International Relations

Digital Discite - International Relations - security paradigm in the post-21st century

How does the Taliban’s transition from a non-state actor to a formal state actor challenge the security paradigm in the post-21st century? Provide a conceptual analysis by examining its implications and drawing comparisons with similar global development.

The global security landscape has shifted dramatically in recent years, and one of the most disruptive developments has been the Taliban’s transition from a non-state actor to a recognized governing authority. This transition has not only altered Afghanistan’s domestic politics but has also deeply impacted the security paradigm in the post-21st century.

In this article, we explore the conceptual implications of this transformation, how it challenges conventional understandings of state legitimacy, and how similar global trends signal a need to rethink traditional security frameworks.

From Insurgents to State Actors: The Taliban’s Political Transformation

For two decades, the Taliban was viewed primarily as an insurgent group—an armed non-state actor operating outside the bounds of international law and diplomacy. However, the group’s return to power in Afghanistan in August 2021, following the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces, marked a profound political shift.

Now functioning as the de facto government of Afghanistan, the Taliban has transitioned into a formal state actor, claiming responsibility for governance, law enforcement, diplomacy, and international negotiations. This development complicates long-standing global approaches to counterterrorism, international recognition, and diplomatic engagement.

This shift is not just a matter of classification—it represents a foundational disruption to the security paradigm in the post-21st century.

Challenging Traditional Concepts of State Legitimacy and Security

In traditional international relations theory, state legitimacy is tied to defined borders, a monopoly on the use of force, and recognition by the international community. Non-state actors like the Taliban were often viewed as temporary threats to be managed or neutralized.

However, the Taliban’s persistence, strategic patience, and eventual return to power without major resistance have challenged the assumption that only traditional state actors can wield long-term influence. This forces a reconsideration of several core assumptions:

1. Sovereignty vs. Recognition

The Taliban controls Afghan territory and institutions, but its recognition by the global community remains limited. This raises complex questions: Can a government be legitimate without widespread international recognition? How do we measure sovereignty in an era of hybrid warfare and decentralized governance?

2. Terrorism vs. Governance

Groups like the Taliban were once universally labeled as terrorist organizations. But now, as they manage ministries, issue laws, and conduct diplomacy, the international community is split between engagement and isolation. This shift blurs the line between violent non-state actors and traditional governing bodies—altering the security paradigm in the post-21st century.

Implications for Global and Regional Security

The Taliban’s rise has sent ripples through regional and international security frameworks. Here’s how:

1. Inspiration for Other Armed Movements

The Taliban’s success may serve as a model for other insurgent groups seeking to transition into legitimate political actors. Movements in the Middle East, Africa, and even parts of Southeast Asia may attempt similar transitions, leading to new security threats and unstable political experiments.

2. Impact on Counterterrorism Strategy

The U.S. and NATO withdrawal signaled a strategic shift in counterterrorism efforts—from boots-on-the-ground interventions to remote operations and diplomatic containment. However, the Taliban’s rise complicates these strategies, forcing new considerations in intelligence gathering, drone warfare, and regional alliances.

3. Regional Power Dynamics

Countries like China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan have begun engaging with the Taliban, seeking to secure their interests in the region. This creates new alliances and rivalries that challenge Western influence and reshape the security paradigm in the post-21st century.

Comparison with Similar Global Developments

The Taliban is not the only case of a non-state actor transforming into a formal governing authority. Comparable developments around the world show that this is part of a broader global pattern.

1. Hezbollah in Lebanon

Hezbollah began as a militant group but has evolved into a significant political force in Lebanon. It participates in elections, holds seats in parliament, and maintains armed forces. Like the Taliban, Hezbollah straddles the line between state and non-state actor—complicating both domestic governance and international diplomacy.

2. Hamas in Gaza

Hamas has administered the Gaza Strip since 2007, providing social services, security, and governance. Despite being classified as a terrorist organization by many Western countries, it operates with many characteristics of a state actor—highlighting the challenges of labeling and engaging such entities.

3. The Houthis in Yemen

The Houthi movement in Yemen has taken control of significant portions of the country, establishing administrative systems and military command. Their control, combined with limited recognition, mirrors the Taliban’s trajectory and presents another example of blurred political and security lines.

These examples reinforce the reality that traditional security models may no longer be sufficient to address the complexity of emerging actors. A revised security paradigm in the post-21st century must account for such transformations.

Rethinking the Security Paradigm in the Post-21st Century

Given these evolving dynamics, how should the international community rethink its approach to security?

1. Beyond State-Centric Models

Security in the 21st century must go beyond the Westphalian model of sovereign states. Hybrid actors, gray zones, and fluid governance models now play an increasingly important role in shaping global affairs.

2. Flexible Diplomatic Engagement

Rather than complete isolation, some degree of pragmatic engagement may be required. Diplomacy with de facto governments—while controversial—can help prevent humanitarian crises and promote regional stability.

