IR Terms

Realism

One of the three schools of thought that has significantly influenced the way the world views Global Affairs. Influenced by Thomas Hobbes, Realists translate his concept on the international level through relating individuals and the state to Hobbes thinking on “state of nature” within the international system. Realists argue that the international system is anarchic, meaning there is no higher power above states. States therefore rely on self-help and pursue power and security to survive. Resulting in inevitable conflict and competition. Realism emphasizes national interest, military capability, and the balance of power (unipolar, bipolar, multipolar). Key thinkers include: Mearscheimer, Hobbes, Waltz, and Morgenthau.

Classical Realism

Argues that power politics and conflict are rooted in human nature. Key thinker is Hans Morgenthau who believed that humans are naturally driven by egoism, fear, ambition, and desire for power and therefore states reflect these tendencies because they are led by humans. As a result, conflict and competition is inevitable. (HUMAN CONNECTION TO STATE, MORGENTHAU).

Structural Realism (Neorealism)

Differs to Classical Realism as it believes that conflict and competition is driven by the anarchic state of the international system and not by human nature. Because there is no higher authority above states, all states are forced to compete for security and survival. The key thinker here is Kenneth Waltz. (ANARCHIC SYSTEM NOT HUMANS, WALTZ).

Offensive Realism

Believes that states try to maximize power and achieve regional hegemony because it is the best way to gauranteee survival and sovereignty in the international system. Key thinker here is John Mearscheimer. (HEGEMONY AND POWER TO SURVIVE, MEARSCHEIMER)

Defensive Realism

Believes States merely seek just enough power to remain secure but not to expand, therefore states prefer balance and caution to avoid provoking other states. Key thinker here is Kenneth Waltz. (JUST ENOUGH TO STAY SECURE, WALTZ).

Neoclassical Realism

Combines structural relaism (neorealism) with domestic politics, suggesting that although international pressure matters, states responses to it are dependent on internal factors such as leadership perceptions, governmental institutions, public opinions, and state capacity. (THE ANARCHICAL SYSTEM SHAPES STATE BEHAVIOR BUT LEADERS AND DOMESTIC CONDITIONS INFLUENCE HOW STATES REACT TO THOSE PRESSURES).

Anarchy

Anarchy generally means the absence of a central authority, government, or ruling power. It describes a condition in which there is no overarching system of control or hierarchy. The international system lacks a central sovereign authority higher than the state, creating an international "state of nature".

Balance of Power

Realists understand the interactions between Staes in terms of the distribution of power. There are 3 international distributions of power in realism: 1.Unipolar (Hegemony) a single nation 2. Bipolar (eg. Cold War) - when two nations or alliances match 3. Multipolarity - at least 3 nations or alliances systems match each other in influence. (Morgenthau argued this is the most stable system)

Self Help

In IR, self-help means that states cannot fully rely on other states or international organizations for protection, so they must depend on their own power and capabilities to ensure their security and survival. This often leads states to build military strength, form alliances, or compete for power.

Absolute gains

Absolute gains refer to how much a state benefits in total from cooperation or trade, regardless of how much other states gain. States focus on whether they are better off than before. Liberalism tends to focus on this.

Relative Gains

Relative gains focus on how much a state gains compared to others. States worry that another state gaining more could become more powerful or threatening in the future. Realism tends to focus on this.

Security Dilemma

The security dilemma describes a situation where one state increases its military power or security to protect itself, but other states see this as a potential threat. As a result, those states also increase their military capabilities, creating a spiral of mistrust, competition, and arms races, even if no state originally intended aggression.

Liberalism

One of the three schools of thought that has significantly influenced the way the world views Global Affairs. Liberalists believe that cooperation between states is possible and that progress towards peace can occur through trade, democracy, and international institutions. Liberalists see conflict as ultimately avoidable, emphasizes interdependence and shared interests. Liberalists maintain an optimistic view of human nature and the system, and is the underlying theory behind democracy. Liberalism influenced the Democratic Peace Theory which argues that two Democracies will never go to war. A bottom up approach that emphasizes social preferences and believes international government organizations carry these out efficiently. Key thinkers include: Immanuel Kant, Robert Keohane, and Joseph Nye.

