1. The Historical Approach: It points on issues, themes, roles of statesmen, the social condition of the time or a combination of all factors. So, we can analyze Nigeria foreign policy from 1960-1965, 1966-1970, 1971-1975, 1976-1979, 1980-1983, 1985-1993, 193-1988, 1988-1999, 2000-2003,2004-2007, 2008-2011 experienced through military regime and civilian rule.
Behaviours are conditioned by the socio-economic background of the time. On the whole, no nation just wakes up to bomb the other. Therefore, Iraq argued that if themes
comprise the basis of analysis, they are examined across times as well as their influence on the development of relationship on that note, what is significant to perestroika and glasnost, liberalism, isolationism, autarky, integration, new international economic order and economic diplomacy on states. The question here, is, is it possible for Japan to pursue isolationism in the present century since she has advanced technologically? Can USA do these
The historical approach also examines the role of statesmen in their country’s making and implementation of foreign policies over the times. Similarly to what extent has ideas, policies, influences and writing of great leaders like Bismark, Jeferson Kennedy, Roosevelt, Kissinger, Nkuruma, nelson Mandela, Julius Nyerere , Babangida, Obasanjo determined war and peace (A.O.Ikelegbe 1995 pg 135). The social conditions under which such poor economy was ruled, is seen to have influence their peaceful or warring relations. Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost was influenced by the poor economy of the time and desired relation from the west. The historical approach shows the relevance of historians in international studies till the present time. Whereas the emphasis has been on description of events in detail with accuracy, no attempt was theorized to mould what would lead to policy goals.
2. The Philosophical Approach: This approach can be traced from the traditional political philosophy where questions of value judgments ethical consideration (what is good and bad) wrong and right, just and unjust, morality” and expediency etc, are important. Presidents Woodrow Wilson and jimmy carter of the united states had at their different times founded that foreign policy should not only concentrate on what materials interest America could benefit, but more in promoting democracy and human rights internationally. America has increased the amount of tax payers on protecting these values. During the stewardship of George Shultz, US diplomatic pressure resulted to democratic transitions in the Philippines and South Korea and partly dissuaded president Marcos and Chun Doohwan from the part of repression. Questions could be asked as whether it was right for America to handcuff Noriega from panama on drug abuse. Was America justified in bombing the residence of Colonel Muammar Gadaffi in Tripoli; and that of Osama Bin Ladin in Afghanistan?
The major point is that international relations can be conducted as philosophical inquiry into right and wrong, moral and expedience, justice and injustice and other value judgments. Another philosophical analysis relates to the major ideas movements in the world and the extent to which they influenced the development of international actors maintain, include. Liberalism, radicalism, socialism, welfarism and Marxism linism. Thus, we see actors using these ideas to support free trade (as against protectionism) liberty, equality and fraternity among men and nations, the demand for anti-apartheid, a world free of greater world –wide economic justice etc. consequently, most foreign policies and international relations behaviour have been analyzed using the principles and assumptions of such ideas.
3. The Institutional Approach: Following the efforts of the idealist at preventing war in the post world war era, the institutional approach emerged. It was the general belief during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that international wars could be avoided if there were institutions which could serve as a way for the peaceful resolution of disputes. This resulted to the establishment of the League of Nations in 1919 and the United Nations in 1945.
So, the events that followed the twenth century disregarded the institutional approach. The first thing is that the First World War occurred reason being that the balance of power collapsed. the second thing is that the league of nations could not prevent the second world war, and third, UN failed to prevent the treacherous and precarious cold war between the super powers, with the unbridled craze to acquire nuclear weapons which could return the world to perpetual destruction, if a third world war is allowed to take place, still, we should acknowledge that the institutions are man-made and human beings are full of crisis. The gulf crisis lead to a war situation is necessarily the inability of the UN or the Arab league to prevent it, but the Sadan Hussein. Again, the international courts inability to enforce her judgments against erring states could be traced to the behaviour of state leaders’ negligence of the international court rule or order and the structural body as well. Example UN invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. In summary here, the institutional approach is still important and what is needed is to carve out supranational institutions that can separately sanction misbehaved states.
