Q1.
What were the key driving forces behind the establishment of International Relations as an
academic discipline? Provide an analysis of the major historical events and intellectual developments
that contributed to its evolutions and formal recognition in the world.
1. Introduction
International Relations (IR) became an academic subject in the 20th century mainly because of the
global chaos caused by wars, especially World War I. There was a growing need to study how countries
interact, why conflicts happen, and how peace can be achieved. Over time, important global events and
new theories helped shape IR into a proper academic discipline. Scholars wanted to understand the
international system more deeply, using different ideas and methods as the world kept changing.
2. World War I and the Beginning of IR as a Formal Discipline
a. The First World War Made the Study of War and Peace Urgent
The destruction caused by World War I led people to question old ways of managing international
politics. The traditional idea of keeping peace through a balance of power had clearly failed. As a
response, the first academic position in International Politics was created in 1919 at the University of
Wales, Aberystwyth, marking the start of IR as a proper university subject.
b. Idealist Thinkers Believed Peace Could Be Achieved Through Cooperation and Law
In the years after WWI, many scholars promoted Idealism. They believed that peace was possible if
countries followed international law, created global institutions, and used diplomacy. The League of
Nations was a key example of this thinking. Idealists had hope that war could be avoided through
collective security and moral leadership.
c. The Failure of Idealism After WWII Gave Way to Realism
However, the 1930s saw the rise of aggression by powerful states, and the League of Nations failed to
stop them. When World War II broke out, it showed the limits of Idealist thinking. This led to the rise of
Realism, which focused on power, national interest, and survival in a world without any central
authority. Realist scholars like E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau argued that conflict is natural in
international politics, and that states mainly care about their own security.
3. Cold War and the Scientific Turn in International Relations
a. The Superpower Rivalry Led to Strategic Thinking in IR
During the Cold War, the competition between the US and the Soviet Union made IR more focused on
strategy. Scholars studied how nuclear weapons, alliances, and deterrence shaped global politics.
Theories were developed to understand how to avoid war in such a tense international environment.
b. IR Adopted Scientific Methods to Study Patterns and Predict Outcomes
In the mid-20th century, IR became more scientific. This approach, known as Behaviouralism, used data,
models, and statistics to study how states behave. Scholars wanted to make IR more objective and
systematic, just like the natural sciences.
c. New Theories Like Neorealism and Neoliberalism Explained How the System Shapes State Behavior
Later, more structured theories like Neorealism (by Kenneth Waltz) explained that the international
system itself forces states to act in certain ways. Neoliberal thinkers agreed that the system matters but
argued that institutions like the UN or trade agreements could still help countries cooperate, even in a
world without global government.
4. Post–Cold War Period and the Rise of New Perspectives in IR
a. Constructivism Brought Focus on Identity, Norms, and Social Ideas
After the Cold War, some scholars felt that existing theories couldn’t fully explain global politics.
Constructivism became popular by arguing that ideas, identities, and social norms also shape state
behavior—not just power or interests. This opened the door to new ways of thinking about international
politics.
b. Critical Theories Challenged the Western and Male-Dominated View of IR
Other new approaches, like Feminism and Postcolonialism, criticized mainstream IR for ignoring gender,
race, and the effects of colonialism. These theories focused on justice, inequality, and the voices of
those left out of traditional power-focused views. They expanded the subject by asking different
questions and using different methods.
5. Conclusion:
International Relations started because the world needed to understand how to prevent war and
promote peace. Over the years, it evolved as major world events pushed scholars to rethink how the
international system works. From the Idealist hopes after WWI to Realist power politics after WWII,
from Cold War strategy to modern critical and social theories, IR has grown into a rich and diverse field.
It continues to help us understand the complex and changing nature of world affairs.
Q5. How has the digitalization of the international system reshaped traditional warfare, sparking
strategic clashes in the post-information era? Explore its theoretical implications for modern conflict.
1. Introduction
The digitalization of the international system has shifted the way wars are fought and how power is
exercised. Traditional warfare involved physical battles, armies, and territorial control. Today, conflict
often takes place in cyberspace, through hacking, surveillance, and information manipulation. This shift
has created new types of strategic clashes—non-physical, hard to attribute, and constant. These
developments challenge traditional ideas of war and security in International Relations (IR), forcing
major theories to adapt.
2. Realism: Digital Tools as Extensions of State Power and Rivalry
a. States Use Cyber Capabilities to Maintain Strategic Superiority
Realism sees the world as a place where states fight for survival and power. In the digital era, this
struggle continues, but through cyber attacks, data theft, and digital disruption. For example, states now
target each other's infrastructure or steal military secrets online—without firing a bullet.
b. Lack of Clarity in Cyberspace Fuels Mistrust and Insecurity
Traditional war had clear enemies and visible actions. In cyber warfare, it is hard to know who attacked
and when. This creates strategic uncertainty, where states assume the worst and respond aggressively—
just as realism predicts under anarchy.
3. Liberalism: Global Digital Interdependence Without Regulation
a. Interconnected Systems Increase Shared Vulnerabilities
Liberalism focuses on cooperation and institutions. But while countries are deeply connected through
digital networks, they remain unprotected from cyber threats. A single attack can damage multiple
states due to shared digital infrastructure, such as banks, power grids, or communications.
b. Absence of Strong Global Rules Weakens Peaceful Conflict Resolution
There are no universal laws clearly governing cyber warfare. This legal vacuum makes it hard for states
to cooperate or punish cyber crimes. Liberals argue that international institutions have not caught up
with the digital world, leaving dangerous gaps.
4. Constructivism and Post-Structuralism: Conflict Over Information and Meaning
a. Cyber Warfare Challenges National Identity and Public Trust
Constructivists believe conflict also happens over ideas and identity. Cyber campaigns now aim to
change public opinion, influence elections, or weaken national unity—without direct violence. In this
way, information becomes a weapon.
b. Control Over Data and Surveillance Reshapes Power Beyond the Battlefield
Post-Structuralists argue that power is no longer just about weapons—it’s about control over knowledge
and people. Digital surveillance, AI, and algorithmic control allow both states and corporations to
influence behavior quietly, which redefines what ‘war’ even means.
5. Conclusion
Digitalization has reshaped warfare by making it constant, hidden, and borderless. Cyber operations,
surveillance, and narrative control now play key roles in modern strategic clashes. Realism explains how
states use these tools for dominance, Liberalism shows the risks of weak cooperation, and Constructivist
and Post-Structuralist theories reveal how conflict has moved into the realm of identity, perception, and
control. IR theory must now deal with both the physical and digital realities of war.