Interdependence Liberalism

Interdependence liberalism argues that as countries become more economically connected through trade, investment, and globalization, war becomes less likely because conflict would be too costly for all sides. Strong economic ties create mutual dependence, making cooperation more beneficial than war.

Complex interdependence

In International Relations, complex interdependence refers to a situation where states are deeply connected through many economic, political, social, and institutional relationships, making them highly dependent on one another. Developed by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, the concept argues that military force becomes less central because countries interact through multiple channels (trade, organizations, companies, NGOs, diplomacy), and cooperation becomes increasingly important.

Democratic Peace Theory

Democratic Peace Theory argues that democracies rarely or never go to war with one another. Liberals explain this by arguing that democratic leaders are constrained by institutions, laws, public opinion, and accountability, which makes peaceful conflict resolution more likely. Democracies are also believed to share norms of negotiation and compromise, increasing trust and cooperation between them. (philosophically influenced by Immanuel Kant).

Neoliberal Institutionalism

Argues that in even in anarchy, international institutions make states able to cooperate more easily through reducing uncertainty, sharing information, monitoring behavior, and lowering the costs of negotiation and enforcement (transaction costs). Thinkers like Robert Keohane argue that states still act in their own interests, but institutions help them achieve mutual gains through repeated cooperation.

Liberal International Order (LIO) & its critiques

A US-led, rules based order that was established after WW2 intended to promote “liberal peace” through economic openness, democratic governance, and international cooperation. It rests on 3 liberal foundations:

1. Interdependence Liberalism (trade & economic ties raise cost of war)

2. Republican Liberalism (DPT- democracies are unlikely to go to war because institutions constrain leaders)

3. Neoliberal Institutionalism (International institutions and regimes decrease transaction costs enabling cooperation)

CRITIQUE: Mearscheimer argue that the LIO was “bound to fail” because maintaining it required liberal hegemony which would result in nationalist uprising and great power competition in the end. Furthermore, Kagan argued that during the “War on Terror” the US became a hegemony which depicted hypocrisy within the liberal order.

Liberal Hegemony

Liberal hegemony is a foreign policy strategy in which a dominant state (hegemon) uses its power to shape the international system according to liberal values, such as democracy, free markets, open trade, human rights, and international institutions.

Soft Power

Soft power in International Relations (IR) is the ability of a state to influence the behavior and preferences of other countries through attraction and persuasion (diplomacy) rather than coercion or force (military).

Constructivism

The newest strand of thought amongst the 3, that refers to IR as a social construct. International politics is shaped by ideas, identities, and shared meaning not material power. “Anarchy is what states make of it” - Alexander Wendt. There is no fixed logic of conflict and cooperation so states behavior is based on how they interact with each other. Wendt “cultures of anarchy”: Hobbesian (states see each other as enemies), Lockean (states see each other as rivals but recognize sovereignty), and Kantian (states see each other as partners with shared norms). In this view, power also operates through ideas and discourse, shaping what is seen as legitimate, while institutions help construct and reinforce state identities through ongoing interaction and socialization. Main thinker: Alexander Wendt.

Cultures of Anarchy

Wendt “cultures of anarchy”:

1. Hobbesian (states see each other as enemies) - Conflictual

2. Lockean (states see each other as rivals but recognize sovereignty) - Competitive

3. Kantian (states see each other as partners with shared norms).- Cooperative

Norms, norms cascade, and norm entrepreneurs

Norms (IR): Shared rules and expectations about what behavior is considered appropriate or acceptable for states and other international actors.

Norm cascade: The stage where a new norm rapidly spreads and is adopted by many states due to social pressure and growing acceptance.

Norm entrepreneurs: Actors (individuals or groups) who actively promote new ideas or norms and push others to accept and adopt them.

Positivism vs Post-positivism

Positivism is the view that international relations can be studied using the same scientific methods as the natural sciences, meaning theories should be tested through observable, measurable facts to produce objective and generalizable knowledge about how the world works.

Post-positivism rejects the idea of fully objective knowledge, arguing that reality in international relations is socially constructed and interpreted, so research is influenced by values, language, and perspective; therefore, it focuses more on ideas, discourse, and meaning rather than just measurable facts.

