It was after the end of the First World War in 1919 that the University of Wales founded the first chair of International relations. It shows that an interest in the study of international relations as an inde­pendent discipline began before the twenties of the twentieth century.

But it would be interesting to note that the first two occupants of the chair were eminent historians—Prof. Alfred Zimmern and C.K. Webster. It is, therefore, apparent that the tendency to identify international relations with diplomatic history and also with international law was dominant.

There is no denying the fact that diplomatic history is an integral part of international relations but the interest of a student of international re­lations is not the same as that of a historian.

The student of international relations has interest in the present and in the future rather than in the past only. The relevance of interest in the past comes into the picture only in so far as it serves the interests of the present and future.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The past is to serve only as a guide. The interest in the present and in the future is the starting point of the development of international relations as an independent discipline.

Case for International Relations as an Autonomous Dis­cipline:

In order, therefore, to find out whether international relations is an autonomous discipline (subject), the meaning of the word ‘discipline’ should first be clear. This term has three different meanings.

Webster defines it is “What is taught to pupils”. This definition means that inter­national relations should be taught as a discipline. Another definition implies discipline as a “branch of instruction.”

It means that whenever and wherever International relations is offered as a separate branch of instruction, it acquires the status of an independent discipline. A third definition, on the contrary, means a delimited body of subject-matter. It means that there should be a distinct method of investigation and a settled set of theoretical problems.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

It was on the basis of this definition that Robert Loring Allen declared categorically that international relations cannot be accepted as an independent branch of study. But the plea taken by R.L. Allen does not hold good.

If this definition of discipline is taken as a guideline, the other areas of social sciences can also not be regarded as independent disciplines. History, Economics, Political Science, Socio­logy etc. would lose their independent status.

Quincy Wright believes that international relations (politics) is discipline. The root disciplines of international relations, according to him, are international law, diplomatic history, military science, international politics, international organization, international trade, colonial Government and the conduct of foreign relations, Wright holds that the discipline of international relations has grown and is growing.

This has been due to the efforts made to synthesise various other disciplines like world history, world geography, pacifism, the psychology and sociology of international relations etc.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

It is, therefore, that the trend during the last 30 years has been favour of according the status of independent discipline to international Relations. There have been many who disagree also but the supporters have the upper hand.

The UNESCO accepted in 1954 international relations as a ‘distinct discipline’ when it published a book edited b W.A.W. Meaning, dealing with the teaching of international relation in educational institutions in different countries like Egypt, France, U.K. U.S.A., India etc.

Manning gives three arguments for the study of international relations as an autonomous subject. Firstly, there is international relation, complex the social universe which gives rise to various current events their day-to-day intercourse.

This phenomenon of ‘international relation complex ‘stresses the need for independent study. Secondly, the study o international-relational complex dominates and exhibits a ‘universalist angle’ and this vision can be studied only when independent status is accorded to this discipline. Thirdly, the universalistic angle covers problems of world-wide range. This world-wide range can be visualised only if we try ,to find out solution of the world of today.

Case Against International Relations as an Autonomous Discipline:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Before we proceed with our analysis to determine whether international relations is an independent discipline, we must be clear about its meaning.

According to Fuller, “Any phenomenon characterised as a separate discipline must have a body of a data systematised by dis­tinctive analytical method and capable of permitting prediction with exactitude.”

Keeping this definition in view, we find that international relations lacks on all these levels. According to Palmer and Perkins, “It lacks clear cut conceptual framework and systematic body of appli­cable theory; and it is highly dependent upon other better organised disciplines.”

Mortan Kaplan is the leading dissenter. He argues that international relation does not qualify itself to becoming an independent discipline. A discipline, according to him, implies a set of skills and techniques, a body of theory and hypothesis, and a subject matter.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In case of inter­national relations there is only one qualification which entitles it to become an independent discipline and that is of subject-matter. The other two are lacking.

Even the qualification of subject-matter is of a doubtful nature because international transactions fall under the juris­diction (area) of many other recognised disciplines.

Economics deals with international trade, while psychology deals with international tensions and so on. Kaplan, therefore, holds that he “knows of no convincing dis­cussion that a specifically international relations discipline exists.” He, however, agrees to recognize international relations as a sub-discipline of Political Science.

George Kennan considers international relations an integral part of Politics. He does not at all favour its separation from Political Science. He argues that international relations fall within the purview of regular life and as such there is no such things as foreign affairs in the abstract.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Moreover, international relations is not a science and should, therefore, continue to remain a part of humanities.

It is Fruitless Controversy. According to Frederick Dunn, “Subject-matter of international relations consists of whatever knowledge from any source, may be of assistance in meeting new international pro­blems of understanding old ones”.

It implies that the study of inter­national relations should include general knowledge about the behaviour of political groups as well as individual. This also covers the current events and the questions of policy.

According to Dunn, therefore, the study of international relations is the understanding of human behaviour in a particular social setting. He attaches little importance as to whether international politics should be regarded as an autonomous subject or not.

His view falls between the two extremes and he considers the discussion about this matter as a fruitless effort.

Conclusion:

There is no denying the fact that international relations is not a fully developed discipline at present. But it can also not be denied that it has the potentialities of becoming an independent discipline.

This will happen when emphasis is laid on the attempt to develop a theory about the behaviour of States similar to other social sciences which attempt to explain and categories other social phenomena; The events are heading towards the formulation of this subject as an independent entity.

The time is not far-off when international relations will rank among the world- recognised social sciences and will be read as an autonomous subject.