Talk:International relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This page is far from finished. I'll try to detail later the history of this discipline and talk about some of its main ideas. I'll need help correcting my english mistakes... :-/ Besides Political Science, where this page should also be linked from?

Thanks! --Yves Marques Teixeira


Is there a better term to use to title this page? "International relations" seems, well, inadequate (not to mention it is plural). What is needed is a term that can be logically linked to in the text of another article. --mav

As you see in the Library of the Congress, session JZ, the term is "correct". Well, I really don't know what is needed. What I know is that this area of knowledge exists, and btw is usually ped with the "R" capitalized. The International Relations is an area of knowledge like any other, even being originarily "only" multi-disciplinary, not only a "term that can be loglically linked to".

I mean, at least I am studying this for the past 4 years. hehe

About the capitalization of the page, I agree, I'm sorry. But then I think you guys should change the Main Page. I says "Philosophy, Mathematics, and Natural Science".

ps. it is sometimes refered as "International Affairs". but this is different. "Relations" would be not only by states. etc

Hey guys, I need an answer. I have to known if it's ok to work on this page or not...
--Yves Marques Teixeira
Of course its OK to work on this page - I just wanted to know if there was a better name that could be used. No need to apologize about the capitalization thing -- it at first seems natural to always use capitals when titling a page. The problem here is this; page titles are case sensitive and in order to link to them someboyd else will have to use capitalization that will Seem Rather Odd In The Middle Of Sentences. --mav

I agree that the title "International relations" should be used, as it is the term most often applied to this field of academic study.
Also, I think most academicians do not separate IR into the Realist/Pragmatist vs. Structuralist schools of thought. Rather, I think the separation most accepted by IR theorists is:
  • Realism
  • Liberalism
  • Institutionalism
  • (possibly also) Cognitism/Constructivism
At any rate, saying that realism believes that conflict is inevitable is not correct. Realist theory says that states behave according to the configuration of state capabilities. The configuration of these capabilities (i.e., natural resources, geographical considerations, etc.) could lead to conflict, but it could also lead to cooperation.
It is a common misconception that the schools of IR thought are differentiated by the results that they predict. Not so! Rather, the schools of IR thought are differentiated by the assumptions they make in their reasoning toward predictions. For example, both realists and liberals claim that events as disparate as World War I, the Cold War, and relatively conflict-free post-Cold War Europe were predicted by their theories. The schools of IR thought differ in the fundamental assumptions they make in predicting state behavior. It is possible that one liberal theorist will predict war while another will predict peace; their disagreement arises from how they interpret events, but their fundamental assumptions are the same. Similarly, it is possible that a realist theorist and a liberal theorist could both predict peace, but their fundamental assumptions as to why that occurs would be different.
Lowellian 07:21, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Sounds fine. But of course we could always expand these three or four categories with relevant sub-categories (structuralists, functionalists and feminists and neo-something-ists, and what not...). But maybe that's complicating this article a bit too much? Cheers. //Big Adamsky 00:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lowellian, those topics are already covered under International relations theory, which is rightly a separate article from the more general study of International relations. —thames 16:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is to be an article about international relations as an academic discipline, then International relations is the only acceptable title. International affairs, international studies, foreign affairs, foreign policy, etc. are all separate fields that may or may not incorporate international relations or fall within international relations.

----Nicknz (Nick Christiansen, Auckland NZ) 12:51, 1 Feb 2006 (NZ)

International Relations is the best title for this page. Nicolasdz 07:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International Relations is a name like any other e.g. John, Tessa or Economics.


There's a chunk that's copied and pasted all over the Wiki-articles on realism that claims that "Realpolitik" means "royal politics" in some odd linguistic conjunction. However, as far as I am aware - and this seems more likely - the term was coined to mean something more along the lines of "material politics", all in German, which, as I say, makes sense since it was Bismarck's word. Had he wanted "royal politics" he'd have had "Königlichpolitik" or some such. Also, "material politics" better explains what it is that Realpolitik does. Anyone have any corroboration either way?

Realpolitik was Bismarck's very harsh version of what we call today realist theory. Dave 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess that is NOT the right way to answer that. Sorry. Realpolitik is translated as Realistic Politic or even as pragmatic politics. It doesn't take morals into consideration simply what will work the best. It also believes in a zero-sum-gain equation. That being that if one entity is gaining in an area that the other entity is losing. Both can not gain. Funny enough your question is very well answered here in Wikipedia. Realpolitik Dave 14:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International Society[edit]

American IR scholars are usually mainly inspired by realism and liberalism, this is not the case in Europe. In Europe, it is quite common for IR scholars to use the International Society (or "English School") approach.