4. Legal approach: The question as whether an international act is legally right or wrong? Is the focus of this analysis. This is premised on the fact that states are living in a well ordered world under the aegis of established codes of international law. Hugo Grotius, the father of international law through his classic “on the law of war and peace” is a major motivator of this school. Most legality are traceable to the Killog –Briand Act 1929 which out lawed war as an instrument of national policy except in self –defence; the general convention of 1949 where nation states are expected to play active parts in the protection of war victims, the Hague convention of 1954 for neutral states to participate in the protection of cultural property; and the 1961, Vienna convention on diplomatic intercourse and immunities. The task in this or approach is for analysts to look at the legality of a state vis-à-vi
s these conventions.
The contemporary view of international politics requires not only attention of the nature of a state but also a revaluation of the meaning of international law. The code of conduct for the nation-states has not prevented civil wars coups d’ etat, intervention, invasion, violation of treaties, seizure of territories , disappearance of sovereign states from the political map, or two world war within a generation.
It is obvious that international law is not law in conventional sense of an enforceable command issued by a superior on interior. No court may force a state to submit to litigation against its will or enforce a section without prior agreement of the parties to a suit . The lack of hard-and –task, enforceable rules permits states to exploit wide latitude or behavioural options in executing their foreign policies.
5. The system framework: System analysis is probably the most widely used term in political science and international relations literature today. Borrowed from biology and engineering its emphasis is on the working mechanism etc set-up for goal attainment. System approach aids in determining a political systems capacity for maintaining its equilibrium in the face of stress and for adapting to changes that are forced internally and externally. It is assumed that all existing politics units interact with one another according to some regular and observable pattern of relationship. As Anatol rappertnas suggested ‘a whole functions as whole by virtue of the “interdependence of its parts is called a system, and the method which aims at discerning now this is brought about in the widest variety of systems has been “general system theory”. A system is an automatons unit of complex elements which interacts and is capable of adapting within itself. Each set of element is interdependent. A system otherwise, is an abstract way of looking at a part of reality for the purpose of analysis.
From the above analysis a country is a subsystem of the international system. Whatever behviour , it either destabilizes or maintains equilibrium. The world wars I and ii intervention by the US and former soviet union in other states , bad economic policies as well as good ones have in one way or the other destabilized the system or maintained it. The Middle East crisis destabilized intertional peace created global oil price inflation and nurtured the solar energy idea and subsequent effort to explore the North Sea oil. A particular country could destabilize the whole international system through an attack situation which could affect the functioning of the other subsystem and therefore the whole system.
Thus American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski in 1945 partly brought world war ii to an end that Saddan Hussein annexed Kuwait disturbed the system but the intervention of the U.N and US allied forces came to restore equilibrium in the Gulf. The inability of the north to Atlanta technology to the south explains the imbalance in the economies of the third world. The Liberian, Sudanese and Samarian crisis have disturbed the African system, but efforts by ECOMOG, OAU, US and U.N were to restore equilibrium. According to talcott parsons, if societal equilibrium are to be maintained four functional pre-requisites must be performed.
a. Pattern maintenance: The ability of a system to insure the reproduction of known basis pattern, its values and norms.
b. adaptation to the environment and to changes in the environment
c. Goal attainment – the capacity of the system to achieve whatever goals system has accepted or set for itself.
d. Integration of the different functions and subsystems into a cohesive Coordinated whole.
According to parsons the formulation of common values which cut across national boundaries is essential to international order. Parsons sees the need for the development of procedural consensus agreement among participants in international politics above institutions and procedure, for the settlement of problems and differences.
