MPS 002 Solved Assignment 2020 English

MPS 002 Solved Assignment 2020 English

MPS 002 International Relations :Theory and Problems
अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय संबंध :सिद्धांत एवं समस्याएँ
Solved Assignment English Medium
31 March 2020 / 30 September 2020

For Written Notes and Solved
Assignment pdf Contact us – 8851761957
(What’s app only)
YouTube – PS Study Center
Website –

MPS 002
English Medium

Q. 1 Discuss any two approaches in International Relations.

International Relations

International relations theory is the study of international relations (IR) from a theoretical perspective. It attempts to provide a conceptual framework upon which international relations can be analyzed.Ole Holsti describes international relations theories as acting like pairs of coloured sunglasses that allow the wearer to see only salient events relevant to the theory; e.g., an adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa. The three most prominent theories are realism, liberalism and constructivism. Sometimes, institutionalism proposed and developed by Keohane and Nye is discussed as a paradigm differed from liberalism.

International relations theories can be divided into “positivist/rationalist” theories which focus on a principally state-level analysis, and “post-positivist/reflectivist” ones which incorporate expanded meanings of security, ranging from class, to gender, to postcolonial security. Many often conflicting ways of thinking exist in IR theory, including constructivism, institutionalism, Marxism, neo-Gramscianism, and others. However, two positivist schools of thought are most prevalent: realism and liberalism.

The study of international relations, as theory, can be traced to E. H. Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis, which was published in 1939, and to Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations published in 1948.International relations, as a discipline, is believed to have emerged after the First World War with the establishment of a Chair of International Relations at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. Early international relations scholarship in the interwar years focused on the need for the balance of power system to be replaced with a system of collective security. These thinkers were later described as “Idealists”.The leading critique of this school of thinking was the “realist” analysis offered by Carr.

However, a more recent study, by David Long and Brian Schmidt in 2005, offers a revisionist account of the origins of the field of international relations. They claim that the history of the field can be traced back to late 19th Century imperialism and internationalism. The fact that the history of the field is presented by “great debates”, such as the realist-idealist debate, does not correspond with the historic evidence found in earlier works: “We should once and for all dispense with the outdated anachronistic artifice of the debate between the idealists and realists as the dominant framework for and understanding the history of the field”. Their revisionist account claims that, up until 1918, international relations already existed in the form of colonial administration, race science, and race development.

A clear distinction is made between explanatory and constitutive approaches when classifying international relations theories.
Mps 002 Solved Assignment 2019 – 2020 free pdf 


Realism or political realism has been the dominant theory of international relations since the conception of the discipline. The theory claims to rely upon an ancient tradition of thought which includes writers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Early realism can be characterized as a reaction against interwar idealist thinking. The outbreak of World War II was seen by realists as evidence of the deficiencies of idealist thinking. There are various strands of modern-day realist thinking. However, the main tenets of the theory have been identified as statism, survival, and self-help.

Statism: Realists believe that nation states are the main actors in international politics.As such it is a state-centric theory of international relations. This contrasts with liberal international relations theories which accommodate roles for non-state actors and international institutions. This difference is sometimes expressed by describing a realist world view as one which sees nation states as billiard balls, liberals would consider relationships between states to be more of a cobweb.

Survival: Realists believe that the international system is governed by anarchy, meaning that there is no central authority. Therefore, international politics is a struggle for power between self-interested states.

Self-help: Realists believe that no other states can be relied upon to help guarantee the state’s survival.

Realism makes several key assumptions. It assumes that nation-states are unitary, geographically based actors in an anarchic international system with no authority above capable of regulating interactions between states as no true authoritative world government exists. Secondly, it assumes that sovereign states, rather than intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs. Thus, states, as the highest order, are in competition with one another. As such, a state acts as a rational autonomous actor in pursuit of its own self-interest with a primary goal to maintain and ensure its own security—and thus its sovereignty and survival. Realism holds that in pursuit of their interests, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative levels of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state’s military, economic, and political capabilities.

Some realists, known as human nature realists or classical realists,believe that states are inherently aggressive, that territorial expansion is constrained only by opposing powers, while others, known as offensive/defensive realists, believe that states are obsessed with the security and continuation of the state’s existence. The defensive view can lead to a security dilemma, where increasing one’s own security can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms, making security a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.


Neorealism or structural realism is a development of realism advanced by Kenneth Waltz in Theory of International Politics. It is, however, only one strand of neorealism. Joseph Grieco has combined neo-realist thinking with more traditional realists. This strand of theory is sometimes called “modern realism”. Waltz’s neorealism contends that the effect of structure must be taken into account in explaining state behavior. It shapes all foreign policy choices of states in the international arena. For instance, any disagreement between states derives from lack of a common power (central authority) to enforce rules and maintain them constantly. Thus there is constant anarchy in international system that makes it necessary for states the obtainment of strong weapons in order to guarantee their survival. Additionally, in an anarchic system, states with greater power have tendency to increase its influence further. According to neo-realists, structure is considered extremely important element in IR and defined twofold as: a) the ordering principle of the international system which is anarchy, and b) the distribution of capabilities across units. Waltz also challenges traditional realism’s emphasis on traditional military power, instead characterizing power in terms of the combined capabilities of the state.