Problem solving theory vs Critical theory

Problem-solving theory works within the existing global system and tries to fix specific issues without changing the underlying structure. It assumes the basic order (states, anarchy, institutions) is given and focuses on making it function more efficiently.

Critical theory challenges the existing international system itself, questioning who it benefits, how power is structured, and whose voices are excluded, with the goal of exposing inequalities and imagining alternative forms of global order.

World-systems theory and Core-periphery theory

World-systems theory: A theory in International Relations and political economy that explains global inequality by viewing the world as a single interconnected economic system shaped by capitalism, where countries are positioned differently in a hierarchy of power and wealth.

Core-periphery: The idea within world-systems theory that the global system is divided into a “core” of wealthy, industrialized states that dominate production and trade, and a “periphery” of poorer, less developed states that provide raw materials and cheap labor and are economically dependent on the core.

Gramscian Hegemony

Gramscian hegemony comes from the work of Antonio Gramsci, who argued that power is maintained not just through force or economic control, but through ideology, culture, and institutions in civil society (like schools, media, religion, and law). In this view, ruling groups sustain dominance by building consent, meaning people accept the existing social order as “normal” or “common sense,” rather than experiencing it as direct coercion. Thus, hegemony is about shaping beliefs and values so that the interests of the dominant group appear to be in everyone’s interest.

Subaltern

The term Subaltern, developed from the work of Antonio Gramsci and later used in postcolonial IR theory, refers to groups, states, or populations that are marginalized and excluded from global power structures and decision-making. In IR, it describes actors in the Global South or colonized/postcolonial contexts whose voices, interests, and perspectives are often silenced or ignored by dominant (Western) powers and narratives in global politics.

Discourse and Power-knowledge

Discourse refers to the language, ideas, and narratives used to describe and understand world politics, while power-knowledge (associated with Michel Foucault) is the idea that power and knowledge are inseparable, meaning that those who control knowledge and dominant ways of talking about the world also shape what is seen as “true” or legitimate. Together, they explain how international politics is influenced not just by material power, but by who defines meanings, sets norms, and produces accepted knowledge about global issues.

Biopolitics

A concept developed by Michel Foucault that describes how modern states and systems of global governance exercise power by managing and controlling populations’ lives, not just by using military force or controlling territory. This includes regulating things like health, birth rates, migration, security, and risk, through policies and institutions.

Orientalism

A concept developed by Edward Said that describes how the “West” has historically constructed the “East” (the Orient) as backward, exotic, irrational, and inferior in order to define itself as modern, rational, and superior. This way of thinking is not just cultural but also tied to power, because it justifies Western dominance, colonialism, and intervention by portraying non-Western societies as needing control, guidance, or improvement.

Post-Colonialism

A critical approach in International Relations that examines how colonial history continues to shape global politics today, especially through unequal power relations between the Global North and Global South.

Decolonizing IR

An approach that seeks to challenge and transform International Relations theory by removing its Western/Eurocentric bias and including the histories, perspectives, and knowledge systems of the Global South and formerly colonized societies. It argues that mainstream IR often reflects colonial power structures in how it defines concepts like statehood, development, and security.

Feminist IR

A critical approach to IR that argues the discipline has traditionally been “gender-blind,” meaning it ignores how global politics is shaped by gender and how it affects women’s lived experiences. Feminist IR highlights how gender is socially constructed, with ideas of masculinity and femininity shaping state behavior, power relations, and global hierarchies rather than being biologically fixed. It challenges the absence of women in international decision-making and in IR theory itself, pointing to a major “canon gap” where women are vastly underrepresented in key academic works.

What are the four major strands of feminist theory?

1. Liberal Feminism (e.g., John Stuart Mill): Focuses on institutional inequalities and the legal or social obstacles that prevent women from achieving equality with men. (INSTITUTIONAL)

2. Marxist Feminism (e.g., Margaret Benston): Examines how inequalities within capitalist forms of production serve patriarchal structures and argues these systems must be overturned. (CAPITALIST FOP)

3. Post-colonial Feminism (e.g., Bell Hooks): Highlights the disparities between Western and non-Western women, emphasizing that gender must be understood within specific cultural, racial, and ethnic contexts. (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WESTERN AND NON-WESTERN WOMEN)

4. Eco-Feminism (e.g., Françoise d’Eaubonne): Explores the relationship between gender and ecology, often linking the domination of nature to the patriarchal domination of women. (ECOLOGY AND GENDER)

What are 2 contemporary case studied we can apply this feminist lens to?

