MEANING, NATURE, SCOPE AND APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Meaning______________________________________________________________________

The study of relations among nations has fascinated scholars for several centuries. However, the
term international was first used by Jeremy Bantham in the latter part of the eighteenth century,
although its Latin equivalent intergentes was used a century earlier by Rijchare Zouche. Both of
them had used this term in respect of that branch of law which was called law of nations, which
later became 'International Law'. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, international
relations have grown rapidly. Today nation-states have become far too interdependent; and
relations among them whether political or those related to trade and commerce, have developed
into an essential area of knowledge. In this unit, we are mainly concerned with the political
relations among sovereign societies called nations, or nation-states.

No nation is an island. Because domestic policies are constantly affected by developments

outside, nations are compelled to (rather than sit on the fence or out-rightly isolate themselves)
enter into dialogue with target or initiating entities or form alliance(s) for the purpose of
enhancing theirstatus quo, or increasing their power or prestige and survival in' the international
system. Because international relations is in transition following emerging realities in the
international system, it has become complex and even more difficult arriving at a more
universally acceptable definition of the subject. But this is not peculiar to international relations
as there are more intense disagreements over the definition of political sciences itself.
Nevertheless scholars have persisted in their attempt to defineinternational relations.

International Relations and International politics___________________________________

In most cases international relations and international relations are interchangeably found to have
been used. The first Chair in International Relations was established at the university of
Wales. (U.K) in 1919. The first two occupants of the chair were eminent historians, Professors
Alfred Zin~merna nd C.K. Webster. At that time, International Relations as a subject was little
more than diplomatic history. During the next seven decades thissubject has changed in nature
and content. Today the analytical study of politics has replaced descriptive diplomatic history.
The term International politics is now used for the new discipline that has been emerging since
the second world war. It is more scientific, yet narrow, as compared toInternational
RelationsThe two terms are even now sometimes used as synonyms. But, they have two distinct
areas, or content, of study. Hans Morgenthau believes that "the core of international relations is
international politics", but a clear distinction between the two is to be made. International
Relations, according to him, is much wider in scope than International Politics. Whereas politics
among nations is, as Morgenthau says, struggle for power, international relations includes
political, economic and cultural relations. Harold and Margaret Sprout opine that international
relations include all human behaviour on one s~d eof a national boundary affecting the human

mmasum_iu@yahoo.com
behavior on the other side of the boundary. on the other hand, deals with conflicts and
cooperation among nations essentially at political level. As Padelford and Lincoln define it,
international politics is the interaction of state policies within the changing pattern of power
relationship. Palmer and Perkins express similar views when they say that international politics
is essentially concerned with the state system. Since international relations includes all types of
relationships between sovereignstates, it is wider, and international politics is narrower in scope.
As students of IR, we shall indeed examine political conflicts and cooperation among states. But,
we stiall also study other aspect of relations among nations as well including pconomic inter-
action and role of the non-state actor.

Definitions

Trevor Taylor (1979) defines International Relations as "a discipline, which tries to explain
political activities across state boundaries".

According to Ola, Joseph (1999),  "International relations are the study of all forms of
interactions that exist between members of separate entities or nations within the international
system".

Seymon Brown (1988) thus defines international relations as "the investigating and study of
patterns of action and “reactions amongsovereign states as represented by their governing
elites.”Some scholars see power as the key to International politics. Thus, they define
International relations as the subject that deals with those relations among nations, which involve
power status.

Stanley Hoffman writes “the discipline of international relations is concerned with the factors and
the activities which affect the external policies andpower of the basic units into which the world
is divided.” Thus, international relations is concerned with all the exchange transactions,contacts,
flow of information and the resulting behavioral responses between and among separate
organized societies. International relations could encompass many different activities social,
economic, religious and so forth in so far as they have implications for international
political relations.

In the words of Karl Wolfgang Deutsch (1968), “An introduction to the study of

international relations in our time is an introduction to the art and science of the survival
of mankind. If civilization is killed in the nearest future, it will not be killed by famine or plague,
but by foreign policy and international relations.”The point expressed here is that we can cope
with hunger and pestilence, but we cannot deal with the power of our own weapons and our
own behavior as nation states. It is important to note that since the end of World War 1, nation
states have possessed unprecedented instruments for national action in the form of ideologies and
weapons, and they have become even more dangerous vehicles of international conflict, carrying
the potential for its escalation to mutual destruction and ultimate annihilation. The nation state
holds the power to control most events within its borders, but few events beyond them. It is thus
decisively important for the student of international relations to understand that the world of

mmasum_iu@yahoo.com
today is marked by two factors. One fact has to do with the nature of power in the age of the
atom; the other concerns the interdependence of mankind in an age of the individual.

