In recent times, the term ‘international’ has been in great use through a variety of perspectives, ranging from collective organisations and sports events to the direct application in international affairs and relations. With this increased usage, the very meaning of the word undergoes changes depending on what sense it is used in. However, in this increasingly complicated and interconnected world, it is important to understand what the true meaning of this word is. The reason behind this is to understand the reaches and implications of this term in order to set its boundaries, depending on its meanings, and figure out its potentials in this regard. While the usage of ‘international’ is common today, its origin dates around two centuries ago, when it was first used by Jeremy Bentham in the late Eighteenth Century in the context of the European Public Law. However, this origin is usually not considered legitimate by critics who state that Bentham used the term as a misnomer. Over the course of all the years since then, there has been much discourse over what the term ‘international’ means, but also on what it implies. Hence, the following text attempts to outline the most significant of these discourses, trying to finalise on a specific meaning for the word.
Before we go into a deep understanding of these discourses, it is important to look into the basics of the term’s implications and its surrounding details. The first important detail to be understood is that of sovereignty, which refers to ‘complete domestic authority within one’s territorial boundaries without external interference of other sovereigns’. Technically, a nation can be called sovereign only if it is: 1) Territorial, 2) Inhabited by a population, 3) Recognised by and of other sovereigns (internal and external realms) and 4) Able to hold relations with other states. The origins of this term are important in understanding the international system and its subsequent definitions. While the dominant narrative states that the concept of sovereign nations emerged after the Thirty Years’ War through the Peace of Westphalia, academicians such as Turan Kayaoglu deny this, stating that the very dominant narrative emerges in the Nineteenth Century as a means to justify the colonial atrocities committed by European states (Kayaoglu, 2010). In fact, Kayaoglu even goes as far as to call the dominant narrative a ‘Eurocentric myth’. Similarly, in his book ‘The Myth of 1648’, Benno Teschke also argues that the onset of specifically modern international relations only began with the conjunction of the rise of capitalism and modern state-formation in England (Teschke, 2011). Another concept to be understood is that of ‘anarchy’. While we understand the word to mean disorder or chaos, its Greek origin ‘anarkhos’ literally mean ‘without a chief/ruler’. It is this meaning that most academicians use when defining the international system as an anarchic structure. This term shall be used repeatedly and must be taken for its original meaning. Having understood these terms and details, it become much easier to see the broad picture behind the meaning of the word ‘international’.
International in itself implies a duality - an inside/in-group, which is the domestic aspect of the state, and the outside/out-group which is the foreign or international. This means that the term connects to the idea of boundaries, creating a direct political implication. These can refer to physical/territorial boundaries or metaphorical ones, separating the in-group and the out-group. Overall, the understanding of this term implies the fact that it refers to a complex and loaded world. However, such a political implication still does not take into account groups of nationless people that exists in areas without boundaries, such as the Kurds. It also fails to look into the fact that the meaning traps the term in prison of solely a political spectrum, despite the variety of its uses. Therefore, when creating a foundational definition of ‘international’ one needs to consider these collective problems, as the simple explanation above wouldn’t suffice.
The first of these explanations or narratives comes from a realist academician Kenneth Waltz in his 1959 book, ‘Man, the State and War’. Waltz’s narrative explains ‘international’ as “a system or structure of states whose ordering principle is the absence of supreme/sovereign authority above states i.e. anarchy”. It is important to note that the foundation of Waltz’s narrative is based upon the idea of the lack of a governing body above the system states. To do so, Waltz’s book focuses on three different ‘images’, each having a broader perspective than the previous, to look into the root cause of war. His first image has a focus on Man himself, blaming the cause of war on his greed and avarice; an optimistic and pessimistic perspective emerge from this image. The pessimistic (realist) strand states that human nature is incorrigible and so, war is inevitable. Therefore, the threat of punishment (supreme authority) is the only way to keep Man in check. On the other hand, the optimistic (idealistic) strand implies the plasticity of human nature, which is correctable through methods other than punishment, such as education and experiences. The second image connects the very existence of the state as the causality of war, as the state attempts to protect the interests of certain classes. Waltz even goes as far as to claim that states are war-like. This image also tries to ask the question ‘What kind of states cause war?’. The third and final image blames the cause of war on the nature of the entire international system. The image builds on the foundation of the anarchic nature of the system of states and tries to argue for the need of a supra-national system to prevent wars. This analysis by Kenneth Waltz stands to be a significant dominant narrative in the understand of the international system and the meaning of ‘international’.