1. Iran → feminist IR shows how the state controls women’s bodies to maintain political order, while women, especially in the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement act as key political agents. It also highlights how resistance is shaped by intersectional identities (e.g., Kurdish and working-class women) and how sanctions affect genders differently.

2. Ukraine War → feminist IR focuses on how war creates gendered impacts, including violence, trauma, and instability driven by masculine military structures. It also highlights increased patriarchal control in occupied areas and specific vulnerabilities in safety, health, and basic services caused by the conflict.

Intersectionality

A concept developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw that explains how different aspects of identity such as gender, race, class, sexuality, ability, culture, and others, overlap and interact to shape unique experiences of discrimination or privilege. It argues that gender cannot be studied on its own.

Standpoint Theory

A feminist approach that argues knowledge is shaped by social position, meaning that people’s understanding of the world depends on where they stand in systems of power. It holds that marginalized groups (such as women or other excluded communities) can have unique and often clearer insights into power relations because of their lived experiences.

Decentering

A critical approach in International Relations that means moving away from dominant Western/Eurocentric perspectives to show that they are not universal or neutral. It involves shifting attention to marginalized actors, histories, and knowledge systems (such as those from the Global South or postcolonial contexts) in order to better understand global politics.

Localization

The process through which international ideas, norms, or institutions are adapted and reshaped to fit local cultures, politics, and social contexts. Instead of simply adopting global rules as they are, states and societies modify them to make them compatible with local beliefs and practices

Subsidiarity

A principle in International Relations and governance that holds that decisions should be taken at the lowest (most local) level possible, and only moved to higher levels (such as national or international institutions) when necessary. Ensures that governance is more efficient, legitimate, and responsive by keeping authority close to the people affected by decisions

Double-binding

A situation where a state or actor is pulled between two conflicting expectations or demands. In IR, this can occur when countries are expected to follow international norms (like human rights, democracy, or sovereignty) while also responding to domestic political pressures or external power demands.

Twised postcoloniality

A concept in postcolonial International Relations that describes how colonial power relations continue in distorted or indirect forms after formal decolonization. Instead of disappearing, colonial influence is “twisted” into new structures such as global institutions, economic dependence, cultural hierarchies, and knowledge production systems that still privilege former colonial powers.

Offense/Defense balance

A concept in security studies that describes whether it is easier and more effective to attack (offense) or to defend (defense) in military strategy. If offense is easier or more advantageous, states are more likely to feel insecure and prepare for war; if defense is stronger, war is less likely because states can protect themselves without needing to expand aggressively.

Nuclear Deterrence

A security strategy where states use the threat of severe nuclear retaliation to prevent other states from attacking them. It is based on the idea that nuclear weapons make war too costly to start, so even if a state is attacked, the certainty of devastating retaliation creates mutual fear and restraint, reducing the likelihood of direct conflict between nuclear-armed states.

Mutual Assured Destruction

A nuclear strategy where two or more nuclear-armed states each have the capability to completely destroy the other in retaliation, meaning that if one side launches a nuclear attack, it will be fully destroyed in response. This creates a stable but highly dangerous form of deterrence.

Second Strike Capability

A state’s assured ability to survive a nuclear attack and still retaliate with nuclear force. This usually requires secure and hidden nuclear forces (such as submarines, mobile launch systems, or hardened silos).

Minimum Deterrence

A nuclear strategy where a state maintains only enough nuclear weapons to ensure it can deter an attack, rather than trying to match or surpass other states’ arsenals. The goal is not nuclear superiority, but a credible second-strike capability that guarantees devastating retaliation if attacked, thereby discouraging any nuclear aggression.

Extended Deterrence

A security arrangement where a nuclear-armed state (the “protector”) promises to use its nuclear weapons to defend an ally if that ally is attacked, even if the attack is not directly against the protector itself. It is often described as a “nuclear umbrella,” designed to reassure allies and prevent them from developing their own nuclear weapons while deterring potential adversaries.

