Sixty-six years after the founding of the United Nations, human rights looks like an insular world unto itself: A system with its own standards, institutions and mechanisms, a world of experts still far from being intrinsically connected to people’s daily life worlds. Insofar as the mass media pay attention to human rights questions and issues, their focus is primarily on international relations and foreign policy. This would not give any reason for concern if the emphasis were just on human rights as an end to be achieved. What permeates international relations is, however, human rights as an instrument to uplift a state’s own credibility while undermining that of other states. In that respect two distinctive ways of twisting human rights may be discerned: Offensive and defensive human rights.
Offensive human rights implies a focus on violations by other states. Illustrative in this respect is the usual practice in the relations between Cuba and the United States: In whatever forum possible, motions are put forward to censure the rival state. The term defensive human rights, on the other hand, refers to the practice of signing and ratifying whatever treaty possible (not uncommonly with pre-announced reservations) as well as incorporating human rights standards in the country’s national constitution, not as a first step towards implementation but simply as a point of positive reference whenever questions are asked as to the country’s human rights record. To be sure, the ensuing state obligations are internationally enforceable only if systematic non-compliance were first reported to the UN Security Council and next resulted in action in the form of sanctions.
This could happen only very rarely as international governance is extremely weak in practice. Consequently, state sovereignty – also a UN foundational principle (UN Charter Article 2) – has remained a crucial obstacle to the enforcement of international human rights law. Thus, in practice, the states participating in Treaty-based mechanisms can refrain from submitting country reports as well as ignoring conclusive observations that require a clear follow-up, and in the Charter-based bodies they can disregard motions and resolutions requesting essential changes in their human rights policies and practices, while even denying access to UN-mandated representatives seeking entry into the country under scrutiny.
The point is that while international standards and mechanisms have been created as a legal venture, implementation has always been dominated by international relations. Thus, there is no world court of human rights comparable to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, whose judgments are executed as standard practice. As mentioned, membership of the Charter-based bodies is through state representation, implying that states are involved in judging their own cases.
In the context of globalization and the end of the Cold War, one would have expected a revival of human rights as a genuine global venture capable of engaging and mobilizing mass constituencies. That such support has not been forthcoming must be seen as a disappointment (Normand and Zaidi 2008: xxviii). In this respect, some observations may serve to clarify certain flaws in the global human rights venture.
Defects in international human rights
The UN project as envisaged in the Charter was never meant to be legally enforceable by internationalmeans. The terminology was remarkably weak from the start, with the core expression of “protection and promotion of human rights” as testimony to its “soft law” character. Whereas rights signify abstract commitment to protection of interests by law, human rights refer to interests directly connected to human dignity, viz. fundamental freedoms and basic entitlements. To “protect human rights,” then means protecting the protection of these interests by law. Such discourse obviously weakens the mission.
(1) Even when country assessments and cases of human rights violations are treated as very serious matters, there is remarkably little attention to the follow-up of cases in which evident violations of human rights were established. This is one explanation why the global human rights deficit – manifested in impunity of state-related perpetrators of gross and systematic violations, structural non-implementation of the rights of the poor, lack of protection of non-dominant collectivities, and domestic violence against women and children – strongly persists.
(2) The juridical nature of the international human rights venture went together with an emphasis on case-by-case approaches. Yet, national non-implementation is often of a structural nature, requiring primarily international political action. Insofar as such action has been forthcoming, it has suffered from the almost inherent double standards in the world of states. Effective action requires decision-making by the UN Security Council and that implies consent on the part of its permanent members, including China, Russia, and the United States. Thus, gross and systematic violations of human rights cannot be effectively addressed in territories such as Chechnya and Tibet.
(3) Effective protection of collectivities requires close co-operation between the UN’s political set-up, which deals with international peace and security, and its juridical branch, which is tuned to the “promotion and protection” of human rights. Likewise, the realization of economic, social, and cultural rights needs the full commitment of relevant development-oriented agencies, including the international financial institutions (IFIs). Yet, “mainstreaming” human rights as envisaged in the whole UN system of governance has, above all, resulted in documents that reflect policy briefs, reports and policy guidelines rather than the genuine operationalization of human rights at all levels and layers (Normand and Zaidi 2008).
(4) There has not been much interest in global human rights as a common mission of the “United Nations,” as envisaged in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaration, UDHR). Instead, member states appear to believe in setting up their own human rights mechanisms – not as complementary to the international framework but as an alternative – rather than committing themselves to truly supranational supervision and enforcement. Strikingly, even in academic circles the grounds of human rights, as expressed in the first article of the Declaration, are rarely discussed except for philosophical reflections on human dignity. The downside of that obvious endeavour to avoid discussions that might touch upon the axiom of global universality is that concrete human rights tend to get detached from the fundamental values that lie at the core of each distinct human right. Let us take freedom of opinion and expression as an example here. Its ground – liberty – is often interpreted in such a way that the first part of Article 1 of the Declaration is dissociated from the second: The conception of freedom becomes unhinged from an accompanying conception of people as moral human beings, implying personal responsibility. Consequently, through the above interpretation the grand principle of human dignity loses its significance. Indeed, certain interpretations, which utilize Article 19 of the Declaration as a licence to use offending language and to disseminate dignity-offending material, such as pornography, tend to alienate huge portions of the necessary constituency for the human rights mission, while also contributing towards a political constituency for relativist positions such as “Asian” or “Islamic” human rights.
(5) International human rights are not yet sufficiently focused on the economic, political, social, and cultural aspects of the distinct environments in which these rights have to be realized. As the whole international venture for the protection of human dignity against the abuse of power is based on well functioning legal systems that connect enforceable national law to international law, efforts to realize these rights primarily require the creation of good governance based on the rule of law. In order to overcome the obstacles connected to failing and dictatorially ruled states, well functioning economies and policies to overcome cultural prejudice are essential. That would entail a shift of resources from purely juridical action towards policies supporting political transformation.