Feminist approaches to international relations became popular in the early 1990s. Such approaches emphasize that women’s experiences continue to be excluded from the study of international relations. International Relations Feminists who argue that gender relations are integral to international relations focus on the role of diplomatic wives and marital relationship that facilitate sex trafficking. Early feminist IR approaches were part of the “Third Great Debate” between positivists and post-positivists. They argued against what they saw as the positivism and state-centrism of mainstream international relations. J. Ann Tickner argues that these approaches did not describe what a feminist perspective on world politics would look like.

The feminist international relations scholar Jacqui True differentiates between empirical feminism, analytical feminism and normative feminism. Empirical feminism sees women and gender relations as empirical aspects of international relations. It is argued that mainstream international relations emphasis on anarchy and statecraft mean that areas of study that make the reproduction of the state system possible are marginalized. Analytical feminism claims that the theoretical framework of international relations has a gender bias. Here gender refers not to the “biological” differences between men and women but the social constructs of masculine and feminine identity.It is claimed that in mainstream international relations masculinity is associated with objectivity. Analytical feminists would see neo-realism’s dislike of domestic explanations for explaining interstate behaviour as an example of this bias. Normative feminist sees theorizing as part of an agenda for change.

Criticisms of feminist international relations theory include its portrayal of women in developing countries.

Feminist International Relations is sometimes oversimplified into a women’s issue or simply a need to ‘add women and stir’. “Masculinities, IR and the ‘gender variable’: a cost-benefit analysis for (sympathetic) gender sceptics”, an article by Charlotte Hooper, makes the case that looking at international relations through a gendered lens is important for all genders. The article illustrates that the hyper-masculinity used in international relations has a negative impact on all genders. It privileges only a certain kind of man, forcing all others to fit into the constraints of one vision of masculinity. Hooper also argues that this gendered lens requires a complete overhaul of traditional methods, rather than just adding women to the study. “In order to investigate the intersections between gender identities and international relations, one cannot rely on approaches which would take gender identities as ‘givens’ or as independent, externally derived variables”.Traditional methods do not meet the needs of men or women. They attempt to reduce our needs to security, failing to take into account class, education level, gender, or experience. Hooper argues that traditional studies of international relations are causing us to miss many factors for more than just women and children.

To appeal to sympathetic sceptics, Hooper explains that international relations shapes masculinity in a way that affects us all. To establish this she explains that masculinity and femininity are social constructs that can be influenced by theories and discourse. Hooper turns so called feminist international relations into gendered international relations, which brings in all people and highlights the importance of new methods to the field. Genders just like class, ethnicity, age, etc. can help inform our understanding of how people and nations act and if we ignore the range of masculinities and femininities we are only working with half the puzzle. The system that Feminist International Relations is trying to subvert affects us all and influences many of our traditional theories. Hooper offers the example of war which has shaped the male body; it has created men as takers of life and women as givers of it. We proceed to tell men they simply have more natural aggression. Hooper also illustrates the ways masculinity, like femininity, has been influenced by colonization. The hierarchy formed by colonization labels Asians as effeminate, Africans as savage and white men as the proper balance at the top the hierarchy. War and colonialism still influence international relations to a large extent.

Mps 002 Solved Assignment 2019 in English Medium 2020 

Q. 5 Explain the changing nature of International Relations in the post – war era.

Introduction –
After the Second World War, the International System came to be a totally different system from the classical (19th century) international system. The classical international system was Euro-centric and it worked on the principles of balance of power, war as a means, secret diplomacy as an instrument, and narrow nationalism as its objective.

Under the impact of the two world wars, particularly as a result of the Second World War, the nature of international system underwent a big change. Under the impact of the changes that it produced in the international power structure as well as due to the emergence of several new factors, the nature and content of post-war international relations registered an almost total and revolutionary change. It became a new international system and replaced the classical international system.

Changes in Post War International Relations:

1. End of the Traditional Euro-Centric International Power Structure:

The two wars, particularly the Second World War destroyed the old international power structure and gave rise to a new structure. Before the war, only European nations, particularly Britain, France, Germany and Italy, were the major actors in world politics. The USA used to follow isolationism and the USSR, after 1917, had remained fully occupied with the process of internal consolidation of the socialist system.