3. Integrating Development and Security

Long-term security cannot rely solely on military solutions. Economic aid, education, and institutional development are key to stabilizing post-conflict regions where non-state actors have gained power.

4. Multi-Level Governance

Addressing modern security threats requires cooperation across national, regional, and global levels. International institutions must adapt to recognize the influence of emerging actors and build more inclusive mechanisms of engagement.

Conclusion

The Taliban’s transition from a non-state actor to a formal governing authority has profoundly altered the security paradigm in the post-21st century. It compels policymakers, academics, and security experts to reexamine traditional concepts of legitimacy, power, and international engagement.

As similar transformations take place globally, the international community must shift from rigid, state-centric frameworks to more adaptive, realistic, and multidimensional strategies. Only then can we respond effectively to the new geopolitical realities of the 21st century and beyond.

Related Readings:

How does the Taliban’s transition from a non-state actor to a formal state actor challenge the security paradigm in the post-21st century? Provide a conceptual analysis by examining its implications and drawing comparisons with similar global development. Read More »

Digital Discite - International Relations - modern approach to foreign policy

How has minilateralism emerged as a modern approach to foreign policy in state relations? Provide a rational explanation of its development, highlighting the major factors driving its adoption and advantages over traditional multilateralism.

As international relations grow more complex, nation-states are reassessing traditional methods of diplomacy and collaboration. One of the most significant shifts in recent years is the rise of minilateralism, widely recognized today as a modern approach to foreign policy. It reflects a practical, flexible, and targeted method of achieving foreign policy objectives without the heavy constraints of traditional multilateral institutions.

Unlike multilateralism, which involves large numbers of countries working through extensive diplomatic frameworks like the United Nations or World Trade Organization, minilateralism brings together a limited number of actors with shared goals. This more focused and strategic collaboration is helping states respond to global challenges with greater efficiency and clarity.

In this article, we’ll examine how minilateralism developed, what factors are driving its adoption, and why it is increasingly preferred as a modern approach to foreign policy.

Understanding Minilateralism in Global Relations

Minilateralism is a foreign policy strategy where a small group of countries—usually those with shared strategic interests—form partnerships to tackle specific issues. These issues can range from climate change and regional security to trade and technological cooperation.

As a modern approach to foreign policy, minilateralism shifts away from consensus-driven, large-scale diplomacy. Instead, it focuses on building partnerships that are more manageable, agile, and capable of delivering measurable outcomes. This trend is especially visible in new groupings such as:

  • The Quad (United States, India, Japan, Australia) – focused on Indo-Pacific security
  • AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom, United States) – centered on defense and technology sharing
  • ASEAN+3 – an expanded economic and political cooperation mechanism in East Asia

These examples demonstrate that minilateralism is more than just a temporary solution—it’s becoming a long-term strategy and a reliable modern approach to foreign policy in a multipolar world.

Why Has Minilateralism Emerged? Historical and Political Context

Minilateralism has gained traction in the 21st century due to several key developments that have reshaped global diplomacy:

1. Multilateral Fatigue

Traditional multilateral institutions are often criticized for being slow, bureaucratic, and ineffective. The requirement for consensus among dozens or even hundreds of nations often leads to watered-down agreements or prolonged deadlocks. Many nations have become disillusioned with these forums and instead seek faster, more targeted methods—hence the rise of minilateral diplomacy as a modern approach to foreign policy.

2. Changing Global Power Structures

The international system is no longer unipolar. With the rise of regional powers like China, India, and Brazil, global governance has become more decentralized. In this environment, small and strategic coalitions of countries are better suited to managing specific regional or thematic concerns, making minilateralism a viable alternative.

3. Increased Urgency on Global Issues

Global problems such as pandemics, cybersecurity threats, environmental disasters, and energy crises demand rapid and coordinated responses. Minilateral frameworks enable states to act quickly without the procedural delays of large institutions. This need for rapid action makes it an appealing modern approach to foreign policy.

4. Strategic and Ideological Alignment

Minilateralism allows countries to collaborate with like-minded partners who share similar values, such as democratic governance, free-market economies, or regional security goals. This alignment fosters trust and smoother diplomatic cooperation compared to multilateral bodies that include conflicting ideologies and national interests.

Major Factors Driving the Adoption of Minilateralism

Several tangible benefits are motivating countries to choose minilateralism over traditional diplomatic approaches. These include:

1. Efficiency and Speed

Small groups make it easier to negotiate, make decisions, and take action. In fast-changing geopolitical environments, this ability to act promptly is crucial.

2. Focused Objectives

Minilateral partnerships are often issue-specific. Whether it’s maritime security, technological development, or economic policy, such coalitions are able to concentrate resources and expertise on targeted outcomes.

3. Reduced Bureaucracy

Fewer members mean less bureaucracy, lower administrative costs, and more direct communication between decision-makers. This aligns with the principles of a modern approach to foreign policy that emphasizes streamlined processes.