What should be of interest of student of international politics is that system framework helps us to understand the different interaction that occur leading to decision making in foreign policy and age politics . Other theorists in system analysis including David Easton, Deutsch, Almond , Spine, Macleuand, Richard Pesecrance, George Modeiski and Morton Kaplan.
6. The Behaviorual Approach: Behaviorulism or the scientific study of political science evolved as a result of the limitations of the realist school. Its methodology involve the formulation of explanatory theory rather than propounding normative theory. It treats recurring pattern rather than the signal case as a meaningful focus of inquiry, employs operational concepts, which is sensitive to research procedures instead of taking them for granted.
The canon of this approach is that, it is the behavioural pattern of actors, rather than state and its organs that really counts . In other words, international peace and crisis cannot be traced to the evil machinations of institutions but rather the evil intention of their individuals. And this is a reflection of their attitudes and values conditioned by domestic social forces, interest groups, or other institutions, the international environment and social conditions.
Thus, that Napoleaon Bonarparte caused a lot of wars in his days could be traced to his upper ego. We can also explain why John F. Kennedy introduced his economic policy across the world; because he believed that international peace could only be maintained where there is economic growth across board. One can also reason why Shehu Shahushagari did not go to war with Cameroon despite such calls, at the provocation of killing Nigerian soldiers , because of his religious belief of anti-nihilism. These examples reveal to us that the behavioral pattern of actors to a large extent determine the policy action of states in international politics.
7. The Power Approach: The power approach in the study of international politics evolved from the weakness of the utopian idealist school of the pre-World War II era that emphasized the legalistic and i
nstitutional approach . The idealist believed that the international court and the league of nations would prevent a war situation. However, the close of World War II the futility of this approach became evident , with the realist school were Hans Morgenthau C.H Car, R Niebhur, George Cannan and Henry Kissinger. Their thesis was that the pursuit of national power is a natural development in the international system. That those states which do not strive for power encourage war, for if all state strive for power concurrently peace will evolve because the struggle itself creates balance of power and eliminates hegemony. In his lucid analysis . Hans Morgenthau in his book, “politics among nations” argued that national interest should best be defined in terms of power pursuit. In fact, post World War II is power politics and is endless.
Martin Wright noted that in modern interaction political the ideas of power predominates over the idea of right. George Schwazenbenger also, analyzed power as a prime factor in international politics. By definition, power is the ability as an actor in the international scene to use tangible and intangible resources and assets in such a way as to influence the out come of international events to its own satisfaction. Power is a means to an end and it may at times become an end in itself. The possession of power is meaningless if its possession influence attitude, roles and policies.
The analyses ranges from the country’s strategic location through economic, diplomatic, national orientation and military capabilities. Thus, the united states bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski (Japan), Tripoli and Benghazi (Libya) carting of Noriega, a sovereign leader from panama, invading of Grenada getting the UN security council to pass resolutions in quick succession against Iraq in Kwait, operation “desert shield” and “desert storm”, Saddam Husseins illegal occupation of Kwait , Nigerians ECOMOG politics in Liberia, soviet union in Afghanistan etc, could be explained within the power frame work. The problem with this approach is that it considers other issues like morality and legalism irrelevant. It also looks so radical, as it tends to argue that power is the only way a state can achieve its national interest without have accidents.
8. The Decision –Making Approach: Pioneered by R.C Synder and his associates in the 1950s the model suggests that international events is a function of the wishes and demands of states men and not states, through decisions made, whether rational or irrational and their impact on the international environment it also assume that the decisions of this group are products of conscious efforts based on adequate knowledge and guided by skill and training(available alternative – the seeming best with less losses and high probability of better successes ). Moreover, the growing personalization of political power in most past colonial states means that the motivation and personality of the key leadership groups are important domestic determinants of foreign policy. This could be deduced from case histories and biographical material and from speeches, statements and remark made by officials and group such as political parties, interest and pressure groups, and the mass media.
9. The Games Approach: The canon of this approach is that actors take rational decisions to pursue their interests particularly on a conflict situation. The rationality involves having minimum loss with maximum gains that is maximum strategy”. This is so because each actor is aware that here opponents will not want to lose in all, so gains and losses must be shared, but not equally. But while actors want to maximize their gains they tend also to avoid instability by shifting positions. If one side secures information formerly withheld by the other side, this enables the better informed side to actor its preferences and change values in the system. The variants of the game approach are zero sun games (NZSG), prisoners dilemma game, and chickens dilemma game.
The relevance of this approach in the study of international relations is in stimulating real life problems in the world system and equipping decision-makers with considerable range of policy options. Second, all international events are perceived in games parlance, where opponents move must be interpreted to inform your actions or reaction. It is indeed very useful for studies in warfare and diplomacy.
10. The Political Economy Approach: Pioneered by Gardner, strange, spiro, brown, Kindleberger, Gunder frank and Claude Ake, the approach emphasized the interaction of economic and political forces. Political economy studies economic relations which arise between man in the process of production, the nature of political powers, the class content of the state, the influence of state policy on the economy, and the mutual influence of various socio-economic systems existing in the modern world.
The rapidity with which this approach has gained acceptance in political science and international relations in particular was partly its antithesis posture to the modernization thesis. While modernization posits that interaction between the centre nations and the periphery will improve the periphery’s position globally the peripheries have come to witness under development. In deed, these scholars have taken seriously a political dimension to study of external economic relations of nations. In Maxist standing point, the interaction between economics and politics does not sink down to the establishment of the definitive function of the former with respect to the latter. Also, it involves recognition of the active feedback effect of politics on economic development the approach seek to overcome the problems associated with the extreme politics without economics approach of the realist school and at the same time rescue the field of international economic relations from the excessive econometric and mathematical treatment to which it had been subjected by neo-classical economists. In this framework, there is increasing significance of the underdevelopment /dependency approach. This approach views the economics foundation of society a necessary pre-requeiste for a proper understanding of social policies and development mainly in the developing countries. These scholars argued, contrary to what modernization theorist
s claims that the increased participation of developing countries in the world economy would break their economies by expanding the gap between the rich and the poor on the international as well as the national level. By implication, economic dependence and resource transfer would distort the development process in the developing countries, thus resulting to socio-economic conditions , which André Gunder Frank regarded as the “development of under development’. So, new economics have to pave way for external aid and foreign investment. The set back of this new development is neo-colonialism through which western capitalists have been able to assume indirect influence on the African states and enhance continued relations of imperialist exploitation of the peripheral states.
The expectation in international political is that there must be independent decision not considered in the light of external factors which would inhabit the making of the decision, be it, economic, political or cultural. In the absence of such independence, the sovereign state so affected can not be regarded as enjoying ‘real” independence. The ‘dependency theory’ conceptualizes the inhibition which sovereign states experience in taking decisions on international issues. The dependency theory seeks to explain how economically weaker nations by the stronger ones, are tied down as a result of the economic, cultural and ideological bankruptcy theory are seen in the light of economic dependence through the grant of economic aids, cultural servitude in the form of cultural pollution the weaker nations by the stronger ones using the weapons of religion and education. Dependency could manifest through political subservience as in the case of political groupings borne out of political ties. Given the background of the dependency theory, international decision-making process which embraces perception, choice and expectation will be considered against the influence of the agreements which constrains a sovereign state faced with a decision.
The dependency theory should not be seen one –sidedly as a result of the weaker nation in relation to the strong nation. There is inter-dependence among nations in the industrial world today on what Karl Deutsch called “symmetrical inter- dependence” with changes in one creating changes in another. Dependency theory can therefore be referred to as two-way affair, each sovereign state whether industrialized or less –developed is not left in isolation and world not be unmindful of the diverse or positive consequences of its international policy. Dependency when perceived in form of resource flow, in the aspect of who gives and who receives in the form of aids, usually with strings, the concept becomes determined.
Be the first to comment