Nuclear Taboo

A strong international norm against the use of nuclear weapons, based on the idea that their use is seen as morally unacceptable, highly illegitimate, and politically unthinkable. Making nuclear weapons primarily tools of deterrence rather than actual warfare.

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

A 1968 international agreement aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and encouraging nuclear disarmament. It divides states into nuclear-weapon states (those that already had nuclear weapons by 1967) and non-nuclear-weapon states, which agree not to develop or acquire them in exchange for access to peaceful nuclear technology and a commitment from nuclear states to work toward disarmament. Effectiveness: It has slowed horizontal proliferation (spread to new states) but has not stopped vertical proliferation (modernization of existing arsenals).

Horizontal Proliferation

The spread of nuclear weapons to new states. It refers specifically to more countries acquiring nuclear weapons capability, increasing the number of nuclear-armed actors in the international system.

Vertical Proliferation

The increase in the number, capability, or sophistication of nuclear weapons within states that already possess them. This includes expanding arsenals, developing more advanced delivery systems (such as missiles or submarines), and improving nuclear technology.

Sagan’s Three Models of Nuclear Proliferation

Scott Sagan argues that states build nuclear weapons for multiple reasons, not just security, and explains this through three models:

1. Security Model (REALISM)→ States pursue nuclear weapons to increase survival against external threats, especially other nuclear powers. Proliferation, in this view, is best prevented through credible security guarantees like nuclear umbrellas. EG: USSR 1949 PROGRAM DRIVEN BY FEAR OF USA NUCLEAR WAR.

2. Domestic Politics Model (LIBERALISM)→ Nuclear weapons are shaped by internal political incentives rather than external threats. Bureaucracies (military, scientists, energy agencies) and political leaders may support nuclear programs for funding, prestige, or domestic legitimacy. EG: INDIA 1974 NUCLEAR TEST IS SEEN AS POLITICALLY INCENTIVIZED.

3. Norms Model (CONSTRUCTIVISM) → Nuclear weapons are also driven by identity, norms, and status, where states seek prestige by becoming part of the “nuclear club.” EG. FRANCES 1960 TEST UNDER THE GAULLE TO SHOW NATIONAL STRENGTH. (NORMS CHANGE)

Nuclear Opitimism

The view that nuclear weapons can increase international stability and reduce war, mainly through deterrence. Because nuclear states fear mutual destruction, major wars, especially between great powers, are less likely.

Nuclear Pessimism

The view that nuclear weapons increase the risks of catastrophe, including accidental war, miscalculation, escalation, and proliferation. Even if deterrence works most of the time, the consequences of failure are so extreme that nuclear weapons make the world fundamentally more dangerous and unstable.

Stability/Instability Paradox

A concept in nuclear deterrence theory which argues that while nuclear weapons make large-scale war between nuclear-armed states less likely (stability), they can at the same time make smaller conflicts, proxy wars, or limited conventional wars more likely (instability).

Arms Control vs Disarmament

Arms control: Agreements between states to limit, regulate, or manage weapons, especially nuclear weapons, to reduce risks of war or escalation. It does not eliminate weapons, but sets rules (e.g., caps, inspections, or bans on testing) to make the system more stable and predictable.

Disarmament: The process of reducing or completely eliminating weapons, especially nuclear weapons, with the goal of removing them from international politics altogether and achieving a world with little or no armament.

The Nuclear Proliferation Debate

A key debate in nuclear security over whether the spread of nuclear weapons increases or decreases global stability.

Kenneth Waltz (optimist view → “more may be better”) argues that nuclear proliferation can increase stability because nuclear weapons create strong deterrence: the risk of mutual destruction makes rational states extremely unlikely to go to war. He points to the absence of nuclear war since 1945 and the Cold War “Long Peace” as evidence that nuclear weapons encourage caution and responsible state behavior.

Scott Sagan (pessimist view → “more will be worse”) argues that proliferation increases danger, because states are not perfectly rational and nuclear systems are managed by imperfect organizations. This raises the risk of accidents, unauthorized use, miscalculation, or preventive war, especially in states with weak command-and-control systems, making nuclear expansion potentially catastrophic.

Refugee

According to the 1951 Geneva Convention: A person outside their country of nationality with a "well-founded fear" of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion, and who cannot seek protection from their home state.

Asylum Seeker

Someone seeking international protection whose refugee status has not yet been processed or determined.

Migrant

A person moving away from their usual residence, within or across borders, temporarily or permanently, for various reasons.

Internally Displaced Person (IDP)

Someone forced to flee their home due to conflict, disaster, or human rights violations but who has not crossed an international state border.

Stateless Person

A stateless person is someone who is not recognized as a citizen by any country under its laws, meaning they have no formal nationality.

Voluntary Migration

Movement of people who choose to leave their country or region, usually for reasons such as work, education, family, or better living conditions. Although “choice” is often shaped by economic or social pressures.

Forced Migration

Movement of people who are compelled to leave due to threats or coercion, such as war, persecution, violence, natural disasters, or political repression. These migrants often include refugees and displaced persons who have little or no safe alternative but to flee.

Push and Pull Factors of Migration

A framework used to explain why people migrate. Push factors are conditions in a person’s home country that force or encourage them to leave, such as war, unemployment, poverty, persecution, or environmental disaster. Pull factors are conditions in a destination country that attract people to move there, such as better job opportunities, safety, political stability, higher living standards, or education.

Securitization of Migration (2 Schools)

Securitization explains how migration is turned into a security issue rather than a normal political one, but different theories explain this process in different ways:

1. Copenhagen School → Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver) argues that securitization happens through a “speech act,” where political leaders frame migration as an existential threat to something like the state or national identity. Once labeled a security issue, it moves outside normal democratic politics and allows governments to justify emergency measures like stricter border controls.

2. Paris School → (Didier Bigo) focuses less on speeches and more on everyday practices of control, arguing that migration is governed through a “governmentality of fear.” It highlights the role of street-level bureaucrats (e.g., border guards and officials) who manage migration flows in practice, as well as the increasing role of digital surveillance systems and databases, where borders function less as physical barriers and more as interconnected data networks.

The Liberal Paradox

A structural contradiction in liberal democratic states where governments are pulled between economic and humanitarian pressures for openness (such as the need for labour, globalization, family reunification, and asylum obligations) and political and security pressures for closure (such as border control, sovereignty, and electoral demands). This creates a situation where states often rely on migration for economic or legal reasons but simultaneously try to restrict or control it. This is reinforced for example through Welfare Chauvinism.

Welfare Chauvinism

Where social benefits are increasingly reserved for citizens, and migrants are sometimes portrayed as a burden on welfare systems.

Migration as a Meta-Issue

Migration has become a meta-issue used to link disparate problems like crime, identity, and welfare, often framing cultural diversity as a threat to societal homogeneity.

The Migration State

A concept describing how modern states are fundamentally shaped by the management of migration, meaning they are not just territorial or sovereign entities but also systems of controlling, regulating, and governing human mobility. The migration state balances competing pressures of economic demand for labour, humanitarian obligations, and political/security concerns, while using laws, borders, institutions, and surveillance to decide who can enter, stay, or be excluded.

The 1951 Refugee Convention

A key international treaty that defines who counts as a refugee and sets out the legal protections states must provide.

Non-refoulement

A core principle of international refugee protection that prohibits states from returning or expelling a person to a country where they face a real risk of persecution, torture, or serious harm. It is the key legal safeguard of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Border externalization

A strategy where states shift border control and migration management beyond their own territory by cooperating with or pressuring other countries to stop migrants before they reach their borders. This can include funding foreign border forces, creating offshore detention or processing centers, or making agreements with transit countries to block or return migrants, effectively “outsourcing” border enforcement to reduce arrivals and control migration indirectly.

Migration Diplomacy

The use of migration policy as a tool of foreign policy, where states negotiate, bargain, or apply pressure using issues like visas, border control, asylum, or labor mobility to achieve broader political, economic, or security goals. It involves treating migration flows not just as a domestic issue, but as a strategic bargaining instrument in international relationsbetween states.

Diaspora

A diaspora refers to a transnational community of people who live outside their country of origin but maintain social, cultural, political, or economic ties to it.

