1)Meaning, Scope, and Nature of International Relations (IR): A Dynamic Discussion

What is International Relations?

International Relations (IR) is not just about treaties, wars, or diplomats in suits. At its core, IR
is the study of how countries, organizations, and even individuals interact across borders. It
examines everything from why states go to war, to how global problems like climate change or
pandemics require cooperation, to the influence of multinational corporations and NGOs. In
today’s world, where a tweet from a leader can move markets or spark conflict, IR is more
relevant than ever.

Nature of IR: Beyond States and Borders

Traditionally, IR focused on states as the main actors—think of the US and China negotiating
trade, or Russia and NATO in security talks. But the nature of IR has evolved. Non-state
actors—like the United Nations, terrorist groups, Greenpeace, or even tech giants like
Google—can shape international outcomes as powerfully as states.
IR is also inherently interdisciplinary. It draws from politics, economics, history, law, and even
psychology. For example, the 2008 financial crisis wasn’t just about economics; it had political
causes and global security consequences. The COVID-19 pandemic showed how health,
economics, and politics are deeply intertwined globally.

Scope of IR: From War to Climate Change

The scope of IR is vast and ever-expanding. It covers:
Security and Conflict: Why do wars happen? How can peace be maintained? Realism, a
major IR theory, says power and national interest drive state behavior. For instance, the
Ukraine-Russia war is often analyzed through this lens—Russia’s actions are seen as pursuit of
its strategic interests.
International Cooperation: How do states work together on issues like climate change, trade,
or terrorism? The Paris Agreement on climate change is a classic example: nearly every country
agreed to curb emissions, showing cooperation is possible, even if difficult.
Globalization: IR now looks at how interconnected the world has become—economically,
culturally, and politically. A factory closing in China can mean job losses in the US or Africa,
illustrating how local events have global ripple effects.
Human Rights and Ethics: IR debates whether there are universal human rights and if
countries should intervene in others’ affairs to stop abuses. The global response to the Syrian
refugee crisis or interventions in Kosovo and Libya are real-world examples.

IR in Practice: Real-World Examples

Non-State Actors: When Greta Thunberg speaks at the UN, she influences global
environmental policy. When hackers disrupt elections, they impact international stability.
Collective Goods Problem: Climate change is a classic IR dilemma—everyone benefits from a
stable climate, but each country is tempted to prioritize its own economic growth over emission
cuts.
Regional Organizations: The European Union shows how states can pool sovereignty for
collective benefit, while Brexit demonstrates the pushback against too much integration.
Debates and Perspectives
IR is not a settled science. Realists focus on power and conflict. Liberals emphasize
cooperation and institutions. Constructivists argue that ideas, identities, and norms shape state
behavior as much as material interests. For example, the end of apartheid in South Africa or the
spread of democracy in Eastern Europe can’t be explained by power politics alone—ideas and
values mattered.

Conclusion: Why IR Matters

In a world where a virus can cross borders faster than regulations, where cyberattacks can
cripple economies, and where global challenges demand collective action, IR helps us make
sense of the chaos. It’s not just academic; it’s about understanding the forces that shape our
lives, from the price of oil to the fate of refugees.
IR is dynamic, diverse, and always evolving—just like the world it seeks to explain.

2)The Role of Ideology in International Relations (IR): A Critical Discussion

Ideology as a Lens and a Tool in IR.

Ideology in international relations is not just a set of abstract principles—it actively shapes how
states perceive threats, form alliances, and justify their actions on the global stage. Rather than
being a static blueprint, ideology operates as both a lens for interpreting the world and a tool for
mobilizing support, both domestically and internationally.