This approach is less "scientific" in the narrow Critical Rationalism sense. More emphasis is being given to understanding ("Verstehen") than explaining international relations. So, the theory basically works with 3 levels of reasoning for decision makers, namely a realistic state-centrism (raison d'êtat/realism), a system-level with focus on the survival of the society of states(raison de système/rationalism) and a focus on individual people in the world (raison de revolution/revolutionism). This of course means that the theory is not capable of predicting behaviour, but gives a framework for understanding why states choose specific paths.

-- 21:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seperate from the School of thought of International Society is the term international society that is often used to discuss global relations. This term is oft debated to its appropriateness or lack thereof. Dave 21:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoops so sorry! forgot I was in the discussion area!!! sorry. Didn't mean to edit someone's very good comments. Dave 04:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major rewrite[edit]

I have done a major rewrite of the article, making it less U.S. centric and more NPOV by actually discussing non-dominant theories critical of the mainstream as well as references to international society and the English School. I have also started criticisms sections which needs to be expanded. I spell-checked this and re-read most of it - but it *is* 3am here and I am sure it would need a few edits. Hope other editors like it - it was five hours of solid research. Do expand on it - this article has potential. --Mintchocicecream 01:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The field of International relations is not an academic study or discourse, which is how the article reads now. nobs 02:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how it is not an academic study or discourse. That sentence is kept - but is now the second sentence rather than the first. A useful comparison would be to look at the International relations article in other encyclopedias which highlights IR as, first and foremost, a branch of political science. --Mintchocicecream 14:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IR, not academic? Robert Keohane, Lisa Martin, John Mearsheimer, Kenneth Waltz, Edward Carr and many others disagree 23:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC).
Where in the article does it say IR is not an academic discourse? --Mintchocicecream 09:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IR is definetley an academic discipline first and foremost. Foreign policy is the most common term for its non-academic cousins. Nicolasdz 07:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wish someone would have told me IR wasn't an academic discipline before I invested so much time and effort in it... Scaife 13:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IR is absolutely an academic discipline. Incidentally, there is a sub-discipline called foreign policy analysis. International affairs is the term most frequently used to describe non-academic international relations. It should also be noted that International Relations is the discipline whereas international relations is the phenomenon. Nicknz 07:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should there be a section in the International Relations article for Areas of International Relations? After all there are many areas one can focus on, international law, human rights, international environmental policy, humanitarian aid, international political economy, globalization just to name very few. Dave 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's an excellent idea. You could title it something like "Functional areas of international relations". I think such a section is quite apropos, since most foreign ministries and think tanks divide their study of international relations by regional areas and functional areas.—thames 22:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm very new to the wikipedia community so if someone else wants to set up these areas in the format I will be happy to help fill them in. Dave 15:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that would be "Comparative Government" --Scaife (Talk) Flag of Austria.svg Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 07:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes "Functional areas" could be a useful addition. Strictly speaking international law, human rights, etc. are not areas "of international relations". IPE is a subdiscipline of IR. Nicknz 07:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think "functional areas" is a misleading name and should be changed. Functionalism is the name of a theory in IR, and the use of the same word to describe concepts common to various IR theories could be confusing. Can't the heading just read "Concepts in IR"? RSammy 00:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2nd Major Rewrite[edit]