After the war:

(i) Germany and Italy became very weak as a result of their defeats in war;

(ii) Britain and France also became weak due to the heavy war losses suffered by them;

(iii) The war destroyed the balance of power system in Europe;

(iv) There appeared a power vacuum in Europe;

(v) Europe lost its position as the epicenter of international politics;

(vi) A weak Europe set the stage for the liberation of Asian and African countries from the clutches of imperialism and colonialism;

(vii) The power vacuum in Europe impelled the USA to abandon isolationism and to increase its influence in Europe.

(viii) It compelled the USSR to adopt a similar exercise for increasing its influence in international relations.

These post war changed produced a big change in the international system.

2. Emergence of Cold War:

In the Post-war period, the USA decided to use its superior economic and military position for filling the power vacuum in Europe and for this end decided to win over the democratic European nations through its Marshall Plan. It also adopted the policy of fighting the spread of communism. ‘Containment of Communism’ became the primary aim of US Foreign Policy.

Such an American attempt was thoroughly opposed by the USSR and it also decided to extend its influence in Europe. The success that it achieved in exporting communism to most of the East European countries emboldened it. The emergence of China as a communist power in 1949 gave further strength to Soviet-led communist movement. The USSR adopted the policy of challenging the US policies. In the process, there developed a cold-war—a war of nerves full of tensions and strains in world politics, which made international peace a risky and unstable peace.

3. Emergence of Bipolarity—Bipolar Power Structure:

The emergence of cold war led to the organisation of two competing and rival camps by both the USA and the USSR. The USA floated a large number of bilateral and multilateral alliances like NATO, SEATO, ANZUS and several others for consolidating the democratic anti-communist countries under its own leadership.

The USSR countered the move by organizing the communist countries into the Warsaw Pact. These developments led to the emergence of two rival camps—the US Bloc and the Soviet Bloc, This situation came to be characterised as bipolarity in world politics and it divided the world into two competing and even hostile blocs.

4. Rise of Several New Sovereign States:

After the World War II, the weakened position of the European imperial powers and the strengthened spirit of national self- determination and liberation among the colonies became instrumental in initiating a process of end of colonialism and imperialism in the World. The anti-imperial & anti-colonial movement began registering a stupendous success.

Several nations of the world, particularly Asian and African nations, were successful in overthrowing the yoke of colonialism and imperialism and in securing their independences. There came to be a big increase in the number of sovereign states in the world. Rise of new sovereign states in Asia, and Africa and a resurgent Latin America began giving a completely new look to the world map and international relations.

5. Birth of Non-alignment:

In the era of cold war and alliance politics, some states, particularly some new states, decided to remain away from cold war and the super power alliances. States like India, Yugoslavia, Egypt, and Sri Lanka. Burma (Now Myanmar) and some others decided to follow such a policy. This come to be known as the policy of Non-alignment.

In 1960 the countries following non-alignment in international relations launched the movement of the Non- aligned (NAM) for collectively withstanding the pressures of the era of cold war by taking mutually accepted decisions and policies. The main aim of Non-alignment and NAM was both to keep away from cold war and its alliances as well as to promote mutual understanding and cooperation among the non-aligned states.

6. Democratization of Foreign Policy and Changes in Diplomacy:

The end of the Second World War rejected the thesis of authoritarianism in favour of democracy and under its influence the formulation and implementation of foreign policy became democratic in nature and style. In the 19th century, the foreign policy of a nation was formulated by a class of professional experts—the diplomat and statesman.

It used to be a close preserve of the Foreign Office and Diplomacy. The democratization of politics however made foreign policy an object of discussion and subjected it to the influence of the common man. National public opinion, press and world public opinion came to be important factors of foreign policy.

The changes in the nature, content and working of foreign policies of various nations resulted in a big change in the nature of post- war international relations. Diplomacy also came out of its old style and colour and it now came to be a new and open diplomacy.

7. Loss of Relevance of Balance of Power:

Between 1815-1914, Balance of Power acted as a regulator of International relations. It suffered a big blow in the First World War. It was revived in 1919, with a new mechanism like the League of Nations, but it again flopped in 1939 when the Second World War broke out.

After the end of the Second World War several big structural changes in the International system as well in the Balance of Power system reduced the operation ability of this device. This rise of two super powers, transformation of war into a total war, the emergence of nuclear weapons, the establishment of the United Nations, the emergence of the process of decline of imperialism- colonialism and several other such factors made Balance of Power system almost obsolete.

8. The Birth of Nuclear Age:

The final end of the Second World War came with the use of atomic weapons by the USA against Japan. It symbolized the beginning of nuclear age in International Politics. For the first time some countries came to acquire means capable of destroying the entire world. The nuclear factor divided the nations into nuclear nations and non-nuclear nations, the former enjoying superiority in power relations over the latter.

The two super powers came to enjoy, as Max Lerner observed, the capacity of “over kill”. Both, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. could destroy the entire world but no other nation individually or collectively could destroy or defeat the super powers. War became a total war and the world found itself dependent on the policies and activities of the two super powers.

