The history of international relations is often traced back to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, where the modern state system was developed.
Prior to this, the European medieval organization of political authority was based on a vaguely hierarchical religious order.
And it was Westphalia instituted the legal concept of sovereignty, which essentially meant that rulers, or the legitimate sovereigns, would recognize no internal equals within a defined territory and no external superiors as the ultimate authority within the territorys sovereign borders. Classical Greek and Roman authority at times resembled the Westphalian systems, but both lacked the notion of sovereignty
.
Westphalia encouraged the rise of independent nation-state, the institutionalization of diplomacy and armies. This particular European system was exported to America, Asia and Africa via colonialism and the so called, standards of civilization. The contemporary international system was finally established through decolonization during the cold war. While the nation-state system is considered modern, many states have not incorporated the system and are termed pre-modern. Further a handful of states have moved beyond nation-state system and can be considered post-modern. The ability of contemporary IR discourse to explain the relations of these different types of states is disputed. Levels of analysis” are a way of looking at the international system, which includes the individual level of transnational and intergovernmental affairs, and global level.
4.0 International relations theory
International relations theory attempts to provide a conceptual model upon which international relations can be analyzed. Each theory is reductive and essentialists to different degrees, relying on different set assumptions respectively. Theories are paradigms or models of interpretation in the context of International Relations; as Ole Holsti describes them, international relations theories act as a pair of colored sunglasses, allowing the wearer to see only the salient events relevant to the theory... An adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa.
Prior to this, the European medieval organization of political authority was based on a vaguely hierarchical religious order.
And it was Westphalia instituted the legal concept of sovereignty, which essentially meant that rulers, or the legitimate sovereigns, would recognize no internal equals within a defined territory and no external superiors as the ultimate authority within the territorys sovereign borders. Classical Greek and Roman authority at times resembled the Westphalian systems, but both lacked the notion of sovereignty
Westphalia encouraged the rise of independent nation-state, the institutionalization of diplomacy and armies. This particular European system was exported to America, Asia and Africa via colonialism and the so called, standards of civilization. The contemporary international system was finally established through decolonization during the cold war. While the nation-state system is considered modern, many states have not incorporated the system and are termed pre-modern. Further a handful of states have moved beyond nation-state system and can be considered post-modern. The ability of contemporary IR discourse to explain the relations of these different types of states is disputed. Levels of analysis” are a way of looking at the international system, which includes the individual level of transnational and intergovernmental affairs, and global level.
4.0 International relations theory
International relations theory attempts to provide a conceptual model upon which international relations can be analyzed. Each theory is reductive and essentialists to different degrees, relying on different set assumptions respectively. Theories are paradigms or models of interpretation in the context of International Relations; as Ole Holsti describes them, international relations theories act as a pair of colored sunglasses, allowing the wearer to see only the salient events relevant to the theory... An adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa.