International Relations: New Paradigms and New Challenges

It is probably the most interesting time to be a student of the discipline of International Relations (IR). And more so if your are studying it based in the developing world. This post attempts to look at the new paradigms, new horizons and new tends that are emerging in the field of IR.

In Search of Non-Western IR Theory:

Traditionally and even now, the field of IR has been dominated by theories, paradigms put forth by scholars in USA and Europe. The attempt till date has been to understand the world in mould set by the Western Scholars. This bias in study was further reinforced by the theorising done in context of Cold War- with Realism and its variants being the dominant paradigm. Though neoliberalism was the contending theory, it shared many of its assumptions with neorealism. The other theories- the English School, Constructivism, and Critical Theory offered new ways to make sense of the world, but they still remained confined to the Western view of the world. The lack of Non-Western theory is seen as one of the new challenges that the scholars of Asia, Africa and South America face. This effort will be unique as it will be based on the different and varied experiences of these regions. (For more on this the special issue of International Relations of Asia-Pacific (IRAP) Vol. 7, No. 3; 2007 published by Oxford University Press in association with Japan Association of International Relations is an important contribution.)

Moving Away from the Polar Terminology:

The Cold War saw the world being described as a bipolar world, in the period immediately after the end of Cold War was defined in terms unipolar world-with USA being the sole super power. By the last years of the 1990s the world was described as ‘multipolar with a unipolar moment’ that the US was no longer the hegemon as it used to be and new power centres- EU, China, Russia, India and Brazil are slowly emerging. In an influential article- ‘The Age in Nonpolarity’ by Richard Haass (2008); Haass argued that it is time to define world as a ‘nonpolar’ world. He argued that there is neither one dominant pole now contending poles in the world currently. At the global level, states are no longer the only actors; they are now fighting for space with non-state actors like – NGO, Transnational Corporations (TNCs),other international organisations and even terrorist groups. Hence he terms the current world as ‘nonpolar’. But a pertinent point here is that should we still stick to the polar terminology? On one hand there is a continuous flux in the power equations in the world-as reflected in various international negotiations, recently in WTO. And at the same time an international power hierarchy exists, the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ are still a reality; but the ‘have nots’ are not a one homogenous category as they used be. A new terminology may be more helpful to comprehend the changing dynamics of the world.


Redefining Sovereignty- accepting R2P?

Sovereignty though treated as sacrosanct, has been conveniently manipulated over decades to suit the interests of the power holders. Globalisation-with its varied meanings- has further challenged the institution of sovereignty. But the fact remains that state sovereignty is still a reality and states continue to value it greatly. More importantly it remains the most crucial ‘organising principle’ of the world. But now efforts are on to forge a global consensus on norms that will overcome the limits imposed by sovereignty. Humanitarian Intervention has now been reframed as Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It has been conceptualised by International Commission on State Sovereignty and Intervention (funded by Canada). R2P signifies a growing consensus on the issue that the world cannot sit silent while thousands of people are either being left to die or being killed. The basic idea behind R2P is that human rights trump sovereignty. This is a controversial concept and many states-notably USA, China and India have been wary of it. It would be interesting to see what stand-at normative and policy level-these countries take as this idea gains more currency.

These are some of the areas that will define the terms of debate in future in the discipline of International Relations. Some of the forthcoming posts will seek to look at the new areas emerging in IR. Of these there will be two paper/article summaries from the papers published in the special issue of International Relations of Asia-Pacific (IRAP) Vol. 7, No. 3; (2007). This special issue deals with the theme- ‘Why there is no non-Western IR Theory: Reflections on and from Asia’; edited by Ashok Acharya and Barry Buzan.

India as a Responsible International Stakeholder

Article Review: Is India, or Will it be, a Responsible International Stakeholder
Author: Xenia Dormandy; Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Published in The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2007 issue


Over the last few years numerous articles, journal papers and policy declarations have heralded India’s emergence on the global stage and its evolution as an important international stakeholder. This article from The Washington Quarterly makes an interesting case for India as a responsible player in the emerging global order. Written by Xenia Dormandy of the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard University, this article appeared in the above mentioned journal’s Summer 2007 issue.
Many in the US policy structure- like Rice and Zoellick have called for India become a responsible stakeholder of the international order, especially in tandem with USA. Post 9/11 USA no longer enjoys the hegemony it commanded earlier. The article builds on this argument and makes a case for New Delhi’s partnership with Washington to build and maintain the international order. Any international order has two aspects-norm-building and burden sharing; a stakeholder takes effort to build establish norms, elicit support and participation for the norms and prioritise the issues that the international system should consider; e.g. India’s membership of various regional and international organisation. A stakeholder also shares the burden of maintaining the international order, e.g. India’s efforts in reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Dormandy argues that India now is moving out of its Cold War scepticism of USA. The relationship between these two countries is no longer Pakistan centric. And at the same time India is forging independent ties with China without being part of US policy towards China. But there is convergence of perspectives and interests between India and USA in Asia, especially while dealing with China and Pakistan. USA hopes that India’s growing clout in the region and its membership or observer status of organisations like BIMSTEC, SCO, APEC will ensure that USA’s interests are safeguarded especially in case of SCO.

Three Areas of assuming responsibility:

Dormandy identifies three main areas where India can emerge as a responsible stakeholder, these are: a) Non-Proliferation b) Energy and Environment and c) Regional and International Security.

Non-Proliferation: India has an excellent record of non-proliferation in spite of not being a member of formal non-proliferation measures like NPT. The Indo-US Civilian Nuclear Deal marks an important step of integration of India with the nuclear order. India has already expressed its support for Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). This is important as India is unofficially acknowledged as the leader of the developing countries.

Energy and Environment: India by 2030 will emerge as the third largest consumer of energy. It is also a major importer of crude oil and it provides security to one of the most important energy passages of the world-the Malacca straits. India along with China is emerging as an important contributor of carbon emissions (if total and not per capita emissions are considered); hence any future measures on tackling global warming will require participation by India. India could show the way to developing countries by investing in ‘green technology’ so that it already saves the costs of shifting from carbon-economy to green-economy.

Regional and International Security: The article argues that since India is keen on rapid economic development, it has an interest in having a peaceful and stable regional and international security scenario. India could play an important role in negotiating with Iran in diffusing the current nuclear crisis and should prevail upon USA that military action is not the solution. India is strategically located with proximity to Central Asia and South East Asia; it has the ability to control the movement in Indian Ocean (a major trading zone) and is crucial to stability in the Asian continent.

While identifying these three scenarios, Dormandy takes a US centric view of the international order. She sees India as junior partner in USA’s foreign policy designs (many in India already see this as a reality). She argues that USA does not involve itself deeply in international organisations and treaties that are unverifiable and lack implementation, citing the examples of UN, APEC and the Kyoto Protcol. But India has always seen the above mentioned organisations and treaties as serious efforts to achieve global cooperation.
The article has an underlying tone of USA and the Western world trying to or should co-opt India into an order of their making. But the current international scenario is dramatically different from the one in 1990s or even early years of the present decade. No new international order can be shaped without countries like India, China, Brazil and South Africa occupying a rightful place in it. More importantly neither USA nor Europe can dictate the terms and contours of the new international order. It has to emerge with consensus among the important players. The latest failure of WTO ministerial talks on Doha Round is a clear indication that the West can no longer push through their agenda.
Nonetheless the article provides an interesting glimpse of what the academic world in USA is thinking about India’s rising power.