9. Transformation of War into Total War:

Nuclear weapons changed the nature of war from a Simple war to total war. These made the war totally destructive. No nation whether nuclear or non- nuclear, could hope to survive a future war since it was bound to be a thermo-nuclear war.

10. Balance of Terror in place of Balance of Power:

The traditional concept of balance of power became obsolete in the face of the fact that it became impossible to create a preponderance of power against any aggressor backed by a nuclear power. The Balance of Power got replaced by a Balance of Terror which made the international system very dangerous and risky. The fear of mutually assured total destruction (MAD) through accidental war began haunting the policy-makers of all the nations.

12. Increasing Interdependence among Nations:

After the end of the Second World War, International relations began developing a truly global character in which each nation began finding its national interests inseparably bound up with the interests of other nations as well as with international interests of peace, security and development. This realization and the growing interdependence of the world became instrumental in giving a vital and welcome strength to the cause of peaceful and cooperative international relations.

13. Birth of the UNO:

The failure of the League of Nations to maintain peace after the First World War was mostly due to the shortcomings of the Covenant of the League as well as because of the not fully representative character of the League. Consequently, after the Second World War, the statesmen felt no hesitation in agreement to establish a new international organisation—the United Nations Organisation which came into existence on 24 October, 1945.

The UNO was designed to act as an effective platform for international diplomacy designed to secure international peace and security, and development through collective efforts of all the nations. The UN assumed the responsibility to maintain international peace and security by promoting friendly cooperation among the member states. Along with it, the UN Charter laid down a collective security system as the new device of power management in international relations.

14. Recognition of the Role of Power in International Relations:

In the post-war period the factor of power came to be accepted as an incontrovertible fact of international relations. It was realized that each nation is always prepared to use its national power to secure the goals of her national interest. It was further realized that the role of power in international relations was direct and the nature of interactions among nations reflected a continuous struggle for power. To analyze international politics as a struggle for power or as a set of interactions involving power, came to be a very popular approach in International Politics.

15. Emergence of the Age of Technology:

In the post-1945 years, man’s ability to use the knowledge of scientific inventions for the welfare of humankind got greatly enhanced. It was because of this fact that 20th century came to be known as the age of technology. Science and Technology began playing a big role in changing the environment of international relations.

16. Emergence of a Peace Movement:

The two World Wars within a short duration and the possibility of a much more destructive, rather totally destructive Third World War made humankind highly conscious of the need for preserving and strengthening international peace and security. The urge for securing peace became stronger than ever before. There appeared a welcome peace movement in international relations. This encouraged nations to work for mutual welfare and development. They became highly conscious of the need for development through mutual cooperation and goodwill.


Thus the Second World War had a big impact on the nature of international relations. Post-War International system came to be a system totally different from the pre-war international system.

After the Second World War, the International System came to be a totally different system from the classical (19th century) international system. The classical international system was Euro-centric and it worked on the principles of balance of power, war as a means, secret diplomacy as an instrument, and narrow nationalism as its objective.

It came to be replaced by a new international system which was characterised by two super powers, cold war, bipolarity, non-alignment, anti-imperialism, the UNO, the presence of several new sovereign states in the world, N-weapons and the threat of Total War. This new international system continued to work, almost unchanged, till the last decade of the 20th century when it came to be a Post-Cold War, Unipolar International System experiencing a new liberalisation and globalisation.

Q. 5 (a) International Relations since second world war.
(b) International Terrorism

Ans. (a) International Relations since second world war
After the Second World War, the International System came to be a totally different system from the classical (19th century) international system. The classical international system was Euro-centric and it worked on the principles of balance of power, war as a means, secret diplomacy as an instrument, and narrow nationalism as its objective.

Under the impact of the two world wars, particularly as a result of the Second World War, the nature of international system underwent a big change. Under the impact of the changes that it produced in the international power structure as well as due to the emergence of several new factors, the nature and content of post-war international relations registered an almost total and revolutionary change. It became a new international system and replaced the classical international system.

End of the Traditional International System:

The international system of post-war period became totally different from the classical international system in several ways:

(1) Power scarcity that characterised the classical international system got replaced by power surplus (Nuclear weapons, overkill capacity and two super powers) in the new system.

(2) The Balance of power got replaced by a Balance of Terror.

(3) The formulation and implementation of foreign policy became a more complicated and democratic exercise.

(4) A big change in world political relations took place as a result of the rise of new states, and the liquidation of imperialism and colonialism.

(5) Peace, security, development and prosperity for all the nations got recognized as a value in international relations.

(6) There developed an arms race between the two super powers and the exercise became more dangerous because of the birth of nuclear arms race.

(7) Because of increase in the number of states, there came to be developed several new problems and international relations became highly complex.