Historical Perspective: Ideology as a Divider and Unifier

Historically, ideology has been a powerful force in shaping alliances and conflicts. The Cold War
is the classic example: NATO and the Warsaw Pact were not just military alliances but
ideological blocs—capitalism versus communism—which defined global politics for decades.
This ideological divide created a clear “us vs. them” mentality, influencing not only military
strategies but also economic and cultural policies.
However, after the Cold War, the rigid ideological boundaries began to blur. Alliances like the
European Union and ASEAN now accommodate states with diverse ideologies, focusing more
on pragmatic interests like economic growth and regional stability. Yet, shared values—such as
democracy in NATO—still provide cohesion and legitimacy, showing that ideology remains a
binding force, even if its role is more flexible today.

Ideology and Threat Perception

Ideology also shapes how states perceive threats and opportunities. Research shows that
conservatives and liberals, both within and across countries, interpret the intentions of other
states differently. For example, U.S. conservatives often see foreign actors as more threatening
than liberals do, leading to tougher foreign policies. This isn’t just about power; it’s about how
ideology frames the “other” as friend or foe, which can override objective assessments of a
country’s capabilities.
A striking example is U.S.-Israel relations. Many American conservatives view Israel as part of
their in-group due to shared religious or cultural values, resulting in friendlier policies. In
contrast, countries perceived as ideologically distant—like Iran—are often seen as greater
threats, regardless of their actual power.

Ideology in the Age of Globalization

In the era of globalization, ideology has adapted rather than disappeared. Neoliberalism, for
instance, has become the dominant ideology shaping economic policy and international
institutions since the late 20th century. Critics argue that this has led to increased inequality and
resistance from the Global South, where alternative ideologies—such as anti-globalization or
regionalism—are gaining traction.
At the same time, transnational issues like climate change and global health are pushing
alliances to focus on shared pragmatic interests, sometimes bridging ideological divides. For
example, the Paris Agreement on climate change brought together countries with very different
political systems under a common framework, though ideological disagreements still influence
the depth of their commitments.

Conclusion: Ideology’s Enduring but Evolving Role

In sum, ideology in IR is dynamic. It can unite or divide, justify alliances or conflicts, and shape
perceptions of threat and legitimacy. While the world has become more pragmatic and
interconnected, ideology remains a crucial undercurrent—sometimes explicit, sometimes
hidden—that continues to influence international relations in profound ways.

3)Instruments for Promotion of National Interest: A Contemporary Discussion

When we talk about how countries promote their national interest, it's tempting to get lost in
academic jargon. But in reality, the process is dynamic, practical, and often shaped by changing
global contexts. Let’s break down the main instruments, using examples and critical arguments,
while drawing from both classical theory and current events.

Diplomacy: The First Line of Defense

Diplomacy remains the most visible and essential tool for any state. It’s not just about formal
negotiations at summits; it’s also about informal back-channel talks, cultural exchanges, and
even crisis management. For example, the recent normalization of relations between Saudi
Arabia and Iran, brokered by China, shows how diplomacy can shift regional balances without a
single shot fired. Diplomacy allows states to protect their interests through dialogue,
compromise, and sometimes strategic ambiguity. Morgenthau even called it the primary means
of realizing national interest.
Alliances: Strength in Numbers
Alliances are not just military pacts like NATO; they include economic and strategic
partnerships. The Quad (India, US, Japan, Australia) is a good example, formed to
counterbalance China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. Alliances help states pool resources and
present a united front, translating shared interests into collective action. However, alliances can
be double-edged—entangling states in conflicts that may not directly serve their core interests.

Economic Instruments: The Power of the Purse

Economic tools are increasingly central. Sanctions, trade agreements, foreign aid, and
investment controls are all used to advance national interests. The US-China trade war, for
instance, wasn’t just about tariffs; it was about setting the terms for global technological and
economic leadership. Economic interdependence can be a deterrent to conflict, but it can also
be weaponized, as seen in Russia’s use of gas supplies in Europe.

Propaganda and Information Warfare: Winning Hearts and Minds

In the digital age, propaganda has evolved into sophisticated information campaigns. States use
media, social networks, and targeted messaging to shape perceptions at home and abroad.
Russia’s activities during the 2016 US elections or China’s global media expansion are
examples of how information is used to sway public opinion and influence policy outcomes. This
instrument is subtle but powerful, blurring the line between persuasion and manipulation.

