INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS , WORLD AFFAIRS AND FOREIGH AFFAIRS VERY GENERAL AND NON SPECIFIC TERMS

1. MEANING ,NOMENCLATURE AND NATURE DIVERSITY IN DEFINING IR:“IP INCLUDES ANALYSIS OF POLITICAL RELATIONS AND PROBLEMS OF PEACE AMONG NATIONS’’ . IT STUDIES STRUGGLE FOR POWER AMONG NATIONS-- MORGENTHAU

2. “IR INVOLVES THE STUDY OF, THE RELATIONS AMONG STATES’’ . IT INCLUDES ALL INTER-STATE RELATIONS-POLITICAL OR NON-POLITICAL.CHARLES SCHLEICHERREVIEW OF DEFINATIONSTWO EQUALLY POPULAR NAMES OF THE STUDY OF INTERACTIONS AND RELATIONS AMONG NATIONS.

3. PROBLEMS OF NAME OR NOMENCLATUREIR AND IPUESED AS SYNONYMS AND MANY HIGH RANKING SCHOLARS LIKE MORGENTHAU AND KENNETH THOMPSON USE THESE TERMS INTER-CHANGEABLY .

4. SOME OTHER SCHOLARS LIKE PALMER AND PERKINS ,BURTON ,SCHWARZENBERGER ,COULOUMBIS AND JAMES .H WOLFE , WHO PREFER TO USE THE TERM IR .IR

5. Problem of Name or NomenclatureIP DEALS WITH RELATIONS AND INTERACTIONS AMONG NATIONS .IDENTIFIED AND NAMED DIFFERENTLY BY VARIOUS SCHOLARS .SOME SAYS IT, IR,IP,WORLD POLITICS, WORLD AFFAIRS , INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, FOREIGN AFFAIRS , F.P ,INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM . ALL THESE TERMS NEED A DISCUSSION

6. IR AND IPIR IS MORE COMPREHENSIVE TERMS THEN IPARUGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF IR BY ITS SUPPORTERS :IT COVERS ALL SORTS OF RELATIONS AMONG PEOPLE AND GROUPS IN THE WORLD SOCIETY .THE RELATIONS AMONG NATIONS ARE BOTH POLITICAL AND NON POLITICAL

7. PALAMER AND PERKINS PREFERS TO USE THE TERM IR INSTEAD OF IP ON THE GROUND THAT POLITICS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL A PRODUCT OF RELATIONS OF DIFFERENT TYPES AND IT RIGHTLY SUGGESTS THE STUDY OF ALL ASPECTS OF HUMAN RELATIONS AT INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS . • IP: SUPPORTERS OF IP CLAIMS THAT IR IS A GENERAL , TOO BROAD AND LOOSE TERM WHICH FAILS TO SPECIFY THE TRUE NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL INTERACTIONS AMONG NATIONS . • IR IS INAAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT DENOTES COOPERATION AND RELATIONS AS THE HALL MARK WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

8. TO BE PRECISE , THE USE OF TERM IP HIGHLIGHTS THE DECISION TO STUDY MAINLY THOSE ASPECTS OF IR WHICH INVOLVES A CONFLICT OF PURPOSE AND A STRUGGLE FOR POWER . • IR OR IP OR BOTH: • IT APPEARS THAT IP IS MORE SPECIFIC AND APPROPRIATE THAN THE TERM IR . • Sprout and sprout SUGGESTS , TO DISTINGUISH THE PARTICULARITY OF ONE FROM THE OTHER THEN THE TERM IP IS BEING INCREASINGLY USED . • IN GENERAL USE WE CAN USE IR BUT TO BE SPECIFIC IN IDENTIFYING THE CORE OF RELATIONS AND INTERACTIONS AMONG NATIONS WE MUST USE THE TERM IP.

9. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS , WORLD AFFAIRS AND FOREIGH AFFAIRS • VERY GENERAL AND NON SPECIFIC TERMS • ALL THESE TERMS FAIL TO SPECIFY THE TRUE NATURE OF INTER-ACTIONS AND RELATIONS AMONG NATIONS AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTORS. • THE TERMS WORLD AFFAIRS OR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS , IF USED CAN MISLEAD OPINION ABOUT THE EXACT NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS.

10. VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF IP • FIRST CHAIR OF IR WAS ESTABILISHED IN 1919, CALLED WOODROW WILSON CHAIR AT UNIVERSITY OF WALES AND THE FIRST TWO OCCUPANTS WERE HISTORIANS OF GREAT REPUTE LIKE ALFRED ZIMMEREN AND C.K WEBSTER . • FEOM 1919 TO 1 939 MORE THAN ELEVEN SUCH INSTITUTIONS WERE FOUNDED WITH THE IDEA TO STUDY IR. • THE SUBJECT OF IR GAIN POULARITY ONLY IN THE POST WAR ERA 2ND WORLD WAR I.E 1945 . STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT

11. KENNETH W. THOMPSON HAS SYSTEMATICALLY STUDIED THE DEVELOPMENT OF IR AND DISCUSSED ITS EVOLUTION IN FOUR STAGES : • THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY STAGE . • THE CURRENT EVENT STAGE . • THE LAW AND ORGANISATION STAGE . • THE CONTEMPORARY STAGE . THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY STAGE : • FIRST STAGE IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE SUBJECT STRETCHED UP TO THE END OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR AND WAS DOMINATED BY THE HISTORIANS . • THE STUDY OF HISTORY OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

12. AMONG NATIONS . • THE SCHOLAR CONCENTRATED ON THE STUDY OF PAST HISTORY OF POLITICAL AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS AMONG NATIONS . • ADOPTED A CHRONOLOGICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE APPORACH AND MADE NO ATTEMPT TO DRAW UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES FROM THEIR STUDY OF HISTORICAL FACTS . • HISTORIANS IGNORED THE NECESSITY OF RELATING THE PRESENT WITH THE PAST. • THE DESCRIPTIVE AND CHRONOLOGICAL STUDIES CONDUCTED BY THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORIANS DID NOT SATISFY EITHER THE NEED FOR THE STUDY OF

13. THE RELATIONS OF THEIR TIME OR THE DEMANDS OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT . • EXCEPT FOR HIGHLIGHTING CERTAIN FACTS , THIS STAGE FAILED TO REFER ANY SIGNIFICANT HELP TO THE UNDERSTANDING AND THEORISING OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THE SECOND STAGE • TTTTHE CURRENT EVENTS STAGE: THE STUDY OF CURRENT EVENTS AND PROBLEMS CAME TO BE REGARDED AS THE CENTRAL THEME OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS . • AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO OVERCOME THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE FIRST STAGE AND REPLACE THE HISTORICAL BIAS BY AN ATTEMPT

14. TO CONCENTRATE UPON THE PRESENT. • SECOND STAGE WAS ALMOST AS MUCH AS INCOMPLETE , PARTIAL AND INADEQUATE AS WAS THE FIRST STAGE . THE FIRST STAGE HAD BEEN CONCERNED WITH THE STUDY OF PAST WITHOUT RELATING IT TO THE PRESENT . • SIMILARLY THE CURRENT EVENTS STAGE WAS CONCERNED WITH THE PRESENT WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO TRACE THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM AND EVENTS IN THE PAST . • LIKE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY STAGE , IT ALSO FAILED TO ATTEMPT A STUDY OF THE FUTURE OF IR.

15. THE LEGAL INSTITUTIONAL STAGE • THE FOURTEREN POINTS LISTED BY PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON OF U.S FRAMED A CHARTER OF REFORMES FOR RELATIONS AMONG NATIONS . THE PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE AND THE SUBSEQUENT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS GAVE STRENGTH TO THE OPTIMISM THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE AND DESIRABLE TO MAKE EFFORTS TOWARDS THE IMPROVEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS . • TO REFOM THE NATURE AND CONTENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN FUTURE THROUGhTHE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INSTITUTION .

16. FOR THIS PURPOSE THE LEGAL INSTITUTIONALISTS PROPOSED THREE ALTERNATIVE APPORACHES : • CREATION OF SUPERNATIONAL INSTITUTION FOR REPLACING THE CONTEMPETITIVE AND WAR PRONE SYSTEM OF TERRITORIAL STATES . • SECURING A LEGAL CONTROL OF WAR BY CREATING NEW INTERNATIONAL NORMS . • BY ELIMITATING WEAPONS THROUGH GLOBAL DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL ,PEACE SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED . • IDEALIST APPORACH . • PARTIAL AND INCOMPLETE AND FUTURE ORIENTED • AND IGNORED PAST AND PRESENT .

17. THE OUTBREAK OF 2ND WORLD WAR IN 1939 PROVED THE VISIONARY AND UNHELPFUL NATURE OF THE THIRD STAGE . • STRESSED ON THE NEED TO STRENGTHENING PEACE AT INERNATIONAL LEVEL YET THE SOLUTION OFFERED WAS ALMOST UTOPIAN . • NARROW FOCUSED , RISE OF DICTATORSHIP ,AGGARASSIVE NATIONALISM , THE ECO. DEPRESSION OF THE 1939’S AND THE OUTBREAK OF 2ND WORLD WAR GAVE THE FINAL DEATH BLOW TO THIS STAGE AND IT VIRTUALLY ENDED THE ERA OF IDEALIAM IN IP .

18. THE FOURTH STAGE THE CONTEMPORARY STAGE • ALL THE THREE STAGES WERE INADEQUATE AND PARTIAL AND NONE OF COULD PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL DIRECTION TO THE STUDY OF IR • POST WAR STAGE ---- THE NEED FOR THEORY BUILDING . • EMPHASIS UPON STUDY OF ALL FACTORS AND FORCES AND NOT ONLY INSTITUTIONS . • THE MAIN CONCERN IN THE POST WAR PERIOD . • EMERGENCE OF BEHAVIOURALISM IN IP .

20. HIGHER EDUCATION