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-Ã -vis 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
institutional 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 theorists
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.