Mattimeus and I just did a complete overhaul of this article. We felt that the previous incarnation, while valuable, needed both a more useful structure and more coherent prose. We would be the first to admit our changes aren't perfect, but we do strongly feel that they are an improvement over the original article. Any suggestions and changes are of course welcome, and we hope the update hasn't made what's on the discussion page totally irrelevant. RSammy 20:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1) Constructivism currently is the dominant paradigm in European IR journals. Should be mentioned in the same manner as Realism and Liberalism. (2) Furthermore, it think it is unnecessary to mention neorealism and neoliberalism separatly. Can be included in the Realism and Idealism parts. (3) Global governance isn't a theory, but a concept. No need to mention it. Sijo Ripa 22:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1 - I like that the neos are seperated out. They are different enough now to get their own blurb. 2 - I argue against the definition of Realism being a reaction to liberalism. I feel that that is reversed. Realism was outlined and discussed by Theuclidites, Machiaveli as said in the upper body of the article, but then realism is a reaction to liberalism which cam about after World War I. Sorry not only does that NOT make sense in the discussion of the article it is utterly wrong in my opinion. Certianly realism was "vindicated," and came back stronger during the post WWII Cold War Era but it didn't "come about," AFTER WWII.Dave 14:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As one of the people who put a major amount of time and effort into the 1.5 version of this article I prefer the format that it is in now in 2.0. GREAT JOB!!!Dave 14:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am exceedingly happy with how this article has turned out! As those of us who have put time and energy into writing, rewriting and fine tuning this article know, we can't get it all into wikipedia. But we have done a FANTASTIC job with what we have done. Just remember to keep it accesable folks.Dave 10:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Confessional truth"[edit]

What does "confessional truth" mean in "armed struggle was no longer defined as a contest between varieties of confessional truths, but rather, a dispute among secular 'sovereigns' "? Theshibboleth 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand it to mean religious truths or truths that people held onto so strongly that it could be said that they held onto them religiously. But yes, the term is rather vague and ineffective in expressing its meaning. Dave 02:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-governmental entities[edit]

The phrase non-governmental entities in the Criticisms section immediately makes me think of NGOs although the way it's used it literally refers to any actor that is not a state. This usage seems nonstandard and could be confusing. I would suggest that we not even try to generalize under the phrase "non-governmental entity" but instead just say that MNCs, NGOs, etc. now have a more prominent role in international relations so that actors are not limited to just states. Theshibboleth 01:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term is the marrying of two standard terms in what might indeed be fairly nonstandard but understandable usage. I though suffer from having a degree in International Relations and so it seem perfectly normal and acceptable to me. It is absolutely possible that this is NOT an accesable term for the average person. I feel no blow to me or my efforts if someone wants to subsitute the myriad of nongovernmental groups in for that short phrase. I was just trying to make it accessable by not putting in the long list that the term covers.

Like I've said before, I'm new to Wikipedia so whatever you folks think would be best I'm willing to go with as long as it is accurate information. :-) Dave 02:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I suppose we don't need to add unnecessary jargon to the article although precision is important I should think. I didn't mean to single anyone out. :-)

I think a fairly standard term for "non-governmental entities" is non-state actors (NSAs). RSammy 00:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do believe you are correct. 14:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commonwealth or US spellings - modelling[edit]

I changed the phrase "modelling" to modeling". Is the former a chiefly Commonwealth spelling? It seems that Commonwealth spellings are used in the rest of the article, and if modelling would be the standard in Commonwealth English then the spelling should probably be reverted, although to me modelling just looks icky. Theshibboleth 01:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Modelling" is the correct commonwealth spelling (just like "travelling"). However this article appears to use a mixture of commonwealth and US English - might be good to standardise on one. --Mintchocicecream 14:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World Politics -> International relations[edit]

While similar, I believe these are two different things. International relations deal more with how different states interact with each other while World Politics deals with organizations that are not necessarily states like international corporations, terrorist groups, or political groups. Instead of World Politics redirecting into International Relations I think they should be two different articles.SenorAnderson 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difference between IR and World Politics is a debate which is common in the IR sphere. The history of the disapline must be considered in order to appreciate this.
Originally, IR was just that, IR. States were the prime unit of analysis with realism being the overly dominant paradigm. As the disapline evolved and indeed "World Politics" began to change especially after the end of the cold war, other actors such as NGO's, terrorist groups and international companies were considered worthy of further study. Hence sub disaplines such as international political economy came about. Regarding academia, universities with older "World Politics" departments usually call them Departments of International Relations and newer ones either International Politics or World Politics, yet inevatiably these departments teach the same type of modules, albeit with some variation. Thus it is the case that IR and World politics are de facto the same thing. I believe that any distiction between the two would unnecessarily confuse and fracture this evolved disapline.
A further extended point would be in that International Relations is just Politics, that Politics is just Sociology and Sociology is just Cultural Studies. In order to gain knowledge we need some demarcation in social sciences, and I believe that the term International Relations is a good one as it in common parlance, (more so than other terms)though albeit now factually incorrect, and is a suitable demarcation point as its original emphasis was on the international, as opposed to the national and this is usually the first starting point for any practioner of this disapline. 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. World Politics and IR should be in the same entry. World Politics evolved as governmental and non-governmental agencies evolved and began to have influence internationally. Hence they are still a study under International Relations which is an area of study within political science. Hmm... still politics and still international. Sounds like a sub-field of IR to me. And it is generally held to be so. This in no way denegrates the usefullness or in any other way the sub-field of World Politics. Dave 22:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where's the theory?[edit]

I realize that there's a box linking to various theories of IR on the page, but I think a section describing very briefly some of the prominent theories (realism & liberalism, neorealism & neoliberalism, global governance, English School, critical theory, etc.) would be useful, especially considering that IR discourse has only progressed due to their interaction & critiques of each other. Also, I propose that 'mechanisms' should be changed to 'institutions'. Mechanisms are causal and interactive relationships between actors and institutions. E.g. the balance of power is an institution, but balancing & bandwagoning are mechanisms. RSammy 00:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that there is a difference between International Relations and International Relations Theory. If you would like to start a seperate entry for the theory side of things I'm all for it especially if you link between the two. I am even willing to help fill it in. Dave 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for defining institution and mechanisms I disagree and would like to know your resources for defining them as you have. Dave 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cross Reference???[edit]

This subject is the subtopic of public relations and should be cross referenced to

International Relations is absolutely NOT a subtopic of public relations. International relations takes place on the international stage in a state to state (country to country) manner. With ambassadors, envoys, ministers, secretaries and heads of state. While each of those uses the tool of public relations in their job, it is only a tool not an umbrella under which international relations is. Again International Relations is absolutely NOT a subset of public relationsDave 14:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticisms of IR[edit]

I do not think this subheading to appropiately labelled. The criticisms it describes are not neccessarilly criticisms of International Relations, but of certain branches of international relations theory. It seems like this section describes the criticisms concerned with the acceptance of the Westphalian system as the guiding principle in realist and liberal (and their modern derivitatives) strains of international relations. It is important to remember, however, that the "Westphalian system" is not a static set of rules the govern the international community, but more of a malleable intellectual framework; most scholars/policy makers have by now fully accepted the importance of non-state actors in the international system (although numerous questions still exist about where to place these actors). Also, international relations theory also encompasses many post-state theories of international relations, some of which posit that we have moved into a post-Westphlian system. Calling this subheading criticisms of international relations would be aking to referring to Marxism as a criticism of economics. Marxism is a strain of economics (albeit it is not confined to this field alone), yet it critizes Liberal Economics. I believe this section would be more appropiately labelled "criticisms of realism in international realtions" and placed into the article on realism. Trojan traveler 01:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging or differentiating[edit]

The two pages: International relations and International relations theory, are not clearly distinguishable. Or we merge them, or we have to differentiate them clearly! - Daniel Cordoba-Bahle 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We might be able to merge the [International relations theory]] article into the theory section of this article, but they are not at all indistinguishable. The theory article focuses on one specific part of the broader international relations topic, while the topic on the whole is more than just the theory used to analyze it. Almondwine 01:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject International Relations[edit]

Hey, I thought it might be a good idea that we create a WikiProject for International relations. If anyone is interested, I have put it on the proposed list of wikiproject [[1]] and have created a temporary page for the project on my user page User:Trojan traveler/WikiProject. I think a wikiproject could be really useful in creating more and better coverage of IR on wikipedia, so if your interested drop me a line, or better yet add your name to the wikiproject proposal listed above. Trojan traveler 06:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Late coming back but please send it to me. Dave 09:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theories of International Relations[edit]

Unlike stated in the article, Liberalism was not the first theory of international realtions. Beginning with Thucydides, and then with Hobbes and Machiavelli, Realism, or at least Realist Assumptions, far predate Liberalism.