(8) The presence of the United Nations gave a new look to the post-war international system.

(9) New and Open Diplomacy came to replace the old and secret diplomacy.

(10) The presence of two competing, in fact rival super powers set the stage for the emergence of cold war and bi-polarity in international relations.

(11) The transformation of war into a total war made it much more dreaded and the nations became more and more interested in preserving international peace and security.

(12) All the nations became conscious of the need for preserving peace through a better and effective device of power management i.e. collective security.

Changes in Post War International Relations
1. End of the Traditional Euro-Centric International Power Structure

2. Emergence of Cold War

3. Emergence of Bipolarity—Bipolar Power Structure

4.Rise of Several New Sovereign States

5. Birth of Non-alignment

6. Democratization of Foreign Policy and Changes in Diplomacy

The Birth of Nuclear Age

Transformation of War into Total War

Balance of Terror in place of Balance of Power:

Increasing Interdependence among Nations

Recognition of the Role of Power in International Relations

Birth of the UNO
Emergence of a Peace Movement

Ans. (b) International Terrorism

Meaning of Terrorism
The term ‘terrorism’ is derived from Latin words ‘terrere’ and ‘deterre’. The word terrere means to tremble, and the term deterre implies to frighten. Thus, terrorism means to harm people so that they are so frightened that they start trembling. It is a strategy to achieve
avowed objectives through the systematic use of violence thereby undermining the lawful authority of a government or a state. In the past, violence was resorted to when the rulers
failed to redress the grievances of the people, and they resorted to oppression and infringement of the rights of the people. Terrorism has political overtures, and violence is the means resorted
by it.
The term terrorist clearly raises pejorative connotations. According to Couloumbis and Wolfe,“a more detached, value-free definition of terrorist organisations would describe them as non- state actors employing unconventional as well as orthodox techniques of violence in order to attain certain political objectives.” Actually, terrorism is the organised use of violence for political ends and is directed primarily at innocent people, or soft targets. Like war, terrorism involves the use of organised force in pursuit of political goals. As a political instrument, both oppressors and the oppressed have used terror. Normally, one’s friends or allies are called “freedom fighters”, and one’s enemies or opponents are described as the terrorists.

Cross Border Terrorism

In this sub-section, you will learn that terrorism that originates within one country and operates only there-Maoists in Nepal, Peoples War Group (PWG) in India, Irish Republican Army (IRA)
in UK-is different from terrorism that has its roots in one country and it operates with the support of the country of its origin, but it uses violence to create terror in another country. This second type of terrorism is described as cross-border terrorism as its activists are sponsored
and trained by a country other than its victims. The terrorism that India has been subjected to since 1980s has its origin, training and full support across the Indian borders in Pakistan or Pak-occupied Kashmir. There are large numbers of training camps across our borders where young men are taken after being misguided, and there they are motivated, trained, financed and
equipped with armaments to indulge in violent activities in India. Thousands of innocent people have been killed in India as a result of this cross-border terrorism. Similarly, the terrorist acts against Israel are perpetrated from across its borders. Thus, while Chechen militancy in Russia
is from within the country, terrorism against India is certainly of a cross-border nature.

International Terrorism

There is only a technical difference between cross-border terrorism and international terrorism. While in the former, terrorists are trained in one country to operate in just one other country, the international terrorism has its victims in several countries. Al Qaeda, for example, is not limited to its victims in any one country or region. Its “enemies” are found worldwide, though its main targets may be a few countries. The Al Qaeda seeks the predominance of Islamist principles and all those who come in its way must be targeted. Thus the United States and the United Kingdom today are the general victims of international terrorism. India, Russia, Sri
Lanka, Nepal and many other countries are also victims of terrorism. The difference between cross-border terrorism and international terrorism is rather indistinct. All terrorism involving two or more countries may be, broadly speaking, termed as international terrorism.

Q. 7 (a) Core characteristics of global corporatism


It is generally agreed that globalisation is a multivalent concept explaining a diverse variety of complex and interrelated processes, structures, forces, agents and effects. In that sense the phenomenon of globalisation is historical, multilevel, inter-disciplinary and holistic in perspective. Admittedly therefore, questions that concern globalisation are as follows: Whether the currently witnessed globalisation in the sense in which it is perceived is really under way. Is it producing convergence and integration? Does it characterise the present era, and if so, how does this era
differ from the past? Is the process producing a global culture, a global economy and a global political system. Above all, is it undermining or enhancing the authority of sovereign nation
Generally speaking, globalisation is regarded as a global process of increasing cross-border flows of products, services, capital, people, information and culture. Seen in this perspective, some are of the view that globalisation has “compressed” the world both in terms of time and space whereas others are of the view that it has caused “distanciation” of space and time.
Therefore, the discourse on globalisation has been increasingly heated between those who employ the concept as the label for what they consider to be an unfolding process of global economic, political and cultural integration that is bringing about the progressive integration of the human society and those who use the concept to describe a largely inequitable process of
transnational ‘corporatist’ expansionism that involves the increasing and indiscriminate exploitation of both human and natural resources by some vested interests.