(6) Devoid of global governance, economic globalization has increased socio-economic inequality while creating an adverse environment for the realization of economic, social, and cultural rights. Simultaneously, non-state agencies or actors became more relevant in the whole international endeavour for structural protection of human dignity. Effective check on human rights-affecting actions by multinational corporations (MNCs) is primarily the duty of states under whose responsibility these companies operate. While at the level of states an increased focus on MNC violations of human rights is clearly noticeable, international regulation will have to follow if violations reach a globally intolerable level (Ruggie 2008). Notably, even international governmental organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) distance themselves from responsibilities for human rights implementation.
(7) In the aftermath of 11 September 2001 (9/11) the world has seen a strong revival of “exceptionalism” in respect to international law. Exceptionalism is a term generally used to describe the ways and means by which states exempt themselves from the international legal and political order. The United States is the most obvious example of state-based exceptionalism. Within the setting of the problematique that concerns us here, the phrase “exceptionalism” may be used to describe any attempt to exempt citizens and institutions from democratic public-political authority and its laws, policies and actual decisions, based on assumed incompatibility with national principles. In the wake of the “Global War on Terror” as the Pentagon termed the United States’ response to 9/11, even rights very close to the core of human dignity such as due process and the prohibition of torture have been grossly and systematically violated. Highly problematic from a human rights perspective is the exceptionalist spillover to the rest of the world, including countries like Israel and Iran, too.
Positive perspectives
Notwithstanding these serious flaws in the operation of the international human rights system, there are certain hopeful signs:
(1) The global “faith” in universal dignity and inalienable rights that was mentioned in the preamble of both the UN Charter and the UDHR is implicit in the strong moral-political rhetoric of the Declaration as exemplified in the articles specifying the various rights beginning with “all,” “everyone” or “no one.” Indeed, everybody counts and no one is to be submitted to treatment violating their basic human dignity. In what way the declaration may have finally been drafted – “written in two days in a hotel room in San Francisco by Eleanor Roosevelt and two assistants” (Korzec: 1993) – it is a simple fact that these words have a universal appeal. While this may not be the case in regard to all those who rule, it certainly applies to those who are ruled. In fact, just like Holy Scriptures such as the Bible, the Qur’an and the Bhagavad Gita, the UDHR appeals to a much wider circle of people than the cultural context in which it originated. Those who have ever carried copies of the Universal Declaration to countries with tyrannical regimes know that, in a cultural context entirely different from “the West,” there can be an overwhelming demand for this document.
(2) Notably, the whole venture is of a programmatic rather than an immediately conclusive nature. In fact, it all started with a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This does not mean, however, that the term “rights” as used here is meant in the sense of a moral category as if these “moral rights” could be distinguished from “legal rights.” Rights signify interests protected by law, meaning a public-political responsibility towards their protection, and in this sense, human rights are not distinct from other rights. It should be noted that rights are never simply self-executing. Indeed, realization of one’s rights under the law always requires action and this applies to declared rights in particular. Hence, although the “downstream” basis of the international human rights standards is rather weak, “upstream” action may well serve to actually secure the fundamental freedoms and entitlements that are meant to be protected.
(3) Although UN General Assembly declarations do not routinely qualify as international law, through periods of customary state practice and guided by a strong opinio iuris (established legal opinion) these may well result in customary international law, in certain instances even regarded as ius cogens (non-derogable provisions of international law). This applies, for example, to the right to life, liberty and bodily integrity (prohibition of torture) and due process. Yet, even to get ius cogens enforced through effective judicial remedies remains a huge challenge. Hence, the downstream venture will always need linkages to upstream action on the part of those whose rights are at stake and the agencies that support them.
(4) The international human rights project was never intended as a separate venture, aside from regional and national mechanisms. Europe has created a very strong regional system through the European Convention on Human Rights and the adjoining European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The regional mechanisms in Africa and in the Americas are gradually being reinforced. Even more importantly, national human rights institutions – supervisory commissions and institutes – play an increasing role. Moreover, as will be illustrated below, national legislators and particularly national judiciaries often manifest an activist attitude when it comes to human rights implementation.
(5) Despite its flaws from the legality perspective, international human rights law has created a strong notion of global legitimacy, based on common standards of justice and injustice. This implies that no use of power is considered legitimate if it violates international human rights standards. It is particularly in the absence of a reliable global instrument for human rights enforcement that the international standards behind human rights play an important part in the real civilizing mission.
(6) Particularly through the support of international civil society, linked to national NGOs in distinct contexts, international mechanisms for supervision of human rights compliance serve to bring concrete violations out into the open. Quidquid latet apparebit (whatever is hidden is to be revealed) as Thomas of Celano put it in his peroration on the final judgment Dies Irae, Dies Illa.
(7) Although the original language of most documents originating in the international human rights venture is juridical and protective, in actual practice the project is at least as political and transformational. Indeed, while the history of civil and political rights is tuned in particular to theprotection of citizens against sovereigns who want to rob them of their possessions, in a “Third World context” the declaration functions as a basis for the emancipation of the have-nots.
Thus, in the struggle for public justice, international human rights provide not just legal resources as based on positive law, but also political means anchored in public legitimacy. Additionally, human rights function not merely to protect people with regard to the freedoms and entitlements they have already acquired, but in their emancipatory struggles for socio-political transformation as well. Hence, the whole picture offers a multifaceted perspective based on a civilizational commitment of utmost importance. In the absence of reliable global mechanisms for the enforcement of human rights, international human rights laws and principles have to be connected, first and foremost, to national institutions and mechanisms with power to enforce these standards. Indeed, while from an international legal perspective, state sovereignty may well be seen as an obstacle, in a national context it might well constitute a basis for effective implementation. This does, however, require a functioning rule of the law in the first place.
Bas de Gaay Fortman is the Emeritus Chair in Political Economy of the International Institute of Social Studies at Erasmus University, Rotterdam, and Professor of Political Economy of Human Rights at the Utrecht University Law School, the Netherlands. His latest book Political Economy of Human Rights: Rights, Realities and Realization was recently published by Routledge in May 2011.
Bibliography
Korzec, M. 1993 ‘Onzin op stelten. Mensenrechten als wereldreligie’, Intermediair (10 December).
Normand, R. and S. Zaidi 2008, Human Rights at the UN. The Political History of Universal Justice, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Ruggie, J. (2008) Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Geneva: UNHRC.

