adversary.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Critique: idealistic, veto politics, slow implementation.<\/td>\nCritique: bloc mentality, sparks rivalry (e.g. Russia\u2013Ukraine citing NATO).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

            UN innovations:<\/em> Acheson \u201cUniting for Peace\u201d Resolution<\/strong>, Korean Crisis 1950, Gulf War I (1991).<\/p>\n

             <\/p>\n

              \n
            1. SECURITIZATION \u2013 COPENHAGEN SCHOOL<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Founders:<\/em> Barry Buzan, Ole W\u00e6ver, Jaap de Wilde<\/strong>.
              \nSecurity = \u201cspeech act\u201d; issues become existential when labelled so.<\/em>
              \nSectors:<\/em> Military, Political, Economic, Social, Ecological (Buzan\u2019s five pillars).
              \nExamples:<\/em> Arctic, European migration.
              \nLinks to Constructivism:<\/em> \u201cAnarchy is what states make of it.\u201d<\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

                \n
              1. SECURITY THEORIES & SCHOOLS<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
                School<\/strong><\/td>\nReferent & Threat<\/strong><\/td>\nKey names \/ Notes<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                Realist<\/td>\nState vs other states; John Herz<\/strong> security dilemma.<\/td>\nWaltz, Mearsheimer.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                Liberal<\/td>\nStates & individuals; institutions, democratic peace.<\/td>\nWoodrow Wilson, Karl Deutsch \u2013 security community<\/strong>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                Marxist<\/td>\nHuman vs capitalism; exploitation.<\/td>\nAndrew Linklater<\/strong> amongst critical voices.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                Feminist<\/td>\nHuman vs patriarchy; everyday insecurity.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                Critical \/ Emancipatory<\/td>\nLinklater<\/strong> \u2013 moral boundaries, grassroots democracy.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                Copenhagen \/ Constructivist<\/td>\nThreats are socially constructed (securitization).<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                 <\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. DETERRENCE & MAD<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Psychological concept; requires rational actors.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
                  Concept<\/strong><\/td>\nDetails & Scholars<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                  MAD<\/strong><\/td>\nMutually Assured Destruction \u2013 second-strike, nuclear triad.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                  Game-theory fathers<\/strong><\/td>\nBernard Brodie, Herman Kahn, Thomas Schelling, Mearsheimer<\/strong>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                  Extended deterrence<\/strong><\/td>\nUS umbrella for Japan, ROK.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                  Critiques<\/strong><\/td>\nNina Tannenwald \u2013 \u201cnuclear taboo\u201d; Henry Kissinger<\/strong> sceptical; liberals push abolition.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                  Pre-emptive strike<\/strong><\/td>\nHighly contested; triad survivability undermines credibility.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                   <\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. SECURITY DILEMMA<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Coined by John Herz<\/strong>; refined by Robert Jervis<\/strong> (\u201coffence-defence balance\u201d).<\/em>
                    \nConstructivist re-interpretation: George Sorenson<\/strong> \u201cinsecurity dilemma\u201d, Amitabh Acharya<\/strong> on Third World contexts.<\/em><\/p>\n

                     <\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. TRANSNATIONAL ACTORS (TNA)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
                      Actor<\/strong><\/td>\nRealist view<\/strong><\/td>\nLiberal \/ Other views<\/strong><\/td>\nCritical notes<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                      MNCs<\/strong><\/td>\nAgents of states.<\/td>\nDevelopment engines.<\/td>\nMarxists: exploiters; East India Company precedent.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                      NGOs<\/strong><\/td>\nMinimal role.<\/td>\nPositive agents; UN ECOSOC Art 72 consultative.<\/td>\nMarxists: proxies, regime-change tools.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                      Terror groups<\/strong><\/td>\nState proxies.<\/td>\n\u2013<\/td>\nJohn Lewis Gaddis<\/strong> \u2013 post-CW asymmetry; \u201csnakes\u201d after Python.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                       <\/p>\n

                       <\/p>\n

                      #Key Words and Scholars<\/strong><\/p>\n