It is a known fact that the formation of government is essential to run ‘a state and no state can live without maintaining interstate relations which have become so essential in these days.To that end every government has to formulate a foreign policy. Like internal and domestic policies-industrial policy, agricultural policy, defense policy, education policy, labor policy etc.-a state gives special attention to the careful . formulation and successful execution of its foreign policy; A successful foreign policy enhances a nation’s power and prestige in the comity of nations. Foreign policy gains also increase a government’s credibility in the eyes of public internally as ‘well as externally. Herein lies the importance of foreign policy. It has become one of the most important core fields of international relations.now we discus Determinants of Foreign Policy .
DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF FOREIGN POLICY
Foreign policy, according to Hartmann, “is a systematic statement of deliberately selected national interests.”1 Foreign policy connotes a greater degree of rational procedure, and a type of planning involved in a step-by-step progress to a known and defined goal.2 It is a relatively rational answer to prevailing external conditions. Though there are certain constraints, national and international, to any such well though out planning, yet an endeavor is invariably made, and will continue to be made.
Padelford and Lincoln observe that through foreign policy, every state decides “what course it will pursue in world affairs within the limits of its strength and the realities of the external environment.”3 It, therefore, gives a sense of direction to a state. It suggests adequate means for the easy journey to this , direction. It creates a sense of purpose as well as a confidence to achieve that purpose. It becomes so indispensable that no state can operate at international level without it. Foreign ‘ policy may be defined both in narrow and broad sense. Narrow definitions emphasize the action aspect of foreign policy. In . this sense, according to Schleicher, it refers to ”the actions (including words) of government officials to influence human behavior beyond the jurisdiction of their own state.”4 Therefore, foreign policy mainly implies a course of action. Padelford and Lincoln remark, ”Foreign policy is the key element in the ‘ process by which a state translates its broadly conceived goals and interests into concrete courses of action to attain those ‘ objectives and preserve its interests.”5
In the broad sense, it includes according to Schleicher, ”the objectives, plans, and actions taken by a state relative to its external relationship.”6 As every state has various objectives -political, economic, military, ideological or cultural-it has technically many policies. That is why, it has been suggested that one should speak of foreign policies rather than a foreign policy. But foreign policy and foreign policies have totally . different meanings. As Lercheand Said clarify : ”Probably the best way to avoid confusion is to keep in mind that foreign policy (singular) is usually phrased in terms of goals, whereas policies (plural) draw their relevance from objectives.”7 Thus a broad definition of foreign policy contains three elements goals or objectives, policy plans and actual actions undertaken by a state to regulate its external relations.
In the words of Rodee, ”Foreign policy involves the formulation and implementation of a group of principles which shape the behavior pattern of a state while negotiating with other states to protect or further its vital interests.”8 Modelski ‘ defines foreign policy as ”the system of activities evolved by communities for changing the behaviour of other states and for adjusting their own activities to the international environment. ”9 But Mahendra Kumarg treats Modebm definition as partially correct. According to him. foreign policy should regulate and not only change the behavior of other states. Therefore, he modifies Modelski’s definition of foreign policy ”to include within its range all activities of a state to regulate the behavior of other states, either through change or status quo, in order to ensure the maximum service of its interest.”10
He further defines foreign policy “as a thought out course of action for achieving objectives in foreign relations as dictated by the ideology of national interest.” Felik Gross introduced another addition by holding that even a decision to have no relations with a state is also a foreign policy or, in other words, not to have definite foreign policy is also a foreign policy.12 In this way, foreign policy has both positive and negative dimensions. It is positive when it aims at adjusting the behavior of other states by changing it and negative when it endeavors for such an adjustment by not altering that behavior.
In sum, every state decides its own course of action in international relations in the light of its means and ends. Then it conducts its foreign relations and behaves at international level and regulates the behaviour and action of other states according to that action plan. This is what a nation’ 5 foreign . policy means.