The theories discussed seem to be defined not inaccurately, but not necessarily accurately. The relationship between neoliberalism/institutionalism/liberal institutionalism is exemplary (especially with recent neoliberal economics). Keohane (2002) addresses these issues in his book Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World. Also, in noting the correlation with "complex interdependence," that realism and liberal theories have undergone some dialectical synthesis in practice is a fact which "institutional" theorists might recognize but not entirely accept. Evidently, I am not an expert but clarifying some of these issues might be beneficial to the page. I will work a little on the "Complex interdependence" page to illustrate my point (as to not get my paws into this page too much, evidently a lot of work has been put into the IR page). --Kenneth M Burke 03:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I worked on the CI page to illustrate my point. However, I don't think that any changes to the theory pages are entirely necessary. The user that has previously worked on the Complex interdependence page expressed that (s)he might put additional work into the page. I hope that the contribution is useful. --Kenneth M Burke 18:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder if a section on rational choice approaches should be added here. I know many academics who see themselves as formal modellers and rational choice theorists that would not put themselves in any of the other theoretical camps even though some may seem them as Realists of a sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is not a branch of IR theory, its a political outlook. Its like saying social democracy is an IR theory; it might shape how you see the world but it doesn't attempt to model it in a theoretical manner in the way say, neorealism or social constructivism does. I deleted this section out of the list of IR theories a while ago and notice that someone's put it back- it needs to stay gone as its not relevant Cxk271 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed! Neoconservatism is a perspective. Once can be a Neoconservative AND believe in the IR theory of Liberalism. In fact many do. Dave 09:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Neoconservatism" is merely a body of prescriptions for policy, representing an extreme form of aggressive idealism - that is, forcing democracy (and the hegemony of the "good guys," namely the US) on the world through disregard (or rationalizing away) some ordinary norms of law and morality. It is not an approach to the discipline/subdiscipline of IR. Perhaps such a statement needs to be added somewhere, perhaps worded with a more careful attempt to be neutral?).Eleanor1944 (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Study of IR[edit]

I wonder how the main article that this section relates to ca be English school of international relations theory. The English School is really only a theory within the wider spectrum of IR, and even though the study of IR in the XX century originated in the United Kingdom, the English School theory was only developed later on. There should be a link to the English School, but it should be placed in the section about the English School theory. Also, this section should perhaps be related to a main article on the history of IR theory, briefly dating back to Thucydides, and explaining the refinement of IR theory and the emergence of idealism after WWI. SFinamore 10:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tightening this article up[edit]

The contributers of International relations have done a very good job filling things in, getting the depth and breadth that makes this a darn good article. That said, we could certainly take some time to really tighten this article up and make it an EXCELLENT article.

I suggest that we have the information and yes, we can dither over specifics and such but that isn't what is needed in my mind. Instead lets work on doing the editing. By this I mean eliminating phrasing that is personal point of view and tightening up the language in general. Make sure that the article has good grammer and spelling is uniform and correct. E.G. Humor or Humour but keep to American or British english.

Anyone else up to the challenge?  :-) Dave 01:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible to change all the spellings to British then? It's much more correct that way. :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneaklemming (talkcontribs) 03:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't care which way we go. However, I am curious why either American or British, would be "More Correct"?Dave 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Post-Structalism and Post-Positivism[edit]

Does anyone else agree that Post-Structural theories are a subset of Post-Positivist theories? If so, should it be merged in there? Fmark 07:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, most IR scholars see it as a subset of post-positivism, along with constructivism, feminism, critical theory etc. s2586201

International system[edit]

Does anyone know the origins of the use of terms such as the "international system," even "economic system." Who first used the ideas. Not the origins of the international system itself, but the origin of the idea of analysing international structures and interactions in terms of a "system." Whereas the area of study as a formally recognized political science originates following the World Wars, the origin of the concept of an "international system" might be revealing. --Kenneth M Burke 00:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My oldest IR book "The Twenty Years' Crisis", EH Carr (1946) certainly uses it, but I'm sure it predates that significantly. Fmark 05:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just tracked down a reference to it from 1899: "Cosmpolitan Duties", John MacCunn, International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 9, No. 2. (Jan., 1899), p. 160. That is just from googling though... Fmark 05:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. I will look further into it myself. My inclination is to say that anything before the turn of the twentieth century probably borrows the "system" idea from sociology.--Kenneth M Burke 15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At a glance, the "Cosmopolitan Duties," though it never references the idea of a "system," almost read's like Comte in support of a sociology for ideological imperialism. Interesting, I'll look into it further. Thanks again. --Kenneth M Burke 16:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having a closer look, I had found this sentance (in the paragraph beginning "We need not make apologists..." p. 160):
For, in an international system which de facto rests less on Law and Morality than Force, it is a counsel of prudence that no nation can afford to practice an unguarded selfishness."
Make of that what you will :) Fmark 13:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple way to view sovereignty?[edit]