It is important to note that organisations such as the United Nations, despite its influence, cannot be considered as a governing body to the anarchy of the international system. This is because firstly the UN consists of the states and is not a separate body devoid of any influence from those under its authority. This is further seen by the power dynamics present in the functioning of the organisation, where a few powerful states dominate the system. Moreover, the very existence of the Big/ Permanent Five members of the UN implies a clear in equilibrium in the balance of power. Finally, the UN Secretary General does not have control over the states and their functioning, which is why UN cannot be called as a governing body above the states. The best example of this can seen through the clear lack of control that the UN has over the actions of Russia in Ukraine’s territory.
This clear anarchy leads to the system of self-help, which is based on the realist perspective. Here, each state strives to help only itself. Based upon John Nash’s economic Game theory, when each player helps himself, it leads to best outcome for the entirety i.e. the international system. This perspective realises international as a string of interdependent between states, with a policy of laissez-faire (free trade). Connecting back to the economic principle of the invisible hand, this anarchy would lead to the most beneficial stability.
The second dominant response towards the meaning of ‘international’ is built on the base of the first one. This was done by the English school of International Relations, through Hedley Bull, whose focus looks into not just the structure of the international system, but also its history and emergence. In his book, ‘The Anarchical Society’, Bull brings out a clear difference between his narrative and that of Waltz while still maintaining the foundation of the narrative to be based on Waltz’s explanation. He states that in the system of states, each member acts on the basis of mutual awareness wherein they cannot act in isolation (Bull, 2012). Here, the system is a whole machinery while the states are the parts comprising it. Here, Bull brings out his own concept - the society of states. Most of the features of the system and society of states are the same. However, the society of states possesses a shared purpose, norms, rules and institutions, providing another angle to the original idea of the system. In doing so, Bull’s narrative explains ‘international’ as “an anarchical society of sovereign states”. Due to Bull’s perspective including structure as well as history, he attaches the emergence of this society of states to the Peace of Westphalia.
Bull’s idea for a society of states bring out a small glimpse into the foundation of the next dominant response. The society of states tries to show how states cannot act in isolation, therein giving ‘international’ a perspective more than just a political one. By being unable to act in isolation, a states economic and social conditions are also influenced by external states. By going back to the image of the international system being a machine and each states being a part in it, we could see the interdependence that is created in. A variety of fields such as historical, political, economic and social. Therefore, ‘international’ can be seen through more than just a political perspective.
The foundations of this side is what lead us to narrative created by International Political scholar Justin Rosenberg. He argues that the very idea of international and international relations is stuck in the ‘prison’ of political science. The instances of this can be seen through the attempts of various academicians. E.H. Carr used an internalise approach in defining international, focusing on the regulation and co-existence of individuals in a single group and then expanding the same concept to the international system. Here, the individuals would translate to states and the single group would translate into the international system. Similarly, Kenneth Waltz creates a contrast between the ‘international’ and the ‘domestic’ by focusing on their basic ordering principles and thereby defining the core concept behind international relations. Both these perspectives focus only on the administration and functioning of the state system, trapping ‘international’ in the prison of political science. Rosenberg’s argument follows a completely different line, stating that human existence is not unitary (single), but rather consists of multiple groups (plurality). He takes an ‘outside-in’ perspective in defining societal multiplicity as the core behind international relations. Societal multiplicity here looks into five characteristics: 1) co-existence of societies (in a lateral field), 2) differences between societies (both quantitative and qualitative), 3) interaction of societies, 4) combination of societies and their features, and 5) dialectical change in societies (which is neither uni-linear nor multi-linear). His perspective looks past ‘domestic societies’ and has the ability to view societal aspects of gender, class, language, through the lens of ‘international.’ In doing so, we notice how internal even in societies affect the external functions of other states. The best examples of this can be seen in the form of the Industrial revolution in the European states; while these we internal events in European societies, they have several positive and negative impacts on external societies, mainly those in Asia. This helps in proving that the realm of international consists of several interconnected and interdependent societies (societal multiplicity) and not a single society or isolated societies.
