International Studies: History, Theory, Practice

Relationships between states are bound by the ideas and policies that they share, and not only the material interests [1]. Therefore, the behaviours of the international actors are determined by these ideas and material interests. However, according to research, ideas have an independent causal effect, which means that differences may arise on particular ideologies [2]. Such situations may result in differences that, at times, threaten the international relations of the parties involved. Majority of the countries may view certain ideologies different from the rest and, as a result, most states will revert to its autonomy. Factoring in the fact that these situations are increasing at a high rate at the international stage, the reversion to sovereignty by the majority of the international actors is inevitable. Also, today’s world, dominated by globalization, has had many challenges and factors that affect an economy or politics of a country, mainly originating from the external environment. The influence of the external environment has not been received well in some of the regions or states that consider themselves to have minimal weight at the international stage. As a result, there have been raising concerns over the need to re-strategize or reverse to a norm of autonomy as a way of safeguarding individual interests. [1: Laffey, Mark, and Jutta Weldes. ‘Beyond belief: ideas and symbolic technologies in the study of international relations.’ European Journal of International Relations, 195.] [2: Ibid.]

States with permeable and impermeable borders, whether it is an autonomous or attuned state, each one of them are focussed on protecting their interests as well as gaining power [3]. While other nations take the long way of gaining power through small increments, others achieve it through leaps and bounds [4]. Hence, for any kind of reforms or change to occur at the international realm, powerful states would act in a way as if giving away power. Now, it’s important to note that countries involved in international organizations are somehow releasing control by conforming to a formal set regulations. Nevertheless, it may be a way of giving up its autonomous nature and expand the permeability of its borders as a trade-off [5]. Most states participate in international organizations as a way of gaining collective power. Despite the mutual aim of increasing power, it traces down to the individualistic goals and objectives [6]. It explains why there is always a change in motivation, and a rise in institutions may not cause significant changes in the international landscape. [3: Ibid.] [4: Ibid] [5: Baylis, John. The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, 25.] [6: Ibid.]

Another critical aspect, that will drive the reversion to an autonomous state for most of the countries, is how international organizations are set up. Some of the organizations are global, which means that they are open to all the other countries [7]. However, some are regional and have restrictions on their membership. Most importantly, these organizations also have different ways of recognizing their member’s powers. Some of them offer equal voting rights to their members; some only require supermajorities, and others operate in a weighted vote system. As a result, there have been concerns on the international stage on the need to achieve inclusivity as well as equal voting rights in some of these organizations. In the past two decades, there have been increasing pressure on the organizations and the dominant states on the need to have equal representation in terms of making decisions in these organizations [8]. As a result, some of the states are reverting to their autonomous nature or threatening to do so. The decision has been informed by the fact that these organizations make crucial decisions that affect all the members, yet some have no voting rights. [7: Ibid.] [8: Ibid]

Institutionalization of ideas has played a crucial role in the spread of international norms [9]. While some of these norms have led to a positive impact on the global stage, not all of them have had the same effect. While normative discourse has been considered to be an essential aspect of institution life, it is critical to note that norms are contested and, in some instances, propagated by the international institutions [10]. However, these institutions are the creation of mostly interest groups. Therefore, there has been growing concern that these institutions are biased and after achieving the agenda set by a particular group of interest parties. It is for this reason that these organizations are not autonomous actors. States usually spend a lot of their time as well as resources in the creation of these organizations to spearhead their various objectives, especially at the international stage [11]. States are increasingly engaged in fights on how these international organizations are designed since it massively affects the outcomes of a number of aspects [12]. Besides, it has not proven very easy for the institutions to be changed swiftly to be able to meet the face of global power. A case in point is the UN, which was unable to reverse the decision that it made on Japan and Germany in 1944-45 which was their exclusion from Security Council [13]. Therefore, designs and the operation of these institutions is becoming an issue which has significantly made several countries to consider reversing to their autonomy. Without a robust way of inclusively accommodating all the views and opinions on the design and maintenance of the organizations, it is paving the way for countries to revert to autonomy. [9: Goldstein, Judith, and Robert Owen Keohane, eds. Ideas and foreign policy: beliefs, institutions, and political change, 20.] [10: Goldstein, Judith, and Robert Owen Keohane, eds. Ideas and foreign policy: beliefs, institutions, and political change,5.] [11: Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal. ‘The rational design of international institutions.’ An international organization,762] [12: ibid] [13: ibid]

Personhood is a more likely situation to be experienced with the case of Brexit as an example. More countries are coming up with individualistic policies as a way of defending their interests. Therefore, with more countries expected to follow the same path, personhood is more likely to be dominant in the future than having other changes at the international stage. Studies indicated that ideas influence how the states view individual goals or end-means relationships. Also, it does affect the outcomes of the various strategic situations, especially where there is a lack of unique equilibrium. Therefore, it does mean that with specific scenarios not favouring a state, they may opt to stray out of it in the long-term to eliminate any inconveniences in the future. However, it should be noted that countries need collaborations to be able to deliberate on some issues that may have an effect on them on the global stage. With globalization that is currently dominating in terms of trade and economy, countries cannot survive on their own. At some point, a state may need the collaboration of the other in tackling a number of issues. Nevertheless, personhood is increasingly being advocated by many countries that feel they have been affected negatively for being a participant of certain international agreements or organizations.

With international politics not offering the same rights and recognition for the states considered to be having minimal power, surely personhood will be the dominant trend [14]. Countries seek to protect their issues (interests), especially their economy and politics, from external intrusions. However, today’s global stage has led to too much influence on countries internal struggles that, at times, has led to conflicts and instability. These issues have led to regional and international concerns, especially on matters to do with insecurity; hence with heightened distress, more countries will likely revert to an autonomous structure to halt external influences. [14: Baylis, John. The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press]

Bibliography

1. Baylis, John. The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, (2020): 23-42.
2. Goldstein, Judith, and Robert Owen Keohane, eds. Ideas and foreign policy: beliefs, institutions, and political change. Cornell University Press, (1993):3-31.
3. Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal. ‘The rational design of international institutions.’ International organization [endnoteRef:1]55, no. 4 (2001): 761-799. [1: ]
4. Laffey, Mark, and Jutta Weldes. ‘Beyond belief: ideas and symbolic technologies in the study of international relations.’ European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 2 (1997): 193-237.