Politics between states
If we conceive of the world in terms of the nation-state model already
described, then international politics looks much more like the
politics of stateless societies than the internal politics of states. That
is, there is something called international law, but there is no final
authority to enforce, interpret or change it. Although the United
Nations can be seen as a potential world legislature/government, it
is at present based on the theory that individual states possess
‘sovereignty’ and are the final arbiters of what goes on within their
territories. All powers of international organisations, including the
United Nations, are held to depend upon the agreement of states to
treaties authorising such powers.
Thus politics at international level can be seen to depend on
compromise and negotiation, rather than upon authoritative decision
making by representative organs. In legal theory Monaco is as
sovereign as the United States, and both are equally free to resort to
force in the last resort to defend their national interests and to go back
upon their international treaty obligations. In political practice it is
clear that smaller states, with less in the way of military and eco-
nomic resources to back up their bargaining, are more dependent on
the perhaps insubstantial ground of international respect for law and
treaty obligations. From the point of view of the study of politics,
international relations offers a particular challenge, since the pro-
cesses of decision making are often even more obscure than at
national level, and the consequences potentially more profound.
Traditionally historians tended to describe international relations in
terms of the decisions of individual statesmen pursuing, more or less
intelligently, ‘the national interest’, which was often related to the
‘balance of power’ between nations. Thus international relations can
be seen as a game played between more or less rational players,
largely of what we previously termed a ‘zero-sum’ variety – more
power for one nation being gained at the expense of less for another,
with skilful players achieving goals by forming winning coalitions.
Seeing international relations as a competitive spectator sport
neglects the importance of consensual, non-zero-sum goals in inter-
national relations. It is more important to ordinary citizens that
everyone stays alive and continues in mutually beneficial economic
and trading activities, than that they belong to a state which is more
powerful than the others.40 SYSTEMS