4. Greater Accountability

Because the group is smaller, each country has a clearer understanding of roles and responsibilities. This improves transparency and the likelihood of successful implementation of agreements.

5. Policy Flexibility

Minilateralism provides flexibility in forming partnerships and adapting policy goals. Unlike rigid international treaties, these frameworks allow room for experimentation and innovation.

Minilateralism vs. Traditional Multilateralism

Feature Minilateralism Multilateralism
Size of Group Small, strategic Large, inclusive
Speed of Action Fast and focused Slow and consensus-driven
Decision-Making Simplified and direct Complex and lengthy
Flexibility High adaptability Lower flexibility
Scope of Cooperation Issue-specific Broad and general
Accountability Easier to track Harder to enforce

While multilateralism promotes inclusivity and global consensus, it often struggles to deliver timely or practical solutions. Minilateralism, in contrast, embodies the traits of a modern approach to foreign policy that prioritizes outcomes over process.

Real-World Examples of Minilateral Diplomacy

To better understand how this modern approach to foreign policy works in practice, consider the following examples:

The Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue)

Formed by the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia, the Quad addresses regional security in the Indo-Pacific. It includes joint military exercises, tech partnerships, and coordinated responses to regional threats—without needing UN approval.

AUKUS Alliance

This trilateral defense pact between Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. focuses on sharing military technology, including nuclear-powered submarines and cybersecurity infrastructure. It bypasses larger, slower institutions while still achieving impactful results.

Pacific Alliance

This Latin American trade bloc (Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru) is another example of a minilateral partnership fostering regional economic growth and open-market policies without global institutional involvement.

These examples illustrate how minilateralism is actively shaping diplomacy in multiple regions—confirming its role as a modern approach to foreign policy.

The Future of Minilateralism in Global Affairs

Looking ahead, minilateralism is expected to play an even more central role in foreign policy decision-making. As international challenges grow more complex and interdependent, states will continue seeking practical and reliable ways to protect their interests and contribute to global solutions.

However, it’s important to note that minilateralism should not replace multilateralism entirely. Instead, both approaches can coexist. While minilateralism serves as a modern approach to foreign policy offering speed and precision, multilateralism remains vital for addressing issues requiring broad international consensus, such as nuclear disarmament or climate treaties.

Conclusion

Minilateralism represents a strategic shift in how states interact on the global stage. As a modern approach to foreign policy, it aligns with today’s diplomatic needs—efficiency, relevance, and results. In a world increasingly shaped by regional dynamics, urgent crises, and power multipolarity, minilateralism offers a viable pathway for achieving meaningful international cooperation.

By embracing smaller, smarter, and more focused alliances, countries can navigate foreign policy with greater agility and confidence—while still contributing to global peace and stability.

Related Readings: 

How has minilateralism emerged as a modern approach to foreign policy in state relations? Provide a rational explanation of its development, highlighting the major factors driving its adoption and advantages over traditional multilateralism. Read More »

Digital Discite - International Relations - key theoretical perspectives of non-Western approaches

What are the key theoretical perspectives of non-Western approaches to understand the nature and evolution of world politics, and how do they complement or challenge traditional Western paradigms?

When studying international relations, most students are introduced to theories developed primarily in the West—realism, liberalism, and constructivism, among others. While these paradigms offer valuable insights, they don’t fully capture the diverse worldviews and historical experiences of the Global South. That’s where the key theoretical perspectives of non-Western approaches come in.

These perspectives offer unique frameworks rooted in cultural, philosophical, and historical traditions from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. They enrich our understanding of how global politics evolve and operate, offering alternative views that either complement or challenge traditional Western paradigms.

1. Tianxia: The Chinese Vision of Global Order

One of the most cited non-Western theoretical perspectives is Tianxia, a concept derived from ancient Chinese political philosophy. Meaning “All Under Heaven,” Tianxia proposes a world order based on moral leadership, hierarchical harmony, and cultural unity rather than conflict and competition.

Unlike Western realism, which assumes international anarchy and power struggles, Tianxia envisions a world led by a central, morally upright authority that maintains peace through virtue and shared values. This model challenges the Western idea of sovereign equality and instead focuses on relational power and mutual responsibility.

2. Islamic Perspectives on International Relations

Islamic theories of world politics are rooted in the Quran, Hadith, and Islamic jurisprudence. These perspectives emphasize justice (adl), compassion, unity (ummah), and ethical conduct in both domestic and international affairs.

A key idea is that the purpose of politics isn’t just maintaining order or gaining power—it’s about upholding moral values and serving the community. This challenges secular Western IR theories that separate religion from politics and often neglect spiritual or ethical considerations in diplomacy and governance.

3. Ubuntu and African Communitarian Approaches

In many African societies, the philosophy of Ubuntu—”I am because we are”—serves as the foundation of political thinking. This perspective emphasizes interconnectedness, communal well-being, and reconciliation over individualism and confrontation.

African international relations scholars have used Ubuntu to argue for more cooperative diplomacy, conflict resolution through dialogue, and holistic security strategies that address both human and environmental needs. This directly complements and, at times, challenges the adversarial and state-centric models prevalent in Western theory.

4. Postcolonial and Subaltern Perspectives

Postcolonial theory, developed by scholars like Edward Said and Gayatri Spivak, focuses on how colonialism and imperialism have shaped global political structures and academic knowledge. This approach critiques the Western domination of international relations and calls for the inclusion of marginalized voices.

Subaltern studies go a step further by examining the experiences of those left out of the historical record—peasants, women, indigenous groups, and others who were silenced by dominant powers. These perspectives push for a decolonized, more inclusive understanding of world politics.

5. Dependency Theory and Latin American Structuralism

Developed primarily by Latin American thinkers like Raúl Prebisch and Andre Gunder Frank, dependency theory argues that global capitalism inherently favors wealthy nations while keeping poorer ones in a state of economic dependence.

Unlike liberalism, which assumes free markets benefit all, this non-Western theoretical perspective reveals how global structures perpetuate inequality. It also critiques the Western notion of development by showing how some nations remain trapped in poverty due to historical exploitation.

How Non-Western Theories Complement or Challenge Western Paradigms

The key theoretical perspectives of non-Western approaches bring several benefits to the field of international relations:

  • Broadened understanding: They add depth by incorporating culture, religion, ethics, and historical context.
  • Pluralism in theory: These approaches encourage theoretical diversity, promoting multiple ways of understanding the world.
  • Challenge to dominance: They expose the limitations and biases of Western-centric theories and propose alternative models of power, cooperation, and governance.
  • Real-world relevance: Many non-Western theories are deeply connected to lived experiences in the Global South, making them practical for analyzing current global challenges like postcolonial conflicts, humanitarian crises, and development issues.

Conclusion

Incorporating the key theoretical perspectives of non-Western approaches is essential for building a more inclusive and accurate field of international relations. These frameworks don’t just add diversity for diversity’s sake—they offer meaningful critiques and solutions that reflect the real dynamics of a multipolar world.

As global power shifts and new actors rise, it’s more important than ever to understand the world through multiple lenses. Embracing non-Western perspectives in world politics helps scholars, policymakers, and students alike navigate a more complex and interconnected global order.

 

Related Readings: 

What are the key theoretical perspectives of non-Western approaches to understand the nature and evolution of world politics, and how do they complement or challenge traditional Western paradigms? Read More »

Digitial Discite - International Relations - International Relations As An Academic Discipline

What were the key driving forces behind the establishment of International Relations as an academic discipline? Provide an analysis of the major historical events and intellectual developments that contributed to its evolution and formal recognition in the world.

The key driving forces behind the establishment of International Relations as an academic discipline can be traced to the early 20th century, emerging in response to the geopolitical upheavals of the modern era. 

The devastation of global conflicts, shifts in global power structures, and the growing complexity of state interactions necessitated a systematic study of international affairs. Over time, key historical events, evolving intellectual traditions, and institutional developments played a central role in the formalization of IR as a recognized field of academic inquiry.

1. Aftermath of World War I: The Foundational Moment

The First World War (1914–1918) was one of the key driving forces behind the establishment of International Relations as an academic discipline. It was a transformative event in global history that highlighted the catastrophic consequences of unchecked nationalism, militarism, secret alliances, and power politics. 

The immense human and economic toll of the war—over 16 million deaths and widespread destruction across Europe—exposed the urgent need for a new approach to international peace and conflict resolution.

Digitial Discite - International Relations - International Relations As An Academic Discipline - League of Nations

League of Nations (1919):

In response to WWI, the League of Nations was founded in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles. It was the first international organization established with the primary aim of preventing war through collective security, arbitration of disputes, and disarmament. 

Although ultimately unsuccessful due to the absence of key powers like the United States and its inability to prevent aggression in the 1930s, the League represented a significant step toward institutionalizing diplomacy and international cooperation—core themes later studied within IR.

First Academic Chair in International Politics (1919):

That same year, the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, established the world’s first academic chair in International Politics, funded by a donation from philanthropist David Davies. 

The chair was intended to honor the fallen of WWI and to promote the scientific study of peace. This marked the formal birth of International Relations as an academic discipline, with an emphasis on understanding the causes of war and fostering peaceful state relations.

2. The Idealist Tradition: Faith in Peace and Cooperation

In the immediate post-war period, one of the key driving forces behind the establishment of International Relations as an academic discipline was a wave of liberal optimism, which influenced the early study of IR—often referred to as idealism or utopian liberalism. Idealist thinkers believed that war could be prevented through moral diplomacy, international law, and global institutions.

Woodrow Wilson and the Fourteen Points (1918):

U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was a key figure in shaping this idealist outlook. His Fourteen Points speech called for principles such as:

  • Self-determination of nations

  • Open diplomacy

  • Freedom of the seas

  • A general association of nations (which led to the League of Nations)

Wilson’s ideas inspired both the creation of global institutions and the early theoretical direction of IR, focusing on peace through cooperation and international norms.

3. Realist Turn: The Response to World War II

The outbreak of the Second World War (1939–1945) was among the key driving forces behind the establishment of International Relations as an academic discipline in a more pragmatic form. 

The failure of the League of Nations, the rise of fascism, and the inability of diplomatic efforts to prevent global conflict led to a paradigm shift in IR.

Rise of Realism:

Prominent scholars such as E.H. Carr (author of The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1939) and Hans Morgenthau (Politics Among Nations, 1948) advanced the realist approach. Realism argued that:

  • International politics is governed by anarchy (absence of a central authority).

  • States are the primary actors and act in pursuit of their national interest.

  • Power, especially military power, is the main currency in international affairs.

Realism provided a more pragmatic framework for understanding state behavior, diplomacy, and conflict, establishing itself as a dominant theoretical tradition in IR for decades.

4. The Cold War Era: Institutionalization and Scientific Rigor

The Cold War (1947–1991) between the United States and the Soviet Union was one of the key driving forces behind the establishment of International Relations as an academic discipline, as it intensified the need for academic insight into strategic behavior, ideological conflict, and superpower competition. This period saw a rapid expansion of IR programs and research institutions globally.

Strategic Studies and Nuclear Deterrence:

IR scholars analyzed concepts like mutually assured destruction (MAD), containment, and brinkmanship to understand and prevent nuclear war. The study of game theory, rational choice models, and security dilemmas became central to Cold War-era IR.

Behavioral Revolution in IR:

During the 1950s and 60s, influenced by the broader trends in social sciences, the behavioralist approach sought to make IR more empirical and scientific.

 Scholars emphasized data collection, hypothesis testing, and quantifiable methods to explain international phenomena, shifting the field from normative theory to analytical rigor.

5. Post-Cold War Era: Theoretical Pluralism and Global Challenges

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of the Cold War and became one of the key driving forces behind the establishment of International Relations as an academic discipline in a more diverse and inclusive form. 

No longer bound by bipolar power dynamics, the discipline began to explore a wider range of issues and perspectives.

Constructivism:

Pioneered by scholars like Alexander Wendt, constructivism argued that international relations are shaped not just by material power but by social constructs, identity, and norms. This opened the door for alternative explanations of global politics beyond realism and liberalism.

Critical Theories:

Feminist IR, post-colonial studies, and Marxist theories gained prominence, challenging Eurocentric and state-centric models. These schools addressed gender, race, inequality, and the legacy of imperialism in global relations.

6. Globalization and the Expanding Scope of IR

The rapid transformation in global connectivity in the 21st century represents one of the key driving forces behind the establishment of International Relations as an academic discipline in its modern, multidisciplinary form, as new challenges increasingly transcend borders and require integrated analysis.

Globalization and Interdependence:

Issues like climate change, cybersecurity, pandemics (e.g., COVID-19), migration, and terrorism have expanded the scope of IR to include non-state actors, international organizations (e.g., UN, IMF, WTO), and global civil society.

Rise of International Institutions and Regimes:

IR increasingly focuses on the role of international norms, global governance, and regime theory—how rules and institutions shape state behavior in areas like trade, human rights, and environmental policy.

Conclusion: Key Driving Forces Behind the Establishment of International Relations as an Academic Discipline

The evolution of International Relations as an academic discipline reflects the changing dynamics of global politics. 

From its idealist beginnings in the wake of World War I to the dominance of realism during the Cold War, and eventually to the pluralism of today’s theoretical landscape, IR has matured through its response to historical developments and intellectual inquiry. 

As global challenges grow more interconnected and complex, IR continues to play a crucial role in equipping scholars, diplomats, and policymakers with the tools to understand and manage international affairs effectively.

Related Readings: 

What were the key driving forces behind the establishment of International Relations as an academic discipline? Provide an analysis of the major historical events and intellectual developments that contributed to its evolution and formal recognition in the world. Read More »

Special CSS 2023 International Relations I MCQs 15 October 2023

1. Nation building is best described as:
A. Relations with neighbors
B. National identity
C. Rule of Law
D. Policy of isolation

B. National identity

2. _________ claims that rich core capitalist societies succeed by exploiting poorer peripheral ones:
A. World Economic Forum
B. World Politics Review
C. World Development Report
D. World System Theory

D. World System Theory

3. The main aim of CTBT is:
A. Prevent the spread of Nuclear weapons
B. Eliminating Nuclear Weapons
C. Spread Nuclear Technology for Peace
D. Complete Cessation of Nuclear Testing

D. Complete Cessation of Nuclear Testing

4. Southwest Asia is also Known as:
A. Eurasia
B. Middle East
C. Asia Pacific
D. Greater Asia

B. Middle East

5. Washington Consensus is:
A. To maximize global welfare
B. To make new world order
C. To fight against terrorism
D. To support human right organizations

A. To maximize global welfare

6. The Fourteen Points of US President Woodrow Wilson were enunciated in:
A. The Conference of Versailles
B. The Congress of Vienna
C. The Yalta Conference MNCs are considered
D. None of these

A. The Conference of Versailles

7. MNC’s are considered _________ in formation of state foreign policy.
A. Regional Actors
B. Interstate Actors
C. Non State Actors
D. Supranational Actors

C. Non State Actors

8. _______ invaded China in 1938 as part of a mass campaign of territorial expansion:
A. USA
B. Germany
C. Soviet Union
D. Japan

D. Japan

9. Concert diplomacy is:
A. Organise diplomatic interaction
B. New laws for diplomacy
C. Harmonized diplomatic negotiations
D. Luna-55

C. Harmonized diplomatic negotiations

10. The term ‘containment’ was coined by:
A. Harry S Trueman
B. F. W. de Klark
C. George F Kennan
D. Alfred Dreyfus

C. George F Kennan

11. Two Goals of the World Bank includes:
A. Eradicating extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity
B. Reducing trade barriers and boosting trade
C. Increase foreign direct investment and promote economic stability
D. All of these

A. Eradicating extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity

12. La Patrie a French word used for
A. Motherland
B. Citizens
C. Fatherland
D. Empire

C. Fatherland

13. Author of the book “The Indus Saga and Making of Pakistan” is:
A. Aitzaz Ahsan
B. Sherry Rehman
C. Shirin Mazari
D. Rashid Ahmed

A. Aitzaz Ahsan

14. Article 5 of NATO deals with:
A. Collective Security
B. Collective Engagement
C. Collective Defense
D. Collective Responsibility

C. Collective Defense

15. In the constitution of USA, the first ten amendments are called:
A. The rights of president
B. The bill of judicial review
C. The bill of Rights
D. The bill of check and balances

C. The bill of Rights

16. An increase in the amount of nuclear weapons in the world is referred as:
A. Zero Sum Game
B. Horizontal Proliferation
C. Vertical Proliferation
D. None of these

B. Horizontal Proliferation

17. UNFCCC stands for:
A. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
B. United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change
C. United Nations Framework Covenant on Climate Change
D. None of these

A. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

18. Contemporary Diplomacy is conducted by:
A. State Actors
B. State and non state Actors
C. Trained diplomats
D. Citizens Page

B. State and non state Actors

19. International Relations is best explained by the theory of:
A. Constructivism
B. Liberalism
C. Realism
D. Idealism

C. Realism

20. _________ is the father of Pragmatism:
A. Charles Sanders Peirce
B. Kenneth waltz
C. William James
D. John Ruggie

A. Charles Sanders Peirce

Special CSS 2023 International Relations I MCQs 15 October 2023 Read More »

International Relations-II Repeated Questions from 2016-2022

Highlighted topics are the most repeated topics. So cover them first.

Russia or USSR or SU or Bolshevik
Q. No. 2. Discuss the core causes of the “Bolshevik Revolution” in Russia and explain its fundamental political and socio-economic impact on Western European politics. (2016)
Q. No. 2. To what extent did the regime established in Russia by the Bolsheviks represent its revolutionary ideology for consumerism, political stability, law and order, and social progress? (2018)
Q3. What are the Russian objectives behind the military intervention in Ukraine? Discuss Whether western sanctions can prove effective as an instrument to counter the Russian act. (2022)
Q. No. 7. Discuss Russia’s return to South Asia and United States’ Indo-Pacific Strategy. (2020)

Germany or Nazism
Q. No. 2. What were the foundational principles of Nazism using which Hitler raised to power in Germany? (2019)

Clash of Civilization
Q. No. 3. Critically analyze Samuel P. Huntington’s concept of “Clash of Civilizations”. Define its main characteristics and explain its devastating consequences on the different leading civilizations of the nations. (2016)

Foreign Policy
Q. No. 4. Discuss the moral imperatives of “Indian Foreign Policy” with the contending spirit of “Panchsheel” and evaluate how much it helps to strengthen diplomatic objectives of the country’s foreign policy? (2016)
Q. No. 5. An analysis of the anatomy of foreign policy is an essential pre-requisite to an understanding of the dynamics of International Relations. Analyze the central theme of Pakistan’s foreign policy in the war against terrorism? (2018)
Q. No. 6. How do rational theories of foreign policy explain state decision making? Discuss the tenets of the theory in light of the decision made by Pakistan in response to Saudi request of sending troops during the Yemen crisis in 2015. (2019)
Q3. Give a critical appraisal of Pakistan’s foreign policy from the perspective of Climate Change. (2021)
Q. No. 4. The manner in which a nation’s ideology dominates its foreign policy is constantly in confusion. Explore the relationship between capitalist democracy and foreign policy of the United States of America. (2018)

Pakistan & Afghanistan or Afghanistan only
Q. No. 5. Critically discuss main political, socio-economic and strategic hurdles between “Afghanistan-Pakistan Relations” and how can both countries come out from the Cold War scenario? (2016)
Q. No. 8. The most compelling challenge facing Afghanistan today is, dealing with the Afghan Taliban. What do you think of political engagement and accommodation between the Afghan government and Taliban giving way to stability in the region? (2018)
Q4. What could be the reason for the emerging water conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan? (2021)
Q. No. 6. Comment in detail on mechanism of conflict resolution between Pakistan and Afghanistan and on Durand line issue. (2020)
Q8. What are China’s interests in Afghanistan? Discuss its role and options in the country following the US exit. (2022)

Pakistan & India
Q. No. 2. Evaluate the significance of conflict between India and Pakistan in global perspective of terrorism. (2017)
Q. No. 6. Evaluate the significance of water conflict between India and Pakistan in perspective of Indus Water Treaty.( 2017)
Q5. How have the nuclear doctrines of India and Pakistan evolved? What do their current doctrines imply for deterrence stability in South Asia? (2022)
Q. No. 6. One of the most serious dilemmas of South Asian politics is the contentious relations between Pakistan and India. What measures would you consider for normalization between the two neighbors? (2018)
Q. No. 7. What benefits India might have gained by joining the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)? Highlight possible impacts it may have upon strategic stability in South Asia (2019)
Q. No. 7. Discuss “Nuclear Factor” as one of the major determinants of International politics with reference to USA, India, and Pakistan. (2017)

Kashmir Conflict
Q. No. 7. Prepare a study in which you assess the possibility of settlement of the Kashmir conflict such as in the case of East Timor or Bosnian crisis? (2018)

Balance of Power
Q6. Define the “Balancing Act” in International Relations. What are Pakistan’s imperatives and constraints with regard to maintaining balance in relations with the major powers? (2022)

Diplomacy
Q. No. 8. Explain the following diagram in the light of multi-track diplomacy. Which is the most important track of diplomacy and why? (2020)

Water Conflict
Q4. What could be the reason for the emerging water conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan? (2021)
Q. No. 2. Evaluate the significance of conflict between India and Pakistan in global perspective of terrorism. (2017)

Covid-19 pandemic
Q6. What is a pandemic? How can the pandemic management strategy be made part of the governance system of Pakistan? (2021)

Governance
Q6. What is a pandemic? How can the pandemic management strategy be made part of the governance system of Pakistan? (2021)

Climate Change
Q. No. 8. Pakistan is one of the top 10 countries hit by global climate change trends: what can be the ways and means to manage climate change trends? (2017)
Q. No. 2. What are the multidimensional and multifaceted impacts of climate change on multiple dimensions of security? Identify each, discuss and analyze under the theoretical framework of Security and International Relations. (2020)

Cold War
Q. No. 5. Critically discuss main political, socio-economic and strategic hurdles between “Afghanistan-Pakistan Relations” and how can both countries come out from the Cold War scenario? (2016)
Q. No. 3. Evaluate the strength and liabilities of the “containment of world revolution policy” during the cold war. (2018)
Q. No. 3. Cold war is considered as one of the longest peace in great powers’ history. What deterministic factors ensured relative peace in great powers’ relations during the Cold War? (2019)

Nuclear Program
Q. No. 6. Discuss the “Moral Dimensions of Pakistan’s Nuclear Programme”. Explain its essential features and justify its offensive gesture which maintained the national and regional strategic balance. (2016)
Q5. How have the nuclear doctrines of India and Pakistan evolved? What do their current doctrines imply for deterrence stability in South Asia? (2022)
Q. No. 7. Discuss “Nuclear Factor” as one of the major determinants of International politics with reference to USA, India, and Pakistan. (2017)

IMF
Q. No. 7. Critically discuss the fundamental factors of “Greece Economic Crisis” which need huge financial assistance from European Union and IMF as debt relief to create “a breathing space” to stabilize the economy and explain the out-of-the-box solution for the crisis-ridden country. (2016)
Q. No. 8. What are the major policy prescriptions of structural adjustment and stabilization of the World Bank and IMF vis-à-vis Pakistan? (2019)

Economic Crisis
Q. No. 7. Critically discuss the fundamental factors of “Greece Economic Crisis” which need huge financial assistance from European Union and IMF as debt relief to create “a breathing space” to stabilize the economy and explain the out-of-the-box solution for the crisis-ridden country. (2016)