War

Conflict between political groups (traditionally states), characterized by high organization, strategies, and a significant scale, often defined by the UN as at least 1,000 deaths annually.

Types of War (4)

1. Hegemonic war: A large-scale war fought to decide or challenge which state will dominate the international system. It typically involves great powers and can reshape the global order (e.g., shifts between dominant powers).

2. Total war: A war where states mobilize all available economic, military, and societal resources, and the distinction between civilian and military targets becomes blurred. The aim is complete defeat of the enemy, often involving mass destruction.

3. Guerrilla war: A form of irregular warfare where smaller, weaker groups use tactics like ambushes, sabotage, and mobility to fight a stronger conventional military force, often relying on local support.

4. Revolutionary war: A war driven by the goal of overthrowing or fundamentally transforming a political system, either within a state (civil conflict) or against external powers, often involving ideological or social change.

Clausewitz on war and politics

Carl von Clausewitz argued that war is not separate from politics but a continuation of it by other means, meaning that states use war as a tool to pursue political objectives when diplomacy or negotiation fails. From a realist perspective in International Relations, this implies that war is an enduring feature of the international system because states are always competing for power in an environment of anarchy, and stability is only maintained through a balance of powerrather than the elimination of conflict.

Perpetual Peace

A concept developed by Immanuel Kant that argues lasting global peace is possible if states adopt republican (democratic) government, respect international law, and form a federation of states that cooperates to prevent war. In IR theory, it is most associated with liberalism and the idea that democracy, economic interdependence, and international institutions can gradually reduce the likelihood of war and create a more peaceful international system.

Collective Security

A liberal concept in International Relations where states agree that an attack on one state is considered an attack on all, and they collectively respond often through international organizations like the United Nations to deter or punish aggression. The goal is to maintain peace by deterring war through coordinated action against any aggressor.

Security Communities

A group of states among which war has become highly unlikely or unthinkable because they share strong trust, common identities, and expectations of peaceful conflict resolution.

Just War Theory

A moral framework in International Relations that assumes war may sometimes be unavoidable, but argues it must be morally justified and conducted under strict ethical rules. It is divided into three parts:

1. Jus ad bellum (justice of going to war): Last Resort: All non-violent options must be exhausted. Just Cause: Usually self-defense against an attack. Legitimate Authority: Declared by a lawful government. Right Intention: Aimed at peace, not revenge. Reasonable Prospect of Success: Not a hopeless cause. Proportionality: The response must be measured.

2. Jus in bello (justice in war): Discrimination: Targeting only military objectives; avoiding civilians (non-combatants). Proportionality: Force used must not exceed what is necessary. Humanity: Prohibiting the mistreatment of prisoners or wounded.

3. Jus post bellum (justice after war): The principles for ending war fairly, focusing on peacebuilding, reconstruction, accountability, and establishing a just and stable post-conflict order.

Old vs New Wars

Old wars: Traditional interstate wars fought between sovereign states using regular, uniformed armies. They typically have clear front lines and a strong distinction between combatants and civilians, with fighting focused on defeating enemy military forces.

New wars (Mary Kaldor): Modern conflicts that are usually internal (civil wars) rather than between states, often occurring in postcolonial or weak “failed” states. They are characterized by identity-based violence (ethnic, religious, or political), the breakdown of the civilian–military distinction, and more asymmetrical warfare, where armed groups, militias, and civilians are deeply entangled in the conflict.

The decolonization of war

A postcolonial approach in International Relations, associated with Tarak Barkawi, that challenges Western-centered theories of war by arguing they wrongly assume war occurs only between equal, sovereign states. It shows that war has always been shaped by colonial and imperial structures, where Western powers relied on colonial soldiers, global hierarchies, and transnational military networks to fight “small wars” that were central to building and maintaining world order. This perspective replaces the idea of an anarchic system of equal states with one of persistent global hierarchy, highlighting how war is deeply rooted in imperial history and unequal power relations.