Therefore, Rosenberg argues that ‘international’ as a term and international relations as a discipline should focus on more than just international politics; rather, they should also include societal multiplicity and illuminate its implications on the other branches of study like history, economy and sociology (Rosenberg, 2016). Through Rosenberg’s findings we form a strong understanding regarding the potential of international and its dire importance, especially in the modern world. Rosenberg’s narrative cannot really be called as a dominant one since it plays a more unique role in relation to the other narratives. Due to its foundations and perspectives, we can rather call it a critical narrative, which critiques the solely political perspectives offered by other narratives and then tries to bring out solutions to bringing international reactions out of the prison of political science. By doing the overall analysis of his narrative, a simple explanation to the term ‘international’ can be “a system of societal multiplicity”.
The final perspective under the meaning of ‘international’ is set up by Karl Marx. However, to truly understand it, one needs to first see the background that he uses to create his argument. His background sets the geographical image as one where space is finite and authority is saturated i.e. all lands have been discovered and colonisation has taken over most of them. In this scenario, ‘international’ is seen as the most advanced from of the Empire. However, it now consists of multiple groups - different Empire’s or imperial powers as well as groups within the colonised states. Hence, the question arises as to how to culminate these different Empires into one ‘world state’, especially with the dual tensions erupting across the world. The idea similar to that of a world state is further looked into by Marx later on. One of these was the Intra- civilisational conflict which involved conflict between the colonial power in the West. On the other side was the Inter-race conflict between the whites and the people of other colour, such as brown, yellow and black. These two conflicts can be seen as the challenges to the idea of imperial unity. These brought forth racism, especially in the form of scientific racism and a graded racial racial hierarchy. Due to the saturated nature of the international system, the British Empire transitions from an expansionist machine to a system of containment of its lands and areas of authority. Hence, one could now call the British imperial project to be a ‘status quo-ist’ project. With this sense, one could call the creation of international relations as "a study of inter and intra-race relations and management”. In fact, it is only through the white-washing of history by the large influence of European powers in world history that the general meaning of international relations has changed to that of “study of inter-state relations and the causes of war”. As the push for decolonisation came into picture, the decoloniality arose, which aimed to invent a new non-colonial and non-imperial modernity that was truly ‘modern’. It is these events and perspectives that led to the formation of the idea of a nation as a ‘people’ i.e. a ‘people-nation’. It is here that Marx’s perspective takes flight.
The idea of nation as a people could be traced into the idea of three ‘estates’ or levels of a typical nation. The first estate refers to the monarchs and the royal family. The second estate refers to the aristocratic class, nobility, bureaucracy and the Church. It is the third estate that become our main focus for the new idea of a ‘people-nation’. It referred to the workers and peasants, who were the real ‘creators of wealth’ for the upper classes and who were kept away from political participation. It was this third estate that would consist as the sole population of the new nation, as a group aimed at overthrowing the upper classes and standing with the collective assertion of the universal principles of equality and liberty. A fine instance of this was the French Revolution, which led to the creation of the French nation, where the collective was not based on inheritance, birth or the bloodline, but rather on the sheer productive capacities of the people. Therefore, the birth of the nation could be seen as the emergence of the revolutionary political idea. Here, the nation is seen as the ‘birth’ of a new collective with non-finite implications due to the ‘non-biological’ nature of the ‘birth’. However, later on, the idea of state, territory and sovereignty was conjoined with those of the third estate, thereby neutralising their intensity.