International Political Economy or International Financial Institution
Q7. Examine the achievements and challenges in EU-Pakistan relations from the perspective of International political economy. (2022)
Q. No. 4. Determine the factors in the emergence of Neoliberal Institutionalism; highlight your discussion with practices of International Financial Institutions and Pakistan. (2017)

Energy Crisis or Energy Policy
Q. No. 5. How can the energy Crisis of Pakistan be resolved? Emphasize your discussion vis-a-vis China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. (2017)
Q5. Discuss the National Energy Policy of Pakistan in the context of the CPEC signed in 2015. (2021)

CPEC or OBOR
Q. No. 5. How can the energy Crisis of Pakistan be resolved? Emphasize your discussion vis-a-vis China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. (2017)
Q2. Examine China Strategic Vision behind ‘The Belt and Road initiative (BRI)’? Also known as the one belt one road (OBOR). (2021)
Q5. Discuss the National Energy Policy of Pakistan in the context of the CPEC signed in 2015. (2021)

Pakistan & Middle East or Muslim World
Q. No. 8. Pakistan has formally joined Saudi Arabia’s led 34-state Islamic military alliance to contain terrorism and extremism in Southwest Asia. Critically discuss whether or not Pakistan participates in the newly formed military alliance against terrorism and explain its political, socio-cultural and strategic implications on the country. (2016)
Q. No. 6. How do rational theories of foreign policy explain state decision making? Discuss the tenets of the theory in light of the decision made by Pakistan in response to Saudi request of sending troops during the Yemen crisis in 2015. (2019)

Regional Organization
Q. No. 5. SAARC is facing an existential crisis. How do functionalists explain the failure of SAARC as a regional organization? (2019)
Q7. Why and when was the BRICS established? Which countries are part of BRICS? (2021)
Q4. Why does South Asia remain the least integrated region in the world? What lessons can SAARC draw from the EU and ASEAN experience in regional integration? (2022)

Pakistan & EU
Q7. Examine the achievements and challenges in EU-Pakistan relations from the perspective of International political economy. (2022)

South Asia
Q4. Why does South Asia remain the least integrated region in the world? What lessons can SAARC draw from the EU and ASEAN experience in regional integration? (2022)
Q5. How have the nuclear doctrines of India and Pakistan evolved? What do their current doctrines imply for deterrence stability in South Asia? (2022)
Q. No. 6. One of the most serious dilemmas of South Asian politics is the contentious relations between Pakistan and India. What measures would you consider for normalization between the two neighbors? (2018)
Q. No. 7. Discuss Russia’s return to South Asia and United States’ Indo-Pacific Strategy. (2020)
Q. No. 7. What benefits India might have gained by joining the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)? Highlight possible impacts it may have upon strategic stability in South Asia (2019)

Warfare or Hybrid Warfare
Q8. How can Pakistan develop credible capabilities to deter ‘Hybrid’ warfare? (2021)

US & China or global powers
Q8. What are China’s interests in Afghanistan? Discuss its role and options in the country following the US exit. (2022)
Q. No. 5. Differentiate between Washington consensus and Beijing consensus. Is Beijing consensus a challenge to the Washington consensus? (2020)
Q2. What are the key features of the US new Indo-Pacific strategy under Joe Biden’s administration? How does it treat China? (2022)
Q. No. 4. World orders are established by great powers in order to serve their interests. What are the foundations of existing world order(s) and how do they serve the interests of great powers? (2019)

Indo-Pacific
Q2. What are the key features of the US new Indo-Pacific strategy under Joe Biden’s administration? How does it treat China? (2022)
Q. No. 7. Discuss Russia’s return to South Asia and United States’ Indo-Pacific Strategy. (2020)

Terrorism
Q. No. 5. An analysis of the anatomy of foreign policy is an essential pre-requisite to an understanding of the dynamics of International Relations. Analyze the central theme of Pakistan’s foreign policy in the war against terrorism? (2018)
Q. No. 2. Evaluate the significance of conflict between India and Pakistan in global perspective of terrorism. (2017)
Q. No. 8. Pakistan has formally joined Saudi Arabia’s led 34-state Islamic military alliance to contain terrorism and extremism in Southwest Asia. Critically discuss whether or not Pakistan participates in the newly formed military alliance against terrorism and explain its political, socio-cultural and strategic implications on the country. (2016)
Q. No. 4. Why is it difficult to define terrorism? Elaborate upon the following: (2020)
(a) Feminization of terrorism
(b) Criminalization of terrorism
(c) Commercialization of terrorism
(d) State-terrorism

Miscellaneous
Q. No. 3. Elaborate Systems Thinking Theory in view of Pakistan and Globalization. (2017)
Q. No. 3. What are the four essentials of Resource Management? When does a resource become an element of power “OR” a resource curse? Discuss the Reko-Diq case in this context. (2020)

 

International Relations – II 2016-2022 analysis (Download PDF)

International Relations-II Repeated Questions from 2016-2022 Read More »

error: Content is protected !!
Scroll to Top