Psychological and Political Warfare

This involves undermining the morale or political stability of rivals, often through disinformation
or covert operations. Psychological warfare was a hallmark of the Cold War, but today it
includes cyber operations and election meddling. Such tactics aim to weaken adversaries from
within, making them less able to pursue their own interests.

Imperialism and Colonialism: Historical, but Not Obsolete

While traditional imperialism is largely discredited, neo-imperial practices persist. Powerful
states still exert control through economic dependency, military presence, or political
influence—think of China’s Belt and Road Initiative or the US military bases worldwide. These
methods promote national interests by extending influence without formal colonization.

Role of Non-State Actors

Goldstein highlights that non-state actors—corporations, NGOs, IGOs—can also promote or
challenge national interests. For example, multinational companies like Apple or Shell influence
trade policy, while IGOs like the UN shape global norms. States must now navigate a complex
web of actors, making the pursuit of national interest more nuanced.
Conclusion
Promoting national interest is not a one-size-fits-all process. States mix and match
instruments—diplomacy, alliances, economic tools, information campaigns—depending on
context and capability. The rise of non-state actors and digital technology has made the
landscape even more complex. Ultimately, the effectiveness of these instruments depends on
how creatively and flexibly a state can use them in pursuit of its goals.

4)Determinants of Foreign Policy: A Contemporary Discussion.

Foreign policy isn’t crafted in a vacuum—it’s the product of a complex interplay between a
nation’s internal realities and the shifting global landscape. Let’s unpack the main determinants
of foreign policy in a way that moves beyond textbook lists and brings in real-world dynamics
and examples.

Geography and Resources

Geography still matters, even in a globalized world. Russia’s vast landmass and access to both
European and Asian markets shape its strategic ambitions. Similarly, the Middle East’s oil
reserves make it a focal point for global powers—the region’s foreign policy is often dictated by
the need to protect and leverage these resources. Countries like Singapore, with limited natural
resources, focus on trade and diplomacy to ensure survival and prosperity.

Economic Strength and Development

A nation’s economic power directly influences its foreign policy options. The US uses economic
sanctions as a tool of diplomacy, while China’s Belt and Road Initiative is a clear example of
leveraging economic might for geopolitical influence. Conversely, countries with weaker
economies often have to align with stronger powers or international institutions to secure aid or
favorable trade terms.

Historical Experience
History leaves deep imprints. Germany and Japan, after WWII, shifted towards pacifist foreign
policies, prioritizing economic growth and multilateralism. India’s non-alignment movement was
shaped by its colonial past and desire to avoid entanglement in Cold War blocs. In contrast,
Israel’s foreign policy is heavily influenced by its history of conflict and the need for security.

Political Leadership and Decision-Makers

Leaders make a difference. The personal vision and style of leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt,
Margaret Thatcher, or Narendra Modi have shaped their countries’ foreign policies in distinctive
ways. Leadership changes can result in abrupt policy shifts, as seen with the US withdrawal
from international agreements under different presidents.
Ideology and National Identity
Ideologies—democratic, socialist, religious—shape foreign policy priorities. The US often frames
its foreign policy around democracy and human rights, while North Korea’s isolationism is rooted
in its Juche ideology. Iran’s theocratic system drives its regional ambitions and resistance to
Western influence.

Public Opinion and Domestic Politics

In democracies, public opinion can be a game-changer. The US withdrawal from Vietnam was
hastened by public protests. In India, public sentiment influences policies toward Pakistan and
China. Sometimes, leaders use foreign policy to distract from domestic issues—a phenomenon
seen in the “rally around the flag” effect.