Before identifying the correct characteristics of global corporatism, it is necessary to understand what denotes corporatism. In Political Science discourse, the term “corporatism” is defined as a system of interest representation in which constituent units are organised into limited number
of singular, compulsory, non-competitive and functionally differentiated categories. They are granted by the state a deliberate representational monopoly within their respective categories for
observing some controls for articulation of demands and supports. In nation-state systems, certain interest groups say, labour or peasantry, is deliberately reorganised and, thereby, essentially
“captured” by the government. As a result, these reorganised groups function not as pluralist interest groups negotiating independently with employers, but presented their demands mostly through state apparatus. By granting representational monopoly to these interest groups within their respective categories, the state exercises authority and control for articulation of demands of the interests they represent and extends supports. Often, distinctions are also made between what are called “inclusionary” and “exclusionary” corporatism wherein the former seeks to
integrate new groups into the bosom of the state before they become organised on an autonomous basis, and the latter attempts to bring groups under control after they begin to act and function
independently. Finally, corporatist experiments have normally been a response to real or imagined
political crisis that threatened the dominant interests of groups or class, be it economic or otherwise.

In many respects the evolving global system seems to reflect the above-mentioned features of corporatism at a global level. As some scholars contend that whereas globalisation is a process,
globalism is a project based on a “new” logic, which as a “historical category”, encompasses all processes and structures of domination developing on a worldwide scale.

Mention was made earlier that the corporatist experiments have more often been a response to crisis that threatened the dominant interests groups. At least three major and unprecedented events in the recent past have cumulatively contributed to a situation of crisis to the world capitalist class. The first is the end of the super power Cold War and the consequent collapse of the socialist ‘Second World’ often portrayed as the triumph of transnational capitalism. The
second is the disintegration and further marginalisation of the so-called ‘Third World’ developing countries saddled with high levels of external indebtedness. The third, is the far-reaching changes
brought about by the multiple and profound innovations in a variety of technology areas including in the information and communication resulting in the reduction of time, space and cost.
As a consequence, the polarities that existed in the post-Second World War among nation- states-between the East and the West and between the North and the South-have been replaced in recent years by a single core-periphery global order. The Western core or the so called ‘First World’, has remained as it was-an interdependent and stratified bloc of dominant economic interest, whereas the other two-the ‘Second’ and ‘Third’ worlds have collapsed into a complex set of actors, including the ‘newly industrialising’, ‘developing’, ‘poor’ and ‘transitional’ countries.

Ans. (b) Internationalisation of Human Rights.

Contemporary International Relations has been witnessing two significant developments. One, since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 a huge corpus of human rights law has been evolved under its aegis. As a result, the term ‘human rights’ has become a “catch word” in contemporary discourses. In fact, human rights can be said to have become, as the former
Secretary General of the U.N., Boutros Boutros-Ghali, said in his opening statement to the World Conference on Human Rights (14-25 June 1993) in Vienna, Austria, “the common
language of humanity and the ultimate norm of all politics”. Second, we are witnessing the globalisation of the world economy.

Many scholars and nations assert and believe that the participation of developing/poor countries in international trade will contribute greatly to their economic prosperity and industrial growth and this will consequently help in raising the standard of life of their people. Further, it is
assumed that this prosperity might ultimately improve human conditions and the prospects of human rights of everyone. Contrary to such assertions and beliefs of the protagonists of free
trade, human rights are at great risk as international trade primarily works on the principle of profit making rather than promoting and respecting them.


One of the greatest, in fact, revolutionary, developments in the annals of human history is that for the first time in international relations a comprehensive list of “human rights” has been
recognised which every individual, irrespective of his/her origin, religion, race, colour, sex, nationality, etc. can claim as a member of human society. Since 1948 the United Nations has
adopted nearly 100 human rights instruments (such as declarations, conventions, covenants, protocols, and resolutions) on various facets of human rights, covering the entire gamut of
human relationship. However, it must be noted that the most important among all these instruments are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966, and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, which together form the parts of the International Bill of Rights. This Bill, the first ever adopted in the history of the world, has brought the matter of promoting human rights on the agenda of international relations.

Let us briefly discuss the rights that are mentioned in the International Bill. The UDHR, which was Magna Carta of mankind, proclaims civil-political and economic, social and cultural rights.
The two Covenants of 1966 further elaborate these two sets of rights mentioned in the UDHR. The Covenants are legally binding on ratifying states unlike the provisions of the UDHR. It may
be noted that the right to property included in UDHR (Art.17) is missing in the two Covenants.

The ICCPR sets out the following rights (under Articles 6-27): right to life; freedom from torture and inhuman treatment; freedom from slavery and forced labour; the right to liberty and security; the right of detained persons to be treated with humanity; freedom from imprisonment for debt; freedom of movement and of choice of residence; freedom of aliens from arbitrary expulsion; the right to a fair trial; protection against retroactivity of the criminal law; the right to recognition
as a person before law; the right to privacy; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; prohibition of propaganda for war and of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred; the right of peaceful assembly; freedom of association; the
right to marry and found a family; the rights of the child; political rights; equality before the law and rights of minorities. Thus, this is an exhaustive list, and there are more rights in ICCPR than in the UDHR or the European Convention on Human Rights.

MPS 002 Solved Assignment 2019 – 2020

Sidmilarly, the ICESCR also provides a detailed list of rights (under Articles 6-15) to be protected by State Parties. These include: the right to work; the right to just and favourable conditions of work including fair wages, equal pay for equal work and holidays with pay; the right to form and join trade unions, including the right to strike; the right to social security; protection of the family, including special assistance for mothers and children; the right to an adequate standard
of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing and the continuous improvement of living conditions; the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the right
to education, primary education being compulsory and free for all, and secondary and higher education generally accessible to all and the right to participate in cultural life and enjoy the
benefits of scientific progress.

Thus, these two Covenants provide the most basic human rights. Besides these two Un instruments, there are two other sets of human rights norms which conflict with international trade practices. They are rights of the workers and the environmental rights. The International
Labour Organisation (ILO) has adopted around 150 Conventions, dealing with, among others, conditions of work, remuneration, child and forced labour, the provision of holidays and social
security, prevention of discrimination in employment and trade union rights.

Q. 10 (a) Post – second world war International organisations

(b) Concept of justice in International Relations

Ans. (a) Post – second world war International organisations

International organisations are often discussed synonymously with international institutions. In the formal and legal sense, the two terms can be used interchangeably. Clive Archar defines international organisations as ‘a formal continuous structure established by agreement between members (governmental and/or non-governmental) from two or more sovereign states with the aim of pursuing the common interest of the membership’. International organisations as ‘organisations’ represent the apex of a pyramid of multilateral diplomacy. “International
Organisation is a process: international organisations are the representative aspects of the phase of that process that has been reached at a given time,” as John Bayles and N.J. Rengger argue.
Here, the singular form is used to describe the pattern of multilateral negotiations and the plural form to represent the creation of the organisations and the powers invested in them. Paul Reuter considers an international organisation as a group normally, but not exclusively of states “which can permanently express a juristic will distinct from that of its individual members”.

Post-Second War and International Organisations

The causes for the failure of the League of Nations and the rise of the UN system and it’s structures need not detain us here. What is important is that the war time experience, the emergence of a bipolar world and the threat of atomic weapons created conditions for the rise
of a plethora of international organisations-for the promotion of peace and security, for prevention of war and for disarmament and arms control, for the protection of human rights etc, for
restructuring of international economic order and for commonly agreed upon rules of trade and commerce. For the establishment of an international monetary system, the Bretton Woods
system was given shape. The United Nations Organisation was established with its specialised institutions covering a whole range of issues from peace and security to environment and
ecology. A variety of international organisations with limited membership came into existence
(e.g., Organisation of African Unity or the Arab League). Some are defined geographically and ideologically such as NATO or Warsaw Pact. A wide range of inter-governmental organisations
reflecting various concerns such as fisheries, health etc., also came into existence. The IMF, IBRD, GATT, IDA, IFC-provided the organised basis of the post-war liberal/ market economic system. Regional identities developed and consolidated themselves in the form of European Community, Caribbean Community, Nordic Council etc.

With the tremendous growth in communication and transport, contacts between peoples, groups and governments increased rapidly resulting in the growth of the number of inter-governmental, technical, economic and social organisations and the spread of organisations between individuals
and non-governmental groups. This rise of international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) resulting from the growth of global interactions has been one of the noticeable developments
in international relations since the Second World War. The importance of these organisations is acknowledged by the UN Charter in its Article 71 that authorises the Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC) to make suitable agreements for consultation with nongovernmental organisations which are concerned with matters within its competence. INGOs, by nature, are
concerned with economic, social, educational, scientific and cultural questions and we witness their growth in other areas as well. They have a symbiotic relationship with the UN’s specialised agencies. For example, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has relationship with the trade unions and employee organisations, while scientific and specialist associations have consultative status with the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and UNESCO. Organisations such as Friends of the Earth, the International Union for consideration of Nature and Natural Resources and the World Wild Life Fund have since acted as shadows to UNESCO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The growth of INGOs clearly indicates their importance in international life. They are a potential power in the mobilisation of social forces as approved from the agents of government.

