Dr.

Sharifah Syahirah SS
sharifahsyahirah@gmail.com

13 subtopics 13 weeks.

2 hours lectures & 2 hours tutorial

Required texts:
Goldstein,Joshua S. & J.C Pevehouse. 2011.
International Relations. New York: Pearson
Longman.

Jackson, Robert & George Sorenson. 2003.

International Relations: Theories and
Approaches. New York: Oxford

W1: Introduction
W2: Development of IR
W3: Theories of IR
W4: Actors of IR
W5: International Security
W6: Foreign Policy
W7: Malaysian Foreign Policy

W8: International conflicts

W9: International Organizations
W10: International Law & Diplomacy
W11: International Political Economy
W12: International and Regional Integration
W13: North-South Divide

Evaluation

Mid-term
Assignment
Final

: 20%
: 20% (P: 10%) & (A:10%)
: 60%

IR is a study of the state system.

However, in current development, IR has shifts

to a study of global politics inclusive of other
actors such as IO, NGOs, MNCs and INGOs.

The state system is a system of social relations,

that is, system relation (political) between
groups of human beings.

There are certain advantages and

disadvantages for the participants (i.e weak &
strong).

To discover the fact that the entire

population of the worlds living in
independent states interdependently.

To learn how international relations operate

and affect governments, business
enterprise and people in general.

To identify how international relations affect

the international community.

To distinguish & evaluate the role of the

various actors in international relations

To analyze Malaysia foreign policy & its role

in past, current & future in international
affairs.

Government

Tangible territory

Population - People

Traditional view:
1. State

are valuable institutions: they provide

security, freedom, order, justice & welfare.
2. People benefit from the state system
3. Core institutions of IR.
Jackson & Sorenson (1999)

Alternative view:

1. State

& state system create more problems

than they solve.

2. The

majority of the worlds people suffer more

than they benefit from the state system.

3. It

is a setup for the elite, rich and majority.

There are marginalization against the poor,
women & minorities
Jackson & Sorenson (1999)

State system is a historical institution, statecentric approach. It remain as a central

institution of world politics.

State and state system upholds 5 fundamental

human values
1.
2.
3.
4.

Security: power politics, conflict & war

Freedom: cooperation, peace & progress
Order & justice: interests, rules & institutions
Welfare : wealth, poverty & equality

(1999)

Jackson & Sorenson

National security: when there are

aggressive states.

Some states enter alliances with other

states to increase their national security.

Security approach is one of the fundamental

values of IR (Realist theories).
Jackson & Sorenson (1999)

State is expected to uphold freedom, personal &

national (independence).

Citizens cannot be free unless the country is free

(i.e Palestine, Malaya before merdeka).

War threatens freedom & peace fosters freedom.

Peace also leads to progressive development

(Liberalist).

States should cooperate with each other to

maintain peace & freedom to pursue progressive
change.
Jackson & Sorenson (1999)

States have common interest in establish & maintain

international order to coexist & interact for
stability, certainty & predictability.

Expected to uphold international law (treaty, rules,

convention, custom).

Also expected to follow accepted practices of

diplomacy & support international organizations.

Example: Human rights framework.

Approach of International Society theories of IR. State

are socially responsible actors & have common interest
in preserving international order & promoting justice.

Jackson & Sorenson (1999)

People expect their government to adopt

appropriate policies to encourage high
employment, low inflation, steady investment
& others.

States need to respond to international

economic environment to enhance or
maintain national standard of living.

International Political Economy (IPE) approach

Jackson & Sorenson (1999)

Starts with city-states & empire

Western history:
Greek city-states
Roman empire
Medieval Christian World.
Historical empires:
Muslim empire, China & India

Goldstein & Pevehouse (2011)

Historical end point of medieval era & starting

of modern international system - Thirty Years
War (1618-1648) & The Peace of Westphalia
(1648).

Several major attempts by different powers to

impose their political hegemony.
Goldstein & Pevehouse (2011)

The Habsburg empire (Austria)- 30 Years War

(1618-1648), was blocked by a coalition led by
France & Sweden.
France made the attempt under King Louis XIV
(1661-1714) & was blocked by an EnglishDutch alliance.
Napolean (1795-1815) made the attempt &
blocked by Britian, Russia, Prussia & Austria.
A post-Napolenic balance of power among the
great powers, the Concert of Europe (18151914).
Goldstein & Pevehouse (2011)

Germany made the attempt under Hitler

(1939-1945) & blocked by US, Soviet Union &
Britian.

For 350 year the European state system

managed to resist the main political
tendency, the strong to control/conquer the
weaker powers.

Now, the sole remaining power after Cold War

is US - becoming a global hegemon.

Western states not be able to dominate

each other entered competition to
penetrate and control other parts of the
world.

Huge non-European territories fell under

the control of European states.
Goldstein & Pevehouse (2011)

Global expansion of the state system

1600s:Europe (European system)
1700s: + North America (Western system)
1800s:+ South America, Japan (globalizing
system)
1900s:+ Asia, Africa, Caribean, Pacific (global
system)

Jackson & Sorenson (1999)

1st Tutorial Activity:

Discussion on World War I, World War II, Cold

War, Balkan War, Gulf War & 9/11 by highlighting
(i) the main factors of the outbreak,
(ii) parties involved,
(iii) impacts and
(iv) lesson learn.

Each group to present ONE war.

One thing only I know, and that is I

know nothing
(Socrates 470-399 B.C)

Intro to IR:
Goldstein & Pevehouse (2011: 1-12)
Jackson & Sorensen (2003: 1-9)
History of IR:
Goldstein & Pevehouse (2011: 26-39)
Jackson & Sorensen (2003: 9-31)