Ethical questions are central to the study of international relations, as it is a field of study concerned with
War and peace, trade and production, law and rights.
Yet, a persistent conventional wisdom suggests ethics are marginal to international relations. This conventional wisdom has two sources. After World War II, as the discipline of international relations was taking shape in the United Kingdom and the United States, a number of prominent scholars holding a realist view on questions of ethics came to dominate the field. Figures such as Hans J. Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, and E. H. Carr criticized what they saw as the misplaced moralism of earlier scholars who put their faith in the power of law and institutions to reform international relations. Not long after this move toward a realist paradigm that was skeptical of ethics, the discipline also began to focus on developing a value-free social scientific approach that rejected ethical questions as part of the study of international relations, especially in the United States. Yet, these two early shifts in the discipline obscure the fact that questions of ethics have always been part of the study of international relations. International relations, however, is concerned with political events and social forces that impact the lives of individuals, communities, and the human species as a whole, making ethical considerations inescapable. There is a long tradition of ethical reflection on international relations, stretching as far back as human beings have been concerned with intercommunal relations, but these reflections have been a secondary focus to the consideration of ethics and politics within communities. In part, this is why ethical questions about international relations come to the fore during periods of imperial expansion. Just War theory has its roots in St. Augustine’s reflections on the duties of the Christian emperors of Rome to defend the empire. International law developed as a way of justly dividing the world between sovereign states and savage peoples in need of civilization during the era of European colonialism, and human rights have taken center stage since the end of the Cold War, as the global influence of the United States reached its peak. Today, ethics are increasingly seen as a central part of the study of international relations. This shift has come about partly through the work of critical scholars working in a variety of traditions, who have rejected the long dominance of realism and the aspiration to a value-free social science. These critical voices include liberal political theorists, feminists, critical theorists, postmodernists, and post colonialists. These diverse traditions share a commitment to taking ethical questions about international relations seriously—though what they see as the scholar’s contribution differs greatly, ranging from offering normative prescriptions to deconstructing the conceptual distinctions that make ethical judgment possible. Along with this shift within the academic study of international relations, important changes have also taken place in the interactions between states. Without suggesting we have gone through an epochal change to a supposedly unprecedented era of globalization, it is clear that the traditional Westphalian state system has changed dramatically. There are more sovereign states than before with a greater equality of political and economic power between regions, while at the same time international institutions and global civil society have expanded, and individuals have more contact with each other outside of their national communities than was previously possible. Together with shifts in how we think about international relations, these social changes have put ethics back onto the agenda. As the current state of the field is defined by a diversity of perspectives and problems, this article is plural in the views represented and as wide ranging in its coverage as space will allow—although students should be aware that much more information is available. Hopefully, other scholars will appreciate that boundaries have to be drawn, and exclusions must be made.
General Overviews
Within the field of international relations, ethics took on a more prominent role starting in the 1980s with the rise of feminist approaches, illustrated in edited collections by Narayan and Harding 2000and Whisnant and DesAutels 2010; the emergence of critical theory, notably in Linklater 1998; and increasing interest in postmodernist ethics, discussed in the edited volume by Campbell and Shapiro 1999, and traced with great clarity in Hutchings 1999. Further, a number of international relations scholars began reexamining the place of normative questions within the tradition of Western thought that forms the core of the discipline. Boucher 1998 traced the historical relationship between ethics and international politics, and Brown 1992 did similar work but focused on the re-emergence of ethical questions within the discipline of international relations. Keene 2005 provided a more focused intellectual history of international political thinking