Components of Foreign Policy
According to Lerche and Said, normally foreign policy includes three elements. These are:
(1). formulation of the objective in the most precise terms possible;
(2). the nature of ‘ the action to be undertaken, stated with sufficient clarity to guide and direct the state’s other officials; and
(3). the forms and perhaps the amounts of national power to be applied in pursuit of the objective.13
Mahendra Kumar describes four components:
(a). policy makers,
(b). interest and objectives
(c).principles of foreign policy, and
(d). means of foreign policy. 14 According to Jangam, foreign ” policy is the policy of a nation towards other nations and generally it involves four factors:
(1) principles underlying foreign policy ,
(2) problems faced by the nation,
(3) the particular way of making policy including the role of foreign policy makers; and
(4) the products or results of foreign policy.15
The . above description renders the concept of foreign policy more clear.
Objectives of Foreign Policy
Interest can be explained as the aims passed on to the policy makers by me community. It may also be defined as the general and continuing ends for the attainment of which a nation conducts its foreign relations. It includes such matters as security against aggression, development of higher standards of living, and the maintenance of conditions of national and international Stability. Foreign policy is inconceivable without national interest. At the same time it must be clarified that national interest does not exclude the significance of international obligation, especially in the present-day world.
On the other hand, objectives are the product of national interest. “They are” , in the words of Mahendra Kumar, “interests spelled out and :made more precise in the light of the present-day complexity of international relations.16 He further clarifies that all interests of a nation will not be regarded as objectives unless they are strongly loved by’ the political community and the same is prepared to make some sacrifice or take some risk for their realization. In this way, objectives ‘ are of a more specific nature than interests. 17
Common objectives of the foreign policy of all nations are:
(l). maintaining the integrity of the state,
(2). promoting economic interest,
(3). providing for national security,
(4). protecting national prestige and developing national power, and
(5). maintaining world order. These can be supplemented by specific objectives according to the peculiar problems and conditions of the particular country. Pr-requisites of Foreign Policy Study of foreign policy necessitates that the following factors must be borne in mind.
1 .Foreign policy has many constituents, most important of which are defence, diplomatic and economic interests. These Constituents though singly salient, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.They often coexist and strongly influence each other.
2. Foreign policy is made in the name of a state, but it is the ” government which really formulates and executes it. The government is not an inanimate body. It is a synthesis of organizations and individuals having their organizational and personal interests which are not necessarily similar.
3. Foreign policy never operates in vacuum rather it is conditional by an environment, both domestic and external. The domestic environment consists of political parties, pressure groups, rival bureaucratic organizations, public opinion, political culture etc. The external environment comprises among other subsystemic actorsneighbouring states and others belonging to the region, super powers and international organizations, especially the UN, World Bank, IMF and regional organizations like 0. A. S. and SAARC.
4. In government it is some indioiduals around Whom foreign policy making revolves. It may be the President or Prime Minister or the King of a state and his foreign minister, advisers and subordinates. Mostly the Head of the Government ( e. g. the Prime Minister in India and the President in USA) plays the prominent role in this regard.
5. Foreign policy always involves both decision and action, with decision perhaps the more important element. Attion on behalf of an objective can result from policy only it the decision _ itself indicates clearly what the policy maker had in mind both as to objective and procedure.
6. Foreign policy embraces both important and less important matters. The routine matters are dealt with at lower levels whereas important things are sent to higher levels for disposal. There is a linkage between the degree of the importance of the subject and the level of authority where it is disposed of.
7. Cost-risk factor in foreign policy has also its significance A policy decision requires the commitment of resources, the assumption of a risk or both. One must keep in mind that, in foreign policy as in life, everything has its price. The most complex problem in policy formulation is the decision about how much effort should be made in pursuit of an objective in view of competing claims of other goals and the resource crunches.
8. Foreign policy has to be examined from actual behavior pattern of states rather than exclusively from declared objectives or policy plans.
INSTRUMENTS OF FOREIGN POLICY
The instruments of foreign policy may be said to be those ‘ institutions or devices through which the national power or ‘ resources are used for the accomplishment of the interests and objectives. These are as follows :
Good diplomats-ambassadors, envoys, -ministers etc-and through their art of diplomacy can put country’s viewpoint effectively before the world and fulfil ‘ foreign policy objectives by means of mutual negotiations and . thus spare their country from resorting to coercive methods. Diplomacy reduces the area of disagreement and misunderstanding with other states. It is instrumental in reaching out agreements, treaties and pacts with other nations. It plays its role both during war and peace.
2. Publicity and Propaganda.
These can be used steadily to combat and break down the undesirable attitudes and opinions ‘ and to create the desired attitudes