Marx argues that the capitalistic world economy creates a de-territorial system with trade of goods and services across boundaries. He states that this capitalistic system leads to the creation of two classes cutting across boundaries - the bourgeois upper class and the proletariat lower class. He looks into the ironically complementary relationship between the territorial system of multiple sovereign empires, nations and states and the de-territorial world economy to come up with a new idea for ‘international’. His narrative defines ‘international’ as “an organisation of the working classes (proletariats)”. Such an idea connects back to that of a ‘one world-state’ and the third estate. Simply put, his definition of ‘international’ creates a people-nation consisting of the third estate, but this nation encompasses all the people of the world, regardless of one historical, racial or cultural backgrounds. To create such a system, Marx refers to revolutionary internationalism as a vehicle of change. The extent to which Marx’s ideas were applied can be seen through the instance of the International Workingmen’s Association or the First International as an international organisation which aimed at uniting a variety of different left-wing socialist, communist and anarchist groups and trade unions that were based on the working class and class struggle.
However, in today’s times, Marx’s narrative is seen as a largely subservient one due to the massive role and influence of a capitalist-liberal democracy and the use of hegemonic and liberal forms for internationalism. Still, it is important to consider the perspective he proposes due to its implications for the future. While the existence of a one world-state seems impossible in the near future, the rise of communistic powers and the outcry for equality of classes could restart the machinery of revolutionary internationalism.
From all the above narratives, we can gather that the meaning of international is extremely complicated and demands the consideration of several factors and perspectives. After having gone through several readings and explanations by these academicians, I have come up with my own answer to the question, “What is international?”. I believe that international can be defined as “an anarchical system involving interdependent and inter-relational interactions of co-existent groups, societies and nation-states across the world through a variety of lenses such as economic, social, political and ideological.” Such a meaning attempts to make use of the foundational points provided by the above narratives. The idea of the ‘anarchical system’ is derived from the ordering principle of Waltz’s narrative. Similarly, I made use of Bull’s perspective to explain ‘interdependent and inter- relational’, since the members in a society of states cannot act in isolation, but rather work together. Finally, I made use of ‘co-existent groups, societies and nation-states’ as a way to connect to Rosenberg’s critiquing narrative. Due to the subservient nature of Marx’s narrative, I was unable to include it in this definition.
Hence, I believe that ‘international’ is a dynamic and constantly evolving mechanism that affects not just states and societies, but each and every member of it. Therefore, a deep understanding into the functioning, influences and implications of the international system is of great importance.
References
Anonymous. (2020). Hegemonic Internationalism and the Pursuit of National Interests. Bartleby. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Hegemonic- Internationalism-Pursuit-of-National-Interests-P3N7EXSDJ38W
Badiou, A. (2017, April 16). False globalisation to the One Communist world. Urbanomic. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.urbanomic.com/document/badiou-false- globalisation-one-communist-world/
Bull, H. (2012). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Palgrave Macmillan.
DEFINITIONS. (2020). Definitions for International. DEFINITIONS. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.definitions.net/definition/international
Dornan, M. (2011, August 30). Realist and Constructivist approaches to Anarchy. E- International Relations. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.e-ir.info/ 2011/08/29/realist-and-constructivist-approaches-to-anarchy/
Hall, I. (2012, July 10). Taming the Anarchical Society. E-International Relations. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/05/taming-the-the-anarchical- society/
Kayaoglu, T. (2010). Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory. International Studies Review, 12(2), 193–217. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/40730727
Mearsheimer, J. J., Art, R. J., & Jervis, R. (2017). Anarchy and the Struggle for Power. In International Politics Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues (13th, pp. 70–78). PEARSON.
Philpott, J. D., & Philpott, J. (1995). Westphalia As Origin. In Revolutions in sovereignty: On ideas, power, and change in international relations (pp. 75–96). essay, Princeton University Press.
Prichard, A. (2012). Anarchy, Anarchism and International Relations . ResearchGate. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 259738648_Anarchy_Anarchism_and_International_Relations
Rosenberg, J. (2016). International Relations in the Prison of Political Science. International Relations, 1(27), 2–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117816644662
Teschke, B. (2011). The Myth of 1648. Verso.
Watson, A. (1987). Hedley Bull, States systems and International Societies. JSTOR. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20097109
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1959. Man, the State, and War. New York: Columbia University Press
Comments