What is International Political Economy?

International Political Economy (IPE) is a social science that attempts to understand international and global problems using interdisciplinary tools and theoretical perspectives. Although it originally developed as a sub-field of International Relations, it has in recent years taken on a life if its own. At the University of Puget Sound, 30 to 40 students graduate with a Bachelor of Arts degree in IPE each year.
The growing prominence of IPE is one result of the continuing breakdown of boundaries between economics, politics, and other social science disciplines. Increasingly, the most pressing problems that scholars and policy-makers confront are those that can best be understood from a multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary point of view. IPE pulls down the fences that restrict intellectual inquiry in the social sciences so that important questions and problems can be examined without reference to disciplinary borders.
IPE is the study of a problématique, or set of related problems. The traditional IPE problématique includes the political economy of international trade, international finance, North-South relations, transnational enterprises, and hegemony. This problématique has been broadened in recent years to issues raised by globalization and climate change.
International Economics and International Politics
The interaction of International Politics and International Economics is today widely appreciated and the subject of much theoretical research and applied policy analysis. Nation-states clearly affect international trade and monetary flows, which in turn affect the environment in which nation-states make political choices and businesses make economic decisions.
Yet scholars and policy-makers often think about International Economics without much attention to International Politics and vice versa. Economists often assume away state interests while political scientists sometimes fail to look beyond the nation-state. Two noteworthy Cold War era exceptions to this rule stand out: economist Charles Kindle Berger’s work on hegemony and political scientist Kenneth Waltz's attempt to integrate economics into politics in his path-breaking book Man, the State, and War.
Dramatic events in the 1970s made plain how tightly international economics and politics were intertwined. The oil embargoes of the 1970s and the breakdown of the Bretton Woods monetary system were key events in IPE's development as a field of study. Moreover, subsequent events such as the Third World debt crisis, the fall of communist regimes, the rise of the Newly Industrialized Countries (NICS), the expansion of the European Union, and the financial crises in Mexico, Russia, and East Asia made showed that simple divisions between state and market, domestic and international, and politics and economics were no longer tenable. An increasingly complex world required a complex approach to analysis, which IPE provided.
The IPE Problématique
IPE in the 1970s and 1980s was centered in the International Relations community and took the form of the analysis of what was called in book titles and course catalogues "The Politics of International Economic Relations" or "The Political Economy of International Relations." In this period, five sets of questions dominated the agenda: international trade, international finance, North-South relations, MNCs, and the problem of hegemony. A sixth concern — globalization — was added to the list in the 1990s. Since the 2000s, IPE has devoted significant attention to global threats and crises, including climate change and worldwide financial instability.
International Trade
Politics and Economics approach international trade from different points of view using completely different analytical frameworks. The problem is that states think in terms of geography and population, which are the relatively stable factors that define its domain, while markets are defined by exchange and the extent of the forward and backward linkages that derive therefrom. The borders of markets are dynamic, transparent, and porous; they rarely coincide exactly with the more rigid borders of states. A few markets today are even global in their reach. When trade within a market involves buyers and sellers in different nation-states, it becomes international trade and the object of political scrutiny.
International trade has always been at the center of IPE analysis and is likely to remain so in the future. It is a mirror that reflects each era's most important state-market tensions. In the Cold War, for example, international trade was simultaneously a structure of US hegemony and a tool of East-West strategy. In the 1980s and 1990s, trade through regional economic integration was a tool to consolidate regional interests. With the advent of globalization and the creative economy powered by information technologies, trade in intellectual property rights became me a controversial IPE issue.
International Finance
International Finance presents the second set of problems that have traditionally defined International Political Economy. The IPE of International Finance includes analysis of exchange rate policies, foreign exchange systems, international capital movements, and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Seemingly technical aspects of international finance often hide profound political implications, a fact that has attracted scholars such as Susan Strange and Benjamin J. Cohen to this field. Political scholars may hesitate to engage in this analysis because of the necessity to master difficult theories and arcane terminology, but there is no riper area for IPE analysis. Some issues of current importance in IPE studies of finance include: political struggles over how to respond to the post-2007 global financial crisis; how the complexity of financial markets affects economic stability; and debates over how states should regulate financial markets.
Hegemony
The theory of hegemonic stability was arguably IPE's most important contribution to Cold War international relations theory. A hegemon is a powerful state that supplies public goods to the international system. These public goods include stable money, security (such as freedom of the seas), and a system of free trade that can be shared by all. Providing these public goods is costly, but the hegemon gains even if it disproportionately bears the expense alone. If the world system prospers, the hegemon necessarily prospers as well. In fact, this provision of public goods may be a strategy to secure or extend the hegemon's dominant position.
The theory of hegemonic stability holds that the world system is most prosperous when a hegemon exists to organize the international political and economic system and coordinate the provision of international public goods. Periods of Dutch (1620-72), British (1815-73), and U.S. (post-1945) hegemony are commonly cited as evidence of this link between hegemony and prosperity. When hegemony breaks down, however, the international system falls into disorder and conflict, with the resulting decline in peace and prosperity. One can think of the theory of hegemonic stability as a theory of U.S. Cold War economic statecraft, with the Bretton Woods system and the Marshall Plan its clearest manifestations.
Some scholars argue that hegemony is a self-defeating and therefore temporary condition. While the hegemonic state bears the burdens of organizing the international system and supplying public goods, free-rider states prosper and increase the burdens on the hegemon. At some point the hegemon finds itself over-committed and unable to bear the costs of the system it has created. Either it begins to put domestic interests over its international obligations or it becomes too weak to honors its widespread commitments. Britain's decline in the late 19th century and early 20th century is an example of this dynamic. The Iron Curtain's fall in 1989 can also be seen as the implosion of Soviet hegemony over Central and Eastern Europe.
Hegemony is a state-centered concept that includes security as a critical element, but that draws upon the analysis of international trade and international finance to provide a richer and more complex explanation of the rise and fall of great powers. One important question in IPE today is whether China will challenge U.S. hegemony and threaten the liberal international order. Another is whether Germany will move to establish itself as a hegemon within the European Union.
North-South Relations
The Cold War analysis of less-developed countries (LDCs) was focused on the East-West bipolar alliances and the place of LDCs in geopolitical strategy. LDCs were strategic pawns in the Big Power Cold War game. As international trade and international finance were increasingly used to expand and strengthen the Cold War alliances (especially but not exclusively on the western side), IPE scholars pursued the impact of economic relations generally on LDCs. Or, in the terms associated with Immanuel Wallerstein, they probed the relationship between Core and Periphery.
The IPE problématique therefore expanded to encompass a critique of economic development, an analysis of neo-colonialism and imperialism, and a general study of Core-Periphery relations. Security and geopolitical issues were not excluded from this North-South analysis; they merely lost the privileged position that they enjoyed in traditional International Relations research. In recent years, IPE scholars have focused on sustainable development, the reasons why failed states have formed, and how the rise of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) is reshaping North-South relations.
Multinational Corporations
Multinational corporations (MNCs)—also called transnational corporations—have always been objects of interest to IPE scholars and practitioners. During the Cold War, MNCs were often viewed as being linked with their home government by an "invisible handshake." The home country government created opportunities for these businesses and opened markets abroad (in "host countries") for them. The businesses, in turn, advanced the economic and political interests of their home country.
With the end of the Cold War, analysis of MNC behavior quickly spread to issues well beyond their role in Cold War geopolitics. The rise of Asia’s newly-industrializing countries and the increasing globalization of production and finance spurred research on the role of MNCs in the allocation of capital and the control of technology. It became apparent that some MNCs undertook business strategies that were not obviously in the interest of their home country. The distinction between home country and host country also grew less clear. All countries are now host countries in the sense that all countries compete for capital, technology, and jobs in the global market.
IPE scholars have increasingly directed their research towards developing an IPE of Global Value Chains (GVCs). GVCs are complex networks that link independent businesses into a coordinated production and distribution process. New information technology allows firms to coordinate their activities to an extent that was previously possible only within a large enterprise, thereby facilitating the expansion of GVCs. Companies like Nike, Apple, and Wal-Mart coordinate vast GVCs; they focus on design, marketing, logistics, and retailing. Much of the actual manufacturing of products has been outsourced to independent firms in countries such as China, Vietnam, and Malaysia. The IPE of global value chains challenges our understanding of both markets and states and represents an advancing frontier of IPE research.
Globalization
The globalization problématique is quite different from the traditional state-centered concerns of International Relations, which is one reason some IPE scholars consider IPE a distinct academic discipline, not just a sub-field of International Relations. As a process driven by the global expansion of production and finance, globalization forces us to look at the interrelationships between politics, business, culture, technology, the environment, and migration, to name only the most obvious areas.
At the heart of the globalization problématique is the question of the state. Many scholars argue that the nation-state is increasingly incapable of dealing with global issues and has lost significant power relative to other actors in the global economy. For example, MNCs can easily move capital from one country to another, and this mobility has allowed them to reduce the taxes they pay.
Globalization has forced IPE scholars to search for new theories to explain complex global interactions. One of the most recent theories is constructivism, which focuses on the power of ideas to shape how states and institutions perceive and respond to global problems. An outgrowth of this perspective is literature on how globally-coordinated groups of non-state, non-business actors—called transnational advocacy networks—have been able to convince governments to care more about problems such as human rights and environmental destruction.
It is clear that globalization has generated an array of social and environmental problems that demand the attention of IPE scholars. Growing economic inequality has had profound effects on the quality of democracy and social stability. The rise of China and the creation of the euro currency have reshaped geopolitics. Most importantly, globalization has helped produce serious threats and crises that states and international institutions seem incapable of controlling, such as global warming, financial turmoil, and refugee flows. The challenge for IPE is to develop theories and concepts that help us make sense of what is now truly a “global political economy.”
*”What is International Political Economy?” is based upon an article written by Michael Veseth in 2004 for a UNESCO international encyclopedia project. © Michael Veseth, 2004. He updated it in March 2007. Bradford Dillman revised and updated it in December 2015.

International political economy (IPE),
also known as global political economy (GPE), is an academic discipline within political science that analyzes economics and international relations. As an interdisciplinary field, it draws on many distinct academic schools, most notably political economy, political science and economics, also sociology, history, and cultural studies.
The academic boundaries of IPE are flexible and they, along with acceptable epistemologies, are the subject of robust debate. This debate is essentially framed by the discipline's status as a new and interdisciplinary field of study. Despite such disagreements, most scholars can concur that IPE ultimately is concerned with the ways in which political forces (states, institutions, individual actors, etc.) shape the systems through which economic interactions are expressed, and conversely the effect that economic interactions (including the power of collective markets and individuals acting both within and outside them) have upon political structures and outcomes.
IPE scholars are at the center of the debate and research surrounding globalization, both in the popular and academic spheres. Other topics that command substantial attention among IPE scholars are international trade (with particular attention to the politics surrounding trade deals, but also significant work examining the results of trade deals), international development (poverty and the role of institutions in development), international finance, global markets, political risk, multi-state cooperation in solving trans-border economic problems, and the structural balance of power between and among states and institutions. Unlike the broader field international relations, power is understood to be both economic and political, which are interrelated in a complex manner.[citation needed]
it has been predominantly considered by authors such as Benjamin Cohen (2008) that IPE emerged as a heterodox approach to international studies during the 1970s as the1973 world oil crisis and the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system alerted academics, particularly in the U.S., of the importance, contingency, and weakness of the economic foundations of the world order. IPE scholars such as Susan Strange asserted that earlier studies of international relations had placed excessive emphasis on law, politics, and diplomatic history. Similarly, neoclassical economics was accused of abstraction and being ahistorical. Drawing heavily on historical sociology and economic history, IPE proposed a fusion of economic and political analysis. In this sense, both Marxist and liberal IPE scholars protested against the reliance of Western social science on the territorial state as a unit of analysis, and stressed the international system.[citation needed].

academic courses, journals, and text books generally cover the various view points from which policy recommendations originate and will endeavour to provide an ideologically neutral presentation of the field of study. Following a precedent set by one of the founding text books of the discipline,[1] individuals and organisations engaged in promoting particular policies, as well as many scholars active in this field, are commonly grouped into one of three worlds views, all of which have existed long before IPE emerged as a distinct academic discipline. These categories are liberal, realist, and Marxist. Constructivism may be classed as a fourth high level view, although scholars such as Ravenhill have grouped it as a sub-class of the Marxist approach. The liberal category is relatively unified, while the realist and Marxist views capture a vast range of outlooks. Widely shared views are found only at the highest level of abstraction:
The 'liberal' view believes in freedom for private powers at the expense of public power (government). It asserts that markets, free from the distortions caused by government controls and regulation, naturally will harmonise demand and supply of scarce resources resulting in the best possible world for populations at large.
The 'realist' view (formerly commonly labelled "nationalist") accepts the power of free markets to deliver favourable outcomes, but holds that optimum conditions generally are obtained with moderately strong public power exerting some regulatory control.
The 'Marxist' view believes that only robust application of strong public power can check innate tendencies for private power to benefit elites at the expense of populations at large.
The 'constructivist' view assumes that the domain of international economic interactions is not value-free, and that economic and political identities, in addition to material interests, are significant determinants of economic action.[citation n

diplomacy
noun: diplomacy
the profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations, typically by a country's representatives abroad.
"an extensive round of diplomacy in the Middle East"
synonyms: statesmanship, statecraft; More
the art of dealing with people in a sensitive and tactful way.
"with perfect diplomacy, he divided his attention between Meryl and Anthea"
synonyms: tact, tactfulness, sensitivity, discretion, subtlety, finesse, delicacy; More
antonyms: tactlessness

Simple Definition of diplomacy
: the work of maintaining good relations between the governments of different countries
: skill in dealing with others without causing bad feelings

Diplomacy has existed since the beginning of the human race. The act of conducting negotiations between two persons, or two nations at a large scope is essential to the upkeep of international affairs. Among the many functions of diplomacy, some include preventing war and violence, and fortifying relations between two nations. Diplomacy is most importantly used to complete a specific agenda. Therefore without diplomacy, much of the world’s affairs would be abolished, international organizations would not exist, and above all the world would be at a constant state of war. It is for diplomacy that certain countries can exist in harmony.
There has not been a documented start of diplomacy; however there have been instances ranging back to the 5th century where diplomacy arose in certain nations. Dating back to 432 B.C, the Congress of Sparta was an “illustration of diplomacy as organized by the Greek City States” (Nicolson 1). The origin of the word “diploma” comes from different sides of the earth. In Greece diploma meant “folded in two”, while in Ancient Rome the word was used to describe travel documents. Often times the word diplomacy is given many meanings. Many times will the words “policy” and the word “negotiation” be seen as synonyms; hence the word “diplomacy” and “foreign diplomacy” are deemed to be similar (Nicolson 3). These “synonyms” of diplomacy are all faulty. While they may be very similar in some cases, they are not the exactly the same. Sir Harold Nicolson who was an English Diplomat born in Tehran, Persia, states that:
Diplomacy is neither the invention nor the pastime of some particular political system, but is an essential element in any reasonable relation between man and man and between nation and nation” (Nicolson 4

For the upkeep of the International System, diplomacy is used in every corner of the world. Without it many nations would not be able to conduct successful negotiations.
While many are not able to find a clear beginning or creation of diplomacy, modern diplomacy has become much more advanced and many aspects have changed over the years. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 created the first modern diplomatic congress in addition to creating a new world order in central Europe based on state sovereignty. Much of Europe began to change after the introduction of modern diplomacy. For example, “France under Cardinal Richelieu introduced the modern approach to international relations, based on the nation-state and motivated by national interest as its ultimate purpose” (Kissinger 17). The New World Order began to bloom in all of Central and Western Europe. Great Britain argued for the “balance of power” which kept European diplomacy alive for the next 200 years (Kissinger 17). Every country in Europe contributed a little to the diplomacy the world has today. The balance of powers theory that many famous realists such as Francsesco Sforza, Machiavelli, and Guiciardini argued was and still is an essential component of modern diplomacy. Many could argue that diplomacy is a product of society and history itself. As countries progress different aspects are added to diplomacy. Separation of powers, national interest, and a country’s sovereignty are only a few elements that were added to modern diplomatic history. Therefore, diplomacy can be seen as an ever-changing concept, the same way International Relations between countries fluctuate. Author of The Pure Concept of Diplomacy José Calvet De Magalhães stated that “continuity of the diplomatic institution throughout thousands of years and in all known civilizations shows that diplomacy is an institution inherent to international life itself, one that may undergo transformations or may be used with more or less intensity, but cannot be dispensed with” (Szykman). As Henry Kissinger states “By pursuing its own selfish interests, each state [is] presumed to contribute to progress, as if some unseen hand were guaranteeing that freedom of choice for eac state assured well-being for all” (Kissinger 22), In the course of all diplomatic history
“[…] no country has influenced international relations as decisively and at the same time as ambivalently as the United States. No society, has more firmly insisted on the inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic affairs of other states, or more passionately asserted that its own values were universally applicable. No nation has been more pragmatic in the day-to-day conduct of its diplomacy, or more ideological in the pursuit of its history moral convictions. No country has been more reluctant to engage itself abroad even while undertaking alliances and commitments of unprecedented reach and scope” (Kissinger 18).
The United States headstrong tendencies to succeed have made it one of the most influential countries in the course of diplomacy. “The most famous of all peace proposals following World War I was the program of Fourteen Points, delivered by President Woodrow Wilson in 1918” (Szykman). Most can argue that without the United States, much of modern diplomacy would be gone.
There are in fact many functions of diplomacy that make diplomacy an essential ingredient for any peaceful and efficient change. The reason to negotiate with other persons has always been the same, to have better relations. Over the course of diplomacy being in existence, the structure of diplomatic posts has changed from a loose one to an organized institution made for a specific purpose. While the structure of diplomatic posts has changed, the functions always remained the same. There are four functions of diplomacy. The first function involves “representing a state’s interests and conducting negotiations or discussions designed to identify common interests as well as areas of disagreement between the parties, for the purpose of achieving the state’s goals and avoiding conflict” (Ameri 1). Representations of a state as well as negotiation are the most important functions of diplomacy. Negotiations between two representatives are a key component in diplomacy, because in doing so the representatives find a common interest. Finding a common interest is vital in conducting negotiations because with a common interest representatives are able to devise a solution that is in the interest of both sides. G.R. Berridge that negotiation