I object to this line: A simple way to view this is that sovereignty says, "I'm not allowed to tell you what to do and you are not allowed to tell me what to do." Although this is simple (maybe crude is the word), it is also inaccurate and unnecessary given that the term was just explained. Sovereignty as often discussed in the context of international relations does not pertain to individuals, which this seems to suggest. As discussed in the context of the Westphalian system, it pertains to sovereigns. Actually, it is the right of a sovereign - first and foremost to control his territory and those under him, maybe secondarily not to have this rule abrogated by someone else. The connection between giving a certain prince the power to whip his serfs and determine the state religion without interference from other princes and the apparently reasonable and modern "I'm not allowed to tell you what to do", etc. is more than a little ludicrous to me. Please take this into consideration (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yousaf-- kakar2010[edit]

that is great achivement to disscss the current scanario .to keep good relation with othr state .spassiclly security espacts —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International relations Map[edit]

Italy is considered a "great power, but India and Brazil are "Middle Powers" Since when (after WWII) has Italy been ranked as anything even approaching "great power" status. (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article title[edit]

I'm proposing the article be called "International Relations" with both words capitalized. This article is not about the relations between countries, it's about the political science field that has the proper name "International Relations", commonly abbreviated "IR" (never "Ir"). For example, "the discipline that studies these issues is nearly always called International Politics or International Relations." [note the capitals] according to The Globalization of World Politics (2011) by John Baylis & Steve Smith, page 2. (online at Rjensen (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rational Choice Approaches[edit]

There should be a section on rational choice approaches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is— it's called Realism. It's based on the rational choice model. Freshfroot (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International relationsInternational Relations — – both words in the title of a well-established field of political science should be capitalized Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Not a proper noun, so should use sentence casing. –CWenger (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • the article is not about the relations between countries, it's about the political science field that has the proper name "International Relations", commonly abbreviated "IR" (never "Ir"). For example, "the discipline that studies these issues is nearly always called International Politics or International Relations." [with capitals] according to The Globalization of World Politics (2011) by John Baylis & Steve Smith, page 2. Rjensen (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Above move request and discussion taken from WP:Requested moves where move was listed as uncontroversial and then contested. Dpmuk (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Small state[edit]

Is there an article on the academic term for Small state (not Micro-state), on wikipedia, there does not seem to be, unless I am mistaken and it is linked under a different term, which I cannot find. Sheodred (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i have no idea what means international relations ,but i have good reasons to study of the reassons is to halp my country to return our lost terytories and to make even one stap forward to make something good to change ther condition in our foreign politik i mean whith russiansn adn uthers countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

international Relations[edit]

International relations is relation between governments following the rules and strategies of mutual countries following constitutions accordingly.

Best, Mussa Naveen Popalzai — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

most of this article is unsourced[edit]

Where are the references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it a very feeble subject?[edit]

A lot of academic studies based on International Relations is going on. However, seeing the way the world is going from bad to worse in all kinds of national and international relations, can it be said that this subject is devoid of profundity?

See this book on a different perspective on International Relationship — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need for quotes and qualifications in the section on realism[edit]

The following passage sounds awfully familiar. It seems to be lifted with few or perhaps no changes from Ch. 1 of Morgenthau's Politics among Nations: "Political realism believes that politics, like society, is governed by objective laws with roots in human nature. To improve society, it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, persons will challenge them only at the risk of failure. Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the laws of politics, must also believe in the possibility of developing a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objective laws. It believes also, then, in the possibility of distinguishing in politics between truth and opinion—between what is true objectively and rationally, supported by evidence and illuminated by reason, and what is only a subjective judgment, divorced from the facts as they are and informed by prejudice and wishful thinking." [The quotes here are added.] At a minimum, quotation marks are needed. But the wording needs to be qualified in some respects, notably regarding the centrality of human nature, to take into account some variants on realism, i.e., neorealism. And the passage lacks neutrality.Eleanor1944 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I couldn't find the length and width of the island. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why the Link is not appearing?[edit]

Hi! There, I have been trying to link the Word Greek at the following line:- (As political activity, international relations dates from the time of the Greek historian). I tried to add link as: Greek. It has saved but the link is not appearing. I don't mind, if it is not being accepted due to an in appropriate link according to merit. But if the parameters are perfect like: England then why the affect of the Link is not being appeared? --- Willy-nilly (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]