The post-Second World War has seen the gradual growth of international economic integration creating a global economy by the 1990s. Non-governmental activity across frontiers has been a part of these processes of internationalisation and globalisation of world economy. The
multinational or transnational corporations/firms have played a key role in this process as INGOs through transfer of capital investments and technology to different parts of the world-more
particularly from the developed to the developing countries, thus contributing to the internationalising of economic factors and creating a global market economy. The Cold War divide in the post-Second World War period, the rise of the decolonised countries as the Third World gave rise to debates over neo-colonialism and the hegemonic control of the industrialised countries on the world economy. Thus the North-South divide was reflected in the demand for a New International Economic Order and coming together of the group of 77 (G-77)-Third World states that attended the first United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Regional
organisations for purposes of economic and political cooperation came into existence from out of this group, such as the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Organisation
of African Unity (OAU) and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

Ans. (b) Concept of Justice in International Relations.

Justice as a concept in International Relations is age-old and encompasses all spheres of state activity. It is of considerable relevance to resolve many critical problems in International Relations. Yet it may be noted at the very outset that, both at the diplomatic plane and within its mainstream scholarship, there is considerable insensitivity to the concern for justice in International Relations. Historically, the guiding principles of international regimes have been stability, predictability and
order, but generally at the cost of justice. Today, despite increasing globalisation and its many implications for human security, this inadequacy persists. The present study would address the
problems that confront the issue of justice in International Relations by examining and analysing instances of injustice both at the diplomatic level and within its mainstream scholarship, and the reasons for its abiding continuity. It would review the causes of the disjunction in the behaviour of states as actors within the national and international arena analysing issues of diplomatic injustice and partisan scholarship in the present era of globalisation and their symbiotic link in
breeding global inequality and insensitivity towards issues of human security. Overall, various dimensions of the issues of structural inequality of states, injustice, mainstream partisan scholarship and the manipulation of International Relations as a policy science insulated from the universal
humanist heritage, within its contrived construction of a one-dimensional history in the service of the dominant and the powerful,


Injustice in International Relations has been persistent since the origins of relations between states. Empirically, it appears that states that generally abide by such elementary principles of
justice like equality before law in their domestic politics tend to be less scrupulous about such principles in their international conduct. The example of the Geneva Conventions relating to the
treatment of PoWs is a good case in this context. While the humanitarian laws codified in it manifested some concern for justice, they seem to have been inspired more by the pragmatism
of its signatories to avoid reciprocal retribution, than the concern for universal justice per se. Besides, many of the same signatories showed no particular concern for justice in their demand for punishing reparations after the Second World War from the peoples of defeated states who
had themselves been victims of their regimes’ revanchist proclivities. The “war crimes” trial at Nuremberg and Tokyo are examples of “victors’ justice” rather than universal justice, as Radhabinod Pal, the Indian judge stated in his dissenting judgement at Tokyo. More recently,
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait even after the Cold War had ended, the United Nations’ sponsored “police action” against Iraq, or even the bombing of civilian targets in Afghanistan, are examples of scant respect for the principles of justice. The United Nations’ collective action in Iraq may have conformed to International Law within the Charter provisions, and the victory may have made general Schwarzkopf, its Commander in Chief, a hero in his country, when he should at
least have been tried for “war crimes” in the interests of justice for the sufferings that he brought on the innocent Iraqi peoples. Besides, the UN sanctions imposed against defeated Iraq
aggravated the peoples’ sufferings without receiving much attention either within International diplomacy or its scholarly discourse. These are only random examples of insensitivity to the
concern for justice in recent International Relations.

Example of injustice

During the colonial era, for example, while almost all of Africa and Asia, still remained enslaved under colonial rule, US president Abraham Lincoln expressed his disapproval of slavery only within the United States; he lampooned the incongruity of “a nation consisting of half slaves and half free” citizens involved in the Civil War. European democracies in that era also limited their concern for “liberty, equality and fraternity,” and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of
Man, as also the ideals of the Magna Carta within their respective nation-states. For example, Britain in this era waged the “opium war” against China in support of the East India Company’s
right to smuggle opium. In India, it amputated fingers of silk weavers of Bengal to promote British textiles. The “massacre” of peaceful protesters at Jalianwalabagh (Amritsar) is a more
telling example of injustice. Even some post-colonial states after their national liberation, flying the flag of a global struggle for freedom and justice, as “nation-states” have swiftly conformed
to the prevalent dismal standards of international justice, if not worse in some cases. Through the Cold War, most of the states within the global system, irrespective of their record of justice
at home, generally conformed to the two Super Powers’ poor standards of international conduct, as role models. “The reluctance of democracies to extend their models of governance to inter-
state relations”, as David Held argues, had led to the striking paradox within the global system in which “the increase in the number of democratic states has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in democracies among states.”


Be the first to comment on "MPS 002 Solved Assignment 2020 English"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


%d bloggers like this: