Who has said that international politics is the study of policies of a country?

After the end of World War II the realist perspective was stated convincingly by Hans Morgenthau in a highly successful and very influential textbook, (Politics Among Nations, 1948). In his book, Morgenthau highlighted the importance of power in the achievement of national objectives. Disagreeing mainly with those who denounced “power politics,” Morgenthau stressed that the fracas for power takes place in all social relations and that international politics is not excluded from this general perspective. In addition, Morgenthau’s book conveyed heated debates between the “realists” and the “idealists.” Morgenthau defined power as the “ability to influence the minds and actions of men” exercised by political, psychological, and military means; there was a tendency for realists to emphasize the importance of military power.” Idealists, on the other hand, stressed the importance of assuring that ideological ends not be subverted through the pursuit of tangible instruments of power.”

This central concept of power in international relations networks, provoke concern about the analytic effectiveness of giving so much meaning to one concept. Difficulty arose for instance when trying to explain the occasions when smaller nations predisposed the behavior of larger nations, in essence revealing the limitations of using a single measure to describe national power. The concept developed into a fad which was underlined by Denis Sullivan, in his analysis of international relations textbooks. This finding by Sullivan brought light to the fact that individual authors were using the concept in a number of ways that aggregated compounds confusion to the meaning.

“International relations” and “foreign policy” are different concepts and have a number of significant characteristics.”

Statements from the review of the literature of International relations and foreign policy:

• · International relations are a comprehensive and wide-ranging term that describes the relations existing among States.
• · Foreign policy is the way in which countries follow their goals and interests to set forth international relations.
• · International relations provide a number of theoretical frameworks to analyze and understand foreign policy;
• · Foreign policy is one of the main subjects when a nation outlines its interaction areas of interest of international relations.
• · Foreign policy determines the relations among and between individual States.
• · International relations are theoretical frameworks designed to explain the reality on the ground.
• · International relations as a social concept is neutral and only describes the interaction among actors nations for analysis and understanding.

The study of international relations as envisioned is to educate us about how the world works however, the simplistic brand names such as "neocons" or "liberal hawks” have dominated foreign-policy debates. It follows that in a radically changing world, the classic theories of international relations have much to say. Instead of effecting radical change, academia has just adjusted existing theories to meet new realities.

In 1998 Stephen M. Walt published a much-cited survey of the field in these pages (“One World, Many Theories,” 1998). In his book he outlined three different approaches: realism, liberalism, and an updated form of idealism called “constructivism.” Walt argued that these theories shape both public discourse and policy analysis. Realism focuses on the shifting distribution of power among states. Liberalism highlights the rising number of democracies and the turbulence of democratic transitions. Idealism illuminates the changing norms of sovereignty, human rights, and international justice, as well as the increased potency of religious ideas in politics.”

“Columnist Charles Krauthammer and political scientist Francis Fukuyama collided over the implications of these conceptual paradigms for U.S. policy in Iraq. Backing the Bush administration’s Middle East policy, Krauthammer argued for an assertive amalgam of liberalism and realism, which he called “democratic realism.” Fukuyama claimed that Krauthammer’s faith in the use of force and the feasibility of democratic change in Iraq blinds him to the war’s lack of legitimacy, a failing that hurts both the realist part of our agenda, by diminishing our actual power, and the idealist portion of it, by undercutting our appeal as the embodiment of certain ideas and values.”

The importance of non-state actors is a challenge to the assumptions of the theory about the behavior and motivations of these groups. Realist author, Robert A. Pape, has argued that “suicide terrorism can be a rational, realistic strategy for the leadership of national liberation movements seeking to expel democratic powers that occupy their homelands.” The standard theories of conflict and anarchy are used to explain ethnic conflict in collapsed states within a wide-ranging intellectual convention rooted in the lasting philosophy of Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes which are valid today when applied to some non-state groups able to resort to violence.

Countries in transition to democracy, with fragile political institutions, are more likely to get into international and/or civil wars. In the last 15 years, this type of conflict has taken place countries like Yugoslavia Armenia, Burundi, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Russia. For the most part, this violence has been caused by ethnic groups’ competing demands for national self-determination, which is more often than not a problem in new, multi ethnic democracies. The violence that is frustrating the experiment with democracy first in Iraq and now Syria is just the latest chapter in a turbulent story that began with the French Revolution.

Moreover, of the three theoretical traditions has the capability to explain change which is a significant flaw in such stormy times. For instance, Realists failed to predict the end of the Cold War. By the same token, liberal theory of democratic peace is better at predicting what happens after states become democratic than in predicting the timing of democratic transitions or worse yet prescribing the way to make transitions happen peacefully. Constructivists are better at describing variations in norms and ideas, but they are not as good on the material and institutional settings necessary to support consensus on new values and ideas.

In conclusion, theories of international relations allege to explain the way international politics works, however, each of the existing dominant theories don’t meet that goal. One of the major needs that international relations theory can make is not about predicting the future but providing the terminology and theoretical context to ask hard questions of those who think that making changes to a changing world is an easy task.