A country's foreign policy, also called foreign relations or foreign affairs -policy, consists of self-interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve goals within its international relations milieu.[citation needed] The approaches are strategically employed to interact with other countries. The study of such strategies is called foreign policy analysis. In recent times, due to the deepening level of globalization and transnational activities, the states will also have to interact with non-state actors. The aforementioned interaction is evaluated and monitored in attempts to maximize benefits of multilateral international cooperation. Since the national interests are paramount, foreign policies are designed by the government through high-level decision making processes. National interests accomplishment can occur as a result of peaceful cooperation with other nations, or through exploitation. Usually, creating foreign policy is the job of the head of government and the foreign minister (or equivalent). In some countries the legislature also has considerable effects. Foreign policies of countries have varying rates of change and scopes of intent, which can be affected by factors that change the perceived national interests or even affect the stability of the country itself. The foreign policy of one country can have profund and lasting impact on many other countries and on the course of international relations as a whole, such as the Monroe Doctrine conflicting with the mercantilist policies of 19th century European countries and the goals of independence of newly formed Central American and South American countries.

Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Meaning
3 Twentieth century
4 Need for a general theory of foreign policy
5 See also
6 Notes and references
7 Further reading
History[edit]
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle described humans as social animals. Therefore, friendships and relations have existed between humans since the beginning of human interaction. As the organization developed in human affairs, relations between people also organized. Foreign policy thus goes back to primitive times. The inception in human affairs of foreign relations and the need for foreign policy to deal with them is as old as the organization of human life in groups. Before writing, most of these relations were carried out by word of mouth and left little direct archaeological evidence.

The literature from ancient times, the Bible, the Homeric poems, the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, and many others, show an accumulation of experience in dealing with foreigners. Ancient Chinese and Indian writings[which?] give much evidence of thought concerned with the management of relations between peoples in the form of diplomatic correspondence between rulers and officials of different states and within systems of multi-tiered political relations such as the Han dynasty and its subordinate kings, the more powerful of which[which?] conducted their own limited foreign relations as long as those did not interfere with their primary obligations to the central government, treatises by Chanakya and other scholars, and the preserved text of ancient treaties, as well as frequent references by known ancient writers to other, even older sources which have since been lost or remain in fragmentary form only.

Meaning[edit]
According to Business Dictionary.com, foreign policy is plan of action adopted by one nation in regards to its diplomatic dealings with other countries. Foreign policy is established as a systemic way to deal with issues that may arise with other countries. In the modern era, no country can afford to live in isolation in this age of interdependence.

Twentieth century[edit]
Global wars were fought three times in the twentieth century. Consequently, international relations became a public concern as well as an important field of study and research. After the Second World War and during the 1960s, many researchers[who?] in the U.S. particularly, and from other countries in common, brought forth a wealth of research work and theory. This work was done for international relations and not for foreign policy as such. Gradually, various theories began to grow around the international relations, international systems and international politics but the need for a theory of foreign policy, that is the starting point in each sovereign state, continued to receive negligible attention. The reason was that the states used to keep their foreign policies under official secrecy and it was not considered appropriate for public, as it is considered today, to know about these policies.[citation needed] This iron-bound secrecy is an essential part for the framework of foreign policy formulation.

World War II and its devastation posed a great threat and challenge for humanity which revealed to everyone the importance of international relations. Though foreign policy formulation continued to remain a closely guarded process at the national level, wider access to governmental records and greater public interest provided more data from which academic work placed international relations in a structured framework of political science. Graduate and post-graduate courses developed. Research was encouraged, and gradually, international relations became an academic discipline in universities throughout the world.

The subject of whether or not constructive attempts at involvement by citizens benefits the disciplines of the "art," or whether or not such disciplines as intercultural and interpersonal communications and others may play a significant part in the future of international relations could be a subject for further study by interested individuals/groups and is encouraged at the educational level.

Writers[who?] researching foreign policy in the 20th century were unaware of whether or not agencies who most closely dealt with foreign policy kept logs of statistical experience not unlike the actuarial statistics kept by organizations of the insurance industry assessing the risk and danger involved (e.g. when situation "C" happened before, and subject included instances of "E" and "L", how was it handled and what was the result? When were peaceful and amicable results leading to better relations ever obtained through considered action and what was that action?).

The writers who worked with the foreign policy can be divided in two groups:

World war writers who treat international politics and foreign policy as an indifferent, single field of study.
Writers who recognize foreign policy as a source rather than the substance of international politics and bring it under study as a subject.
(The second group restricts its work to foreign policy making.)

The works of second group comes closer to the theory of foreign policy but there is no attempt to formulate a basic theory of foreign policy. Hans Morgenthau’s works on principal elements of foreign policy seem to have covered the most ground.[1]

Need for a general theory of foreign policy[edit]
Main article: International relations theory
McGowan and Shapiro, in their work on comparative study of foreign policy of different countries, felt that the lack of a basic theory of foreign policy was particularly disabling, and pointed out the harmful effect of the absence of a general theory of foreign policy on the foreign policy literature.

The most fundamental question that arises here is: why do we lack theories of foreign policy? Or why do we need general theory of foreign policy?

The absence of a general theory in this field leads to some serious consequences. Without theory:

We cannot explain the relationships we discover; we can make predictions only about the foreign policy behavior.
We will have to depend on luck and educative guesses to come up with worthwhile research hypothesis.
Research will become an ad-hoc or unplanned research, with no justification provided for the selection of cases—no system and no consistency.
A field without theory is hardly an area of disciplined scientific inquiry.
A diplomat will be likely to have a more complex estimate or knowledge of other governments. His or her estimate, however, will certainly be simplistic and heavily influenced by his or her own perceptual blinders, leading to faulty (or biased) policy judgments.
A theoretical framework of foreign policy is needed to analyze the day-to-day interactions in international relations and to compare individual foreign policies. The focus is primarily on the policies of state actors with defined territories and jurisdictional boundaries, and less so on non-state actors, except in the context of how they impact national government decisions and policies. The formal field of study of international relations is itself fairly[clarification needed] recent and a specific subset of international relations such as foreign policy analysis does not receive wide attention as a field of scientific study, as opposed to the widespread use of terms like 'foreign policy' and 'foreign policy expert' in news media and general discussions about government when such experts may have more extensive backgrounds in fields other than foreign policy analysis. Government officials involved in making foreign policy often perceive risk in giving away information to about their policy making processes and do not discuss the subject, as control of information is itself often a part of foreign policy.

The vast record of empirical data and research is given academic attention to fit it into the framework of a general theory of foreign policy.

The second group of writers has made contributions in its development in many ways:

Collation of systematic empirical studies with a view to articulating general pro-positions pertaining to state behavior.
Analysis of foreign policy making with an emphasis on the process itself and the determinants that influence foreign policy.
Development of a scientific approach to and model for foreign policy analysis such as the rational actor model, domestic-public model, etc.
Studies undertaken to prepare world order models.

The International System of Units (French: Système international d'unités, SI) is the modern form of the metric system, and is the most widely used system of measurement. It comprises a coherent system of units of measurement built on seven base units. It defines twenty-two named units, and includes many more unnamed coherent derived units. The system also establishes a set of twenty prefixes to the unit names and unit symbols that may be used when specifying multiples and fractions of the units.
The system was published in 1960 as the result of an initiative that began in 1948. It is based on the metre-kilogram-second system of units (MKS) rather than any variant of the centimetre-gram-second system (CGS). SI is intended to be an evolving system, so prefixes and units are created and unit definitions are modified through international agreement as the technology of measurement progresses and the precision of measurements improves. The 24th and 25th General Conferences on Weights and Measures (CGPM) in 2011 and 2014, for example, discussed a proposal to change the definition of the kilogram, linking it to an invariant of nature rather than to the mass of a material artefact, thereby ensuring long-term stability.[1]
The motivation for the development of the SI was the diversity of units that had sprung up within the CGS systems and the lack of coordination between the various disciplines that used them. The CGPM, which was established by the Metre Convention of 1875, brought together many international organisations to not only agree on the definitions and standards of the new system but also agree on the rules for writing and presenting measurements in a standardised manner around the world.
The International System of Units has been adopted by most developed countries; however, the adoption has not been universal in all English-speaking countries. Whilemetrication in the United States is consistent in science, medicine, government, and various fields of technology and engineering, common measurements are mostly performed in United States customary units, although these have officially been defined in terms of SI units. The United Kingdom has officially adopted a policy of partial metrication. Canadahas adopted the SI for most governmental, medical and scientific purposes and for such varied uses as grocery weights, weather reports, traffic signs and gasoline sales, but imperial units are still legally permitted and remain in common use throughout many sectors of Canadian society, particularly in the building trade and the railway sector.

Metre Convention[edit]
CGPM vocabulary
French English Pages[19]

étalons [Technical] standard
5, 95
prototype prototype [kilogram/metre] 5,95
noms spéciaux [Some derived units have]
special names 16,106
mise en pratique mise en pratique
[Practical realisation][Note 2]
82, 171
Main article: Metre Convention
A French-inspired initiative for international cooperation in metrology led to the signing in 1875 of the Metre Convention.[5]:353–354 Initially the convention only covered standards for the metre and the kilogram. A set of 30 prototypes of the metre and 40 prototypes of the kilogram,[Note 3] in each case made of a 90% platinum-10% iridium alloy, were manufactured by the British firm Johnson, Matthey & Co and accepted by the CGPM in 1889. One of each was selected at random to become the International prototype metre and International prototype kilogram that replaced the mètre des Archives and kilogramme des Archives respectively. Each member state was entitled to one of each of the remaining prototypes to serve as the national prototype for that country.[20]

International System of Quantities[edit]
Main article: International System of Quantities
The International System of Quantities (ISQ) is a system based on seven base quantities: length, mass, time, electric current, thermodynamic temperature, amount of substance, and luminous intensity. Other quantities such as area, pressure, and electrical resistance are derived from these base quantities by clear non-contradictory equations. The ISQ defines the quantities that are measured with the SI units.[31] The ISQ is defined in the international standard ISO/IEC 80000, and was finalised in 2009 with the publication of ISO 80000-1.[32

The supreme duty of the state is to maintain itself. If the state disappears, then no other interest remains
national interest
Definition of national interest
: the interest of a nation as a whole held to be an independent entity separate from the interests of subordinate areas or groups and also of other nations or supranational groups <any foreign policy which operates under the standard of the national interest — H. J. Morgenthau>


National interest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the generic foreign affairs term. For the political journal, see The National Interest.
The national interest, often referred to by the French expression raison d'État ("reason of State"), is a country's goals and ambitions whether economic, military, or cultural. The concept is an important one in international relations where pursuit of the national interest is the foundation of the realist school.

Contents [hide]
1 History of the concept
2 Relationship with the rule of law
3 As a euphemism
4 See also
5 References
6 Bibliography
History of the concept [edit]
In early human history the national interest was usually viewed as secondary to that of religion or morality. To engage in a war rulers needed to justify the action in these contexts. The first thinker to advocate for the primacy of the national interest is usually considered to be Niccolò Machiavelli.

The practice is first seen as being employed by France under the direction of its Chief Minister Cardinal Richelieu in the Thirty Years' War when it intervened on the Protestant side, despite its own Catholicism, to block the increasing power of the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor. At Richelieu's prompting, Jean de Silhon defended the concept of reason of state as "a mean between what conscience permits and affairs require."[1] The notion of the national interest soon came to dominate European politics that became fiercely competitive over the next centuries. It is a form of reason "born of the calculation and the ruse of men" and makes of the state "a knowing machine, a work of reason";the state ceases to be derived from the divine order and is henceforth subject to its own particular necessities (E. Thuau, 1966).

States could now openly embark on wars purely out of self-interest. Mercantilism can be seen as the economic justification of the aggressive pursuit of the national interest.

A foreign policy geared towards pursuing the national interest is the foundation of the realist school of international relations. The realist school reached its greatest heights at the Congress of Vienna with the practice of the balance of powers, which amounted to balancing the national interest of several great and lesser powers.

Metternich was celebrated as the principal artist and theoretician of this balancing but he was simply doing a more or less clean copy of what his predecessor Kaunitz had already done by reversing so many of the traditional Habsburg alliances and building international relations anew on the basis of national interest instead of religion or tradition.

These notions became much criticized after the bloody debacle of the First World War, and some sought to replace the concept of the balance of power with the idea of collective security, whereby all members of the League of Nations would "consider an attack upon one as an attack upon all," thus deterring the use of violence for ever more. The League of Nations did not work, partially because the United States refused to join and partially because, in practice, nations did not always find it "in the national interest" to deter each other from the use of force.

The events of World War II led to a rebirth of Realist and then Neo-realist thought, as international relations theorists re-emphasized the role of power in global governance. Many IR theorists blamed the weakness of the League of Nations for its idealism (contrasted with Realism) and ineffectiveness at preventing war, even as they blamed mercantilist beggar thy neighbor policies for the creation of fascist states in Germany and Italy. With hegemonic stability theory, the concept of the U.S. national interest was expanded to include the maintenance of open sea lanes and the maintenance and expansion of free trade.