Nature of International Politics___________________________________________________

International Relations, like the world community itself are in transition. In a rapidly changing
and increasingly complex world, it encompasses much more than relations among nation states
and international organization and groups. It includes a variety of transitionalrelationships at
various levels, above and below the level of the nation states. International relations are a
multidisciplinary field gathering together the international aspects of politics, economics,
geography, history, law, sociology, psychology , philosophy and cultural studies. It is a meta-
discipline. The context and nature of IP have undergone major changes after the Second World
War. Traditionally, world politics was centered around Europe and relations among nations were
largely conducted by officials of foreign offices in secrecy. The common man was hardly ever
involved, and treaties were often kept secret. Today public opinion has begun to play an
important role in the decision-making process in foreign offices, thus, changing completely the
nature of international relations. Ambassadors, once briefed by their governments, were largely
free to conduct relations according to the ground realities of the countries of their posting.
Today, not only have nuclear weapons changed the nature of war and replaced erstwhile the
balance of power by the balance of terror, but also the nature of diplomacy changed as well. We
live in the jet age where the heads of state and government and their foreign ministers travel
across the globe and personally establish contacts and conduct international relations. Before the
First World War a traveler from India to Britain spent about 20 days In the sea voyage. Today, it
takes less than 9 hours for a jet aircraft to fly from Delhi to London, telephones, fax machines,
Teleprompters and other electronic devices have brought all government leaders direct
contact. Hotline communications between Washington and Moscow, for example, keeps the top
world leaders in constant touch. This has reduced the freedom of ambassadors who receive daily
instructions from their governments.

Decolonization has resulted in the emergence of a large number of sovereign states. The

former colonies of the European Powers, including India, have become important actors on the
stage of international relation. They were once silent spectators. Today, they participate in the
conduct of world politics. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has created 15 members of
the United Nations, instead of the previous three. Some of the very small countries like Nauru
may have no power but they also have an equal voice in the General Assembly. Four very small
countries viz. Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Andorra were admitted to the U.N. during
1990-93. The total number of U.N. members has gone up from 51 in 1945 to 185 in 1997. Thus,
international relations are now conducted by such a large number of new nationstates. Besides,
many non-state actors such as multinational corporations and transnational bodies like terrorist
groups have been influencing international relations in a big way. With the collapse of the Soviet
Union as a Super Power, the United States has emerged as the supreme monolithic power and
can now dominate the international scene almost without any challenge. The Non-Alignment
Movement ((NAM) still exists but with the dismemberment of one of its founders (i.e. :

mmasum_iu@yahoo.com
Yugoslavia) and the disappearance of rival power blocs, the role of the 'Third World' has
changed along with that of NAM.

Scope of International Relations__________________________________________________

Beginning with the study of law and diplomatic history, the scope of international relations has
steadily expanded. With growing complexity of contacts between nations, the study of
international organizations and institutions attracted the attention of scholars. The outbreak of the
Second World War gave a strong stimulus to area studies and strategic aspect of foreign policy.
This led to efforts to understand better the dynamics of national liberation struggles and anti-
colonial movements. The foundation of the United Nations during the war encouraged thinking
about post-war restructuring of the relations among nations. The study of cooperation became
important even as the study of conflict remained central. The immediate aftermath was marked
by a constructive outlook. This is reflected in titles of books like Swords and
Plughshares written by Inis Claude. New topics like ideology and disarmament assumed
unprecedented importance in the era of cold war. So did the system of alliances and regionalism.
Contemporary international relations embrace the whole gamut of diplomatic history,
international politics, international organization, international law and area studies. Writing
about the contents of international relations, a few decades back, Palmer Perkins had said that the
then international relations was a study of "the world community in transition."

This conclusion is largely true even today. The transition has not reached a terminal
point. While the underlying factors of international relations have not changed, the international
environment has changed and is still changing. The state system is undergoing modifications; a
technological revolution h s taken place in a very big way; new states of Asia and Africa are
playing increasingly important roles. India, in particular, is in a position to assert and take a rigid
stand, as in 1696 on the question of signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). There
is also a "revolution of rising expectations." Thus, Palmer and Perkins wrote, "old and new
elements must be interwoven" in the contemporary international relations. "The focus is still the
nation state system and inter-state relations; but the actions and interactions of many
organizations and groups have also to be considered." The scope of international relations at the
end of the twentieth century has become very vast indeed. The world has virtually become a
"global village", as interdependence of states has increased manifold. Economic relations
between states the role of international institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary
Fund and the World Trade Organization today influences economic activity all over the world.
The United Nations and its various agencies are engaged in numerous socio-economic and
political activities. International terrorism is a cause of serious concern for the human existence.
Multinational Corporations (MNCs), those are giant companies operating the world over, are
important non-state actors of international relations.

Thus, the scope of international relations has become vast, and, besides international
politics, it embraces various other inter - State activities as well. It is known by now that

mmasum_iu@yahoo.com
international relations encompass a myriad of discipline. Attempts to structure and intellectualize
it have often been thematically and analytically confined to boundaries determined by data. The
core concepts of international relations are International Organization, International Law,
Foreign Policy, International Conflict, InternationalEconomic Relations and Military Thought
and Strategy.International/Regional Security, Strategic Studies, International PoliticalEconomy,
Conflict/War and Peace Studies, Globalization, InternationalRegimes. Moreover it covers , state
sovereignty, ecological sustainability,nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development,
terrorism,organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism and human rights. These
have been grounded in various schools of thought (or traditions)notably Realism and Idealism.

APPROACHES________________________________________________________________

There are many approaches to the study of international relations. The traditional or classical
approach treated History as the laboratory from which meaningful conclusions could be drawn.
Two of the main schools of the traditional approach are Realism and Idealism. Whereas the
Realism School considers the struggle for power as the central point of all international relations,
the Idealism School believes in the inherent goodness of man. Realists like Morgenthau do not
attach much importance to means, or morality. For them national interest is the aim that must be
served with the help of power. The idealists, on the other hand, feel that the ideal of world peace
is attainable with the help of reason, education and science. In recent years, Neo- Realism has
appeared as another approach to the study of international relations.

Traditional Approaches: Realism, Idealism and Neo-Realism__________________________

The two most important variants of the traditional approach of international relations are Realism
and Idealism. Taking inspiration from Kautilya and Machiavelli, the leading twentieth century
realists George Kennan and Hans Morgenthau argued that the struggle for power is the central
point of all international relations. Individuals believe that others are always trying to attack and
destroy them, and therefore, they must be continuously ready to kill others in order to protect
themselves. This basic; human instinct guides the States as well. Thus, the realists argue that
rivalry and strife among the nations in some form or the other are always present. Just as self:-
interest guides the individual's behaviour, similarly national interest also guides tbe foreign
policy of nation-states. Continued conflict is the reality of international relations and realists
attribute this to the struggle for power. Thus, national interea, as defined in terms of power, is the
only reality of international relations. The realists do not attach much significance to means, for
them national interest is the end, and it must be promoted at all costs. Hans . Morgenthu's
influential book "Politics among Nations" (1972) carried the torch of realism far and wide. For
the realists, distribution of powers among states is all thatis there to explain in IR. Given a
particular distribution of power, the realists claim that, it is possible to explain both the
characteristics of the system and the - behaviour of the individual states.

mmasum_iu@yahoo.com
 The idealists firmly believe that the essential goodness of human nature will eventually
pre vail and that a new world order would emerge which would be marked by the absence of
war, inequality and tyranny. This new world order would be brought about by the use of reason,
education and science. Idealism presents a picture of future international relations free from
power politics, violence and immorality. Idealism argues that an international organization
commanding respect of nation-states would pave the way for a world free of conflicts and war.
Thus, the crucial point on which the realists and idealists sharply differ is the problem of power.
St. Simon, Aldous Huxley, Mahatma Gandhi and Woodrow Wilson a;e among the prominent
idealists. Morality is vital for them as they aim at international peace and cooperation.

An analysis of Realism and Idealism will show that both have their validity provided they
give up their extremism. The approach that takes a middle position between "idealistic
utopianism" and "cynical realism" is called Eclecticism. It has been described as a sort of
synthesis of the 'pessimism of realism' and 'optimism of idealism'. Eclecticism tries to use the
best in both realism and idealism. The former has been described by Quincy Wright as a
representative of short-run national policies whereas idealism represents long-term policies of
intearnationalism. Realists have been called 'Children of darkness' and idealists the 'children of
light'. Neibuhr regards the children of darkness as evil and wicked and the children of light as
virtuous. But, on the basis of another cirterion, he says, the realists are wise as they understand
the power of self-will, and the idealists are foolish because they underestimate the risk ~f
anarchy in the international community. Both have something to learn from this.

Neo-Realism, also known as 'Structural Realism' is one of the current approaches to the
study of international relations. Waltz, Grieco, Keohane and Joseph Nye are among the
prominent neo-realists. Neo-Realists believe that might is right in a system which is essentially
Hobbesian (full of strife) in nature. The great powers are engaged in permanent rivalry. The
structure has, more or less, remained one of anarchy though the prominent actors have been
changing. The term 'structure' has been referred to "how the actors in a system stand in relation
to each other." The present structure being anarchical (challenges to state domination are
rampant), one finds powerful states are most interested in trying to prevent others froin
improving relative capabilities. Keohane and Nye add that with the increasing rolwf non-state
actors, the structure has become even more complex and unpredictable. In short, neorealism
belleves that the nation-states still remain the most important actors in world politics: behaviour
of the states can be explained rationally; states seek power and calculate their interests in terms
of power. (All these they share with the scholars of realism). Hdwever, the neorealists add, the
international system is characterized by anarchy and emerging 'multi-centric' activities
emanating from sources other than state. This complexity is further compounded by international
terrorism, religious war-fares, increasing incidence of civil wars and emerging competitive
multinational corporations.

In the post-cold war years, international arena has assumed a new form. Nation-states are
being threatened by divisive and secessionist movements. Many of the conflicts have assumed
deadly proportions. According to John Stremlau "prevention has become a buzz word among
diplomats seeking to stem anarchy in Africa. the Balkans, the new states of the former Soviet

mmasum_iu@yahoo.com
Union, and elsewhere." In 1992, for example, out of 30 conflicts across the world as many as 29
were military actions taking place inside states. One can refer to such examples to show that
more military actions are being taken recourse to inside states rather than outside and among
them. The ethnic conflict in erstwhile Yugoslavia (conflict between Serbs and Croats, and
between Serbs and Bosnians), insurgency within Afghanistan, the conflict in Iraq regardiag
Kurds, chaotic conditions inside Somalia, the conflict in Sri Lanka, Mohajir Quami Movement
(MQM) related conflict in Palustan and terrorist activities in northern Indian States of
Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab, are some of the ongoing military or paramilitary actions within
nation-states. In the post-cold war conflicts, 90 per cent of casualties have been of civilians, not
of the soldiers. Thus, neo-realism stresses the struggle for power not only between states but also
intra-state struggles in an 'anarchic' world.

It will not be out of place here to mention that at a socio-political level, domestic
determination of foreign policy options was not an important consideration with the realists who
preferred states to remain confined to diplomatic, military and strategic sources of power. (See
the box below). The post-cold war realists believe that peace was made possible in the world
during the cold war period (1945-89) owing to stable bipolarity, balance of terror and a belief
that nuclear war could be suicidal. With the end of the cold war, the realists hope for lasting
peace to result out of the rules of conduct (for international relations) to be enforced by the
United States which has virtual mondpoly of powers. Realism today recognises the role of the
United Nations, Internatiphal Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation yet they are still
considered to be subordinate to the wishes of the powerful states. The realists do net want
proliferation of nuclear weapons so that monopoly of the American power is maintained in that
sector. Thus, realists (and neo-realists) still believe in promotion of national interest as expressed
through State power. Despite international organisations, reg'rqes and non-state actors, power
continues to dominate international relations, the realists still maintain. It may be of interest to
students to note that Realism and Neorealistic approaches are mostly confined to,$ studies in
USA and Europe. Bbth stress on state power systems and inter-state relations. An important
difference between the two is, however, one of degree and focus.

Neorealism (which appeals more widely in USA and Europe) in IR differs from Realism
by virtue of its lesser concern with the diplomatic, military and strategic sources which maintain
or disturb the balance of power and more pre-occupation with the political and economic
concerns which need to be addressed for a sustainable international system. Most of the neo-
realists therefore have been students of international political economy. IR studies began
focussing on the developing countries after neo-realistic approach came to vogue. They are
moreconcerned with issues of dependence and development as against the state-centered
approaches espousing the cause of "hegemonic stability" (that is to say, uneven distribution of
power with one or a few states holding superior power to ensure stability in the world). As
behaviouralists like Prof. James Rosenau often complained, concerned Third World students of
IR often tend to be attracted to "dependency theory" (see below). This perspective posits that the
Third World has been historically exploited by rich nations of the developed West.

Modern/Behavioural/Scientific Approaches of International Politics____________________

mmasum_iu@yahoo.com
Behavioural approaches to study of IR are often claimed by their western adherents to be
scientific because they are based on quantitative calculations. They made us nlore aware of the
complex nature of conflicts and provided many valuable insights into decision r making. The
ultimate objective of the behaviouralist scholars is to develop a general theory of international
relations. The traditional approach was rooted largely in Political Science and drew heavily from
Law, History and Philosophy. With the help of the behavioural approach, a discipline of
international relations is at last beginning to emerge which is devoted to behavioural studies in
IR. There are several theories which may be lumped together under scientific/behavioural
approach. Some like Systems Theory are more comprehensive than others like Bargaining and
Game Theories. We will in this section briefly deal with only two of these behavioural scientific
theories viz., the System Theory and the Game Theory.

System Theory_________________________________________________________________

A system is defined as a set of elements interacting with each other. Another important feature of
the system is that it has a boundary which separates it from the environment, the latter however,
influences the system in its operations. Generally speaking, a system may be either natural (e.g.
solar system), or mechanical (a car, a clock or a computer), or social (e.g. family). The social
system itself may be related either to "society, or economy, or politics, or international systems."
The general concept of an internationat system, and of international systems, formed the basis of
work for many 'major scholars, Karl W. Deutsch and Raymond Aron being among the most
prominent. As Aron observed, there has never been an international system including the whole
of the planet. But in the post-war period, "for the first time, humanitfr is living.(in) one and the
same history, and there has emerged some kind of global system". It is greatly heterogeneous but
not to an extent that scholars may fail to hold them together in a discipline. As a matter of fact,
Stanley Hoffman's working definition of the discipline was sufficient. "An international system",
according to Hoffman "is a pattern of relations between the basic units of world politics which is
characterized by the scope of the objectives pursued by these units and of the tasks performed
among them, as well as by thg

means used in order to achieve those goals and perform those tasks". (System and Process in
International Politics, 1957).

Among others, Prof. Morton Kaplan is considered the most influential in the systems theorizing
of IR. He presented a number of real and hypothetical models of global political organisation.
His six well known models were (i) balance of power system, (ii) loose bipolar system, (iii) tight
bipolar system, (iv) universal actor system, (v) hierarchical system, and (vi) Unit Veto system.
The first two are historical realities; the rqmaining four are hypothetical models. Although
Kaplan did not say that his six systems were likely to emerge in that order, yet it was expected
that the Super Power being very powerful, non-aligned countries were Likely to lose their status
and become partsxf one or the other power blocs, leading to a tight bipolar world. With the
collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1991, the erstwhile bipolarity phenomenon ended.
Wh~lcth e Uniled States emerged Inore powerful than other countries, many countries like
Germany and Japan a l m e r g e d as major economic powers. Thus, depending upon how one

mmasum_iu@yahoo.com
analyses the emerging global order, it may be characterized as a unipolar or a multipolar world.
The present situation does not however fall strictly within any one of the six-models of Morton
Kaplan which are described briefly below :

1. The Balance of Power System : This system prevailed in Europe during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. In this system some powerful states seek to maintain equilibrium of power
individually or in alliance. Usually there is a 'balancer' - a state which assists anyone who is
likely to become weaker than others so that balance is not disturbed.

2. The Loose Bipolar System : This was the situation during the days of cold war politics.
Despite bipolar division of the global power scene, some countries refused to align with either
block. They hang loose in an otherwisc stratified global order. Examples : Non-aligned countries
(NAM).

3. The Tight Bipolar System : Think of a situation where the international actors like NAM
countries are forced to align with either block, the result is -one of the tight bipolar system.

4. Thk Universal Actor System : In this system, an international organisation or actor

commanding universal allegiance becomes the centre of power. Whether big or small, all states
will accept the superiority of a universal actor like the United Nations. Thus, without giving up
their sovereignty, nation-states will strengthen the United Nations and generally abide by its
decisions. This may eventually pave the way for a world government.

5. The Hierarchical International System : In this system one country will become so powerful
that all other states will be virtually dictated to by that one Supreme Power. This situation may
be described as a 'Unipolar World Model'. The U.N. may still exist, but there will be no true non-
aligned country and even the U.N. will not have enough power.

6. The Unit Veto System : Morton Kaplan's Unit Veto System in international context resembles
the 'state of nature' as defined by Thomas Hobbes. Each state will be the enemy of every other
state, because almost all the countries will possess nuclear weapons. Thus, all the international
actors will be capable of using nuclear weapons against their enemies.

These six models were later supplemented by Kaplan himself by some other models.
Meanwhile, other scholars have also suggested some other models. Thus, Couloumbis and Wolfe
endorse Kaplan's six models, but add three more. These three are

a) multibloc (or interregional) model, b)hhe national-fragmentation (or multipolar) model, and c)
the post-nuclear war mddel.

The multi-bloc model portrays a world divided into five to seven mutually exclusive spheresof
influence. Each of these spheres would be controlled by one major power, thus giving rise to a
multipolar world.

mmasum_iu@yahoo.com
The National Fragmentation Model will be the outcome of political and territorial disintegration.
Ethnic, tribal or racial separatist movements may cause many of the large states to disinteg;ate
into small fragmented units. Examples : the former Soviet Union, former Yugoslavia and former
Czechoslovakia which have split into several : sovereign states.
The Post-Nuclear War Model : is the world after a catastrophic nuclear war. If such a war takes
place, its aftermath would be ghastly. In such a situation, only the most tyrannical regimes would
be able to maintain orderly distribution of food, shelter and medicink. A new order will have to
be found out to overcome such chaotic conditions.

Game Theory__________________________________________________________________
Game theory attempts to provide models for studying world politics, especially in highly
competitive situations when outcomes of the actions are difficult to anticipate. This has led
scholars to create the game theory for a more scientific study of the calculation of probabilities in
an uncertain situation. Game theory was created almost in one shot with the publication of
Theory of Gamcs and Economic Behaviour (Princeton, 1994) by the mathematician John von
Neumann and the economist Oskar Morgenstern. Karl Deutsch and Martin Shubik are among
influential theorists who followed them. Though the economists were the first to adapt it to their
purpose in recent years it has been applied to many other fields with suitable notifications.

In its slmplest version, the game theory is the model of a zero sum game which describes
the situation of conflict/competition in which one party's total loss is exactly equal to the other
adversary's total gain. This explains the name - the sum total of gain and loss is zero. For the
study of IR, game theory model however is a multiparty non-zero-sum game. This is because as
J.K. Zawodny reminds us, "we must recognize that some types of international conflicts today
can be resolved only by s~tuatloilsin which neither side loses and in which sometimes both sides
may win."

As you must have already understood, isolated, coinpletely independent states, are not
affected by what other states do. They however are affected and interact through mutual
dependence for some benefits. States play games to have maximum gains out of such a situation
of inter-dependence. The two most important kinds of game that have been suggested are the
"Chicken Game" and the game of "Prisoner's Dilemma". In the chicken game situation two car
drivers are going in the middle of the road towards each other from the opposite sides. Unless
one of them stops on the side and gives way to the other, there is a possibility of serious accident
which may even result in the death of one or both the drivers. Any one who gives, way to the
other will suffer a loss of reputation but accident will be avoided. Nations often face such a
situation. Generally, none wants to suffer loss of reputation. The underlying idea of chicken
game is that inspite of not being able to know the intention of its opponent, a country's foreign
policy –makers can adopt such a course as would ensure its own interest only if it does not mind
the other country also benefiting from that course of action. A country standing on its prestige
may suffer heavy losses.

mmasum_iu@yahoo.com
 The situation in prisoners dilemma is different. A nation, like a prisoner, often faces
dilemma without having the slightest idea of its opponent's intentions. In this model two persons,
charged with murder, are kept in two cells and they can neither see nor talk to each other. The
prison-in-charge tells both of them separately that if one of them confesses to murder, and the
other does not, the one who confesses will not only be set free but rewarded, and the other
prisoner will be hanged. If none of them confesses, both will be freed but without reward. But if
both of them confess, they both would be given serious punishment. The game suggests that
everyone wants reward or advantage, but may land in serious situation as it does not know the
mind of the other.

mmasum_iu@yahoo.com