International Environment and Alliances

No country operates alone. The presence of superpowers, regional organizations (like the EU or
ASEAN), and global institutions (UN, IMF) all shape national choices. For example, small
European states often coordinate their foreign policies through the EU for greater impact.

Crisis and Unpredictable Events

Events like wars, pandemics, or economic crises can force rapid policy shifts. COVID-19 led to
new forms of “vaccine diplomacy” and changed travel and trade policies overnight.

Technology and Information

Modern diplomacy is shaped by technology—cybersecurity, social media, and AI all influence
both the substance and style of foreign policy. The US-China tech rivalry is as much about
foreign policy as it is about economics and security.

In sum, foreign policy is a dynamic outcome of geography, economics, history, leadership,

ideology, public opinion, international context, crises, and technology. Each country’s mix is
unique, and the weight of each factor shifts over time—making foreign policy both an art and a
science.

5)India’s Foreign Policy Shift Post-1990: A Discussion.

The 1990s marked a watershed in India’s foreign policy, moving away from the old playbook of
non-alignment and socialist economic isolation toward pragmatic engagement and global
integration. This transformation was not just theoretical but deeply practical, driven by both
domestic crises and global changes.

Why the Shift?

The immediate trigger was the collapse of the Soviet Union, India’s main ally and trading
partner, which left New Delhi diplomatically adrift and economically vulnerable. Simultaneously,
India faced a severe balance of payments crisis in 1991, forcing policymakers to rethink both
economic and foreign policy strategies. The old model of import substitution and state control
was simply not sustainable anymore.

Economic Diplomacy Comes to the Fore

The biggest change was the embrace of economic liberalization—famously called the LPG
(Liberalization, Privatization, Globalization) reforms. India opened its markets, welcomed foreign
investment, and sought integration with the global economy. This was not just about economics;
it was a conscious foreign policy choice. For instance, India’s accession to the World Trade
Organization in 1995 signaled its willingness to play by global rules and seek new trade
partners.

Look East Policy: A New Direction

Recognizing the rise of East Asia, India launched the “Look East Policy” in 1991. This was a
strategic pivot to build economic and security ties with ASEAN countries, moving beyond its
traditional focus on the West and the Soviet bloc. Today, India’s strong relations with countries
like Singapore, Vietnam, and Indonesia are direct results of this policy.

Recalibrating Great Power Relations

With the Soviet Union gone, India had to engage the United States and Western Europe more
seriously. While relations with the US were tense after India’s 1998 nuclear tests, the two
countries eventually found common ground, leading to the landmark US-India Civil Nuclear Deal
in 2005. This was a clear sign of India’s growing confidence and willingness to forge new
partnerships.

The Gujral Doctrine and Neighbourhood Policy

Another interesting shift was the Gujral Doctrine, which advocated non-reciprocal goodwill
towards smaller South Asian neighbors, aiming to build trust and reduce regional tensions.
While results have been mixed—Pakistan remains a major challenge—India’s approach to
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka has often reflected this principle.

From Idealism to Realism

Perhaps the most fundamental change was the move from idealism to realism. Earlier, Indian
foreign policy was guided by moralism—non-alignment, anti-colonialism, and third-world
solidarity. Post-1990, there was a clear shift towards pragmatism: strategic autonomy, economic
interests, and security concerns took precedence. For example, India’s “No First Use” nuclear
policy and its restrained response after the 2008 Mumbai attacks showed a mature, calculated
approach to security.

Conclusion: A More Confident India

In sum, the post-1990 era saw India shed its old hesitations and embrace a more assertive,
flexible, and interest-based foreign policy. Whether it’s joining global trade regimes, building ties
with the US and East Asia, or recalibrating its approach to neighbors, India’s foreign policy today
is far more dynamic and globally oriented than ever before.
This shift, as discussed by scholars like Andrew Heywood, Bailey and Smith, and Goldstein,
reflects a broader trend in global politics where states adapt to changing realities, balancing
ideals with interests. India’s journey since 1990 is a textbook example of this evolution.