Humanitarian Intervention

The use of military force or coercive action by states or international organizations in another state’s territory to stop or prevent serious human rights violations such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, or mass atrocities, often without the target state’s consent. It is justified in liberal IR by the idea of protecting human rights and global responsibility, but it is also controversial because it can conflict with state sovereignty and be influenced by power politics.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

A global norm in International Relations stating that sovereign states have the primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. If a state fails to do so, the international community has a responsibility to intervene.

Theories of War Analysis (4)

1. The Human Level (Realism): War stems from innate human instincts like greed, ambition, and the "lust for power". Aggression is seen as biologically programmed.

2. The Societal Level (Critical Military Studies): War is produced by socialization into militarism. Patriotic practices (monuments, slogans) teach successive generations to see militarism as natural.

3. The State Level (Liberalism): A state’s internal makeup determines its aggressiveness. Democratic Peace Theory argues democracies do not fight each other. Conversely, historical sociologists like Charles Tilly argue "war made the state and the state made war" states were specifically designed for conflict.

4. The Structural Level (Neorealism): War is an inevitable consequence of an anarchic international system where states must rely on "self-help".

Marxist View on War

A critical perspective that explains war as a product of the capitalist system and global economic inequality, rather than just state competition or security concerns. From this view, wars often arise from struggles over resources, markets, and colonial or imperial expansion, as powerful capitalist states seek profit and control over weaker regions.

“Dragons and Snakes” model (David Kilcullen):

A theory of modern conflict that distinguishes between two types of adversaries. “Dragons” are large, state-like threats (such as major rival powers) that resemble traditional interstate enemies. “Snakes” are small, decentralized, non-state actors such as insurgents, terrorists, and criminal networks that operate in local environments and use irregular warfare. The model argues that contemporary security threats are increasingly dominated by “snakes,” requiring different strategies focused on counterinsurgency, intelligence, and local engagement rather than conventional warfare.

Hybrid Warfare

Using unconventional tactics (covert troops, "lawfare," economic pressure) alongside conventional force. Private Military and Security Industry (PMSI) are examples of hybrid actors. PMSI appeared after the Cold War as a means through which national security tasks became privatized through private security companies (eg. Black water & Academi). Eg. ¼ US personnel in Iraq/Afghanistan was private.

Cyber Warfare

Using internet technologies, malware, and social media propaganda (e.g., Russian interference in elections) to achieve strategic goals.

Bipolar, Unipolar, and Multipolar Order

Unipolar Order: One dominant superpower shapes most global politics and rules. (US as hegemon post Cold War)

Bipolar Order: Two dominant superpowers shape most global politics and rules. (US and USSR during the Cold War)

Multipolar Order: Three + dominant superpowers shape global politics and rules. (Europe before WW1)

Multiplex world order

A concept describing today’s global system where power is widely dispersed across states and also non-state actors(like international organizations, corporations, NGOs, and networks).

Westphalian Sovereignty

A principle from the 1648 Peace of Westphalia that defines the modern international system as one made up of independent, sovereign states that have authority over their own territory and internal affairs. It is based on the idea of non-interference, meaning other states should not intervene in a state’s domestic politics, establishing the foundation of the modern state system in International Relations.

Great Power Compeition

A condition in International Relations where the world’s most powerful states (great powers) compete for influence, security, and strategic advantage across military, economic, technological, and political domains. It often involves rivalry over global order, alliances, and regions of influence, and can increase tensions in the international system as states try to balance or counter each other’s power.

BRICS

Britain, Russia, India, China, South Africa. A group of major emerging economies that cooperate politically and economically to increase their influence in global affairs.

Functionalism

A theory developed by David Mitrany that argues cooperation should begin in specific technical areas (such as transport, communication, or health) because solving practical problems is more efficient than relying on states alone. The idea is that “form follows function,” meaning that as states cooperate in these functional areas, they naturally develop international institutions and organizations to manage them more effectively, gradually increasing interdependence and reducing conflict.

Neofunctionalism

A theory developed by Ernst B. Haas that builds on functionalism but argues that economic and political processes are closely linked in integration. Its key idea is “spillover,” meaning that cooperation in one area (like trade or economics) creates pressure to cooperate in related areas (like politics or security), leading to deeper integration over time. It also emphasizes the role of elite actors and institutions, where leaders and officials gradually shift their loyalties and expectations toward supranational cooperation as integration develops.