Relationship with the rule of law[edit]
The majority of the jurists consider that the "national interest" is incompatible with the "rule of law".[2] Regarding this, Antonino Troianiello has said that national interest and a state subject to the rule of law are not absolutely incompatible:

While the notion of state reason comes first as a theme of study in political science, it is a very vague concept in law and has never been an object of systematic study. This obvious lack of interest is due to a deliberate epistemological choice - a form of positivism applied to legal science; and as a result legal science affirms its autonomy regarding other social sciences while constituting with exactness its own object - law - in order to describe it. In doing so it implies deterministic causes which have an influence on its descriptive function. This method which puts aside state reason is not without any consequence: the fact that state reason is not taken into account by legal science is to be integrated within a global rejection of a description of law as presented in political science. A fundamental dynamic in modern constitutionalism, "the seizure of the political phenomenon by law" is all the more remarkable when it claims a scientific value, thus a neutrality aiming at preventing all objection. This convergence of legal science and constitutionalism has the tautological character of a rhetorical discourse in which law is simultaneously the subject and the object of the discourse on law. Having as a basis state reason, it allows a reflexion on the legitimacy of power and authority of modern Western societies; this in connexion with the representations which make it and which it makes "state reason and public law."

(Troianiello, p. 690)

As a euphemism[edit]
Today, the concept of "the national interest" is often associated with political realists who fail to differentiate their policies from "idealistic" policies to seek to inject morality into foreign policy or promote solutions that rely on multilateral institutions which might weaken the independence of the state.

As considerable disagreement exists in every country over what is or is not in "the national interest," the term is as often invoked to justify isolationist and pacifistic policies as to justify interventionist or warlike policies. It has been posited that the term is a euphemism used by powerful countries for geopolitical aims such as nonrenewable natural resources for energy independency, territorial expansionism and precious metals in smaller countries.[3] In that case, euphemism usage is necessary to stifle voices opposed to an interventionistic or warhawk foreign policy.[4]

Dawn article
national interests are the vital interests of a state of which survival is the first and foremost interest. A state's independence and territorial integrity come above all other interests. If the state disappears, then no other interest remains. The supreme duty of the state is, therefore, to maintain itself.

Economic welfare is a key preoccupation of the foreign and domestic policies of a state. The preservation of ideological values is another important national interest, though a rather passive one. Only if these values face the threat of destruction from an external power does their defence become a vital national interest.

The primary justification of state action is national interests. Foreign policies of states are made mainly to protect and advance these interests. According to Alfred Thayer Mahan, an American naval officer, “Self-interest is not only a legitimate, but a fundamental, cause for national policy; one which needs no cloak of hypocrisy.” As a principle, it does not require justification. Hans Morgenthau, a top scholar, said that the minimum requirement of nation states is to protect their physical, political and cultural identity against encroachments by other nation states.

The pursuit of a state's national interests in the international arena constitutes its foreign policy. The success or failure of foreign policy is directly related to a state's capability. Capability comes from physical, economic and other elements, including geography, natural resources, population, economic and military strength, technology, organisational efficiency and political stability. The capability of a state is often called its power.

National power is the most important of all interstate controls, and the role of power is central to foreign policy. To be successful, foreign policy must be commensurate with the power available to carry it out. Policymakers must be guided by realism, rather than by emotionalism and illusions. Prudence must be exercised in the exercise of power. Decisions concerning national interest should always be made on the basis of concrete national advantage rather than on moralistic, legalistic or ideological criteria.

Diplomacy is the art of conducting and implementing foreign policy. It is the process by which diplomats seek to achieve foreign-policy objectives, mainly through negotiations held with their counterparts. The essence of diplomacy is bargaining, which involves the use of both the carrot and the stick. A diplomat has four basic functions representation, negotiation, reporting and protection of the interests of his country and the latter's citizens in foreign lands.

Pakistan's foreign policy, like that of other states, has sought to secure its national interests. Diplomacy has indeed acted as the first line of defence for Pakistan. The goal has always been clear, though mistakes were made in the way national objectives could be achieved, most notably in handling the Bangladesh crisis in 1971 when emotionalism and lack of realism clouded the judgment of policymakers and the nation.

Security has been an obsessive dimension of Pakistan's foreign policy. From the very outset, Pakistan's great problem was an unfriendly relationship with its neighbour India, which did everything in its power to harm Pakistan from its inception. Not surprisingly, Pakistan quickly developed a siege mentality. A sense of insecurity has profoundly influenced the formulation of Pakistan's defence and foreign policies.

Given the disparity in its size vis-Ã -vis India, the principal task of Pakistani diplomacy has always been to find an equaliser against India. This led Pakistan in the 1950s to join US-led military pacts that had been formed to counter communist aggression. India, on the other hand, sought to establish close ties with the Soviet bloc. However, the 1960s produced a new equation following the Sino-Indian border war, which induced India and the West to come closer. That influenced Pakistan to turn to China as the new equaliser, proving that in international relations there are no permanent friends or enemies; only permanent interests.

The 1980s would bring Pakistan close to the US again in the context of the Soviet military occupation of Afghanistan, which was seen by Pakistan as a threat to its own security and by the US and others as the latest evidence of Soviet expansionism.

When the Soviet withdrawal was achieved in 1989, Pakistan and the US moved away from each other. However, 9/11 again induced them to work in tandem in the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistan's support was secured by Washington on the plank of 'either you are with us or against us'.

Opposing the US in such a scenario would have brought unacceptable consequences for Pakistan's national interests. However, unlike the Pakistani government, the Pakistani 'street' has been more influenced by emotionalism and has not supported this alliance. This dichotomy continues to create misgivings and mutual doubts even though both countries have a common objective — countering religious extremism which is destabilising Pakistan.

Pakistani foreign policy has also focused on promoting the country's economic welfare. Over the years, significant economic aid has been obtained by Pakistan from its foreign friends. The US and the West have been the principal aid givers. Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia have also been forthcoming. Significant economic and material help has been received from China, which is seen by Pakistanis as an all-weather friend. Japan too has emerged as a key aid giver to Pakistan.

International financial institutions, where US influence is notable, have also given considerable economic assistance to Pakistan. In fact, few countries in the world have received as much aid as Pakistan on a per capita basis.

Pakistan occupies a key geo-strategic location, which has enhanced its importance in the international arena. Its nuclear capability, which has kept an uneasy peace in the subcontinent since the 1980s, gives it added importance. At the same time, it would be uncharitable to deny that diplomacy has played a key role in the advancement of Pakistan's security and economic interests.

Really the great work!!! Be happy and have a successful life

The link is not working.

Sent from my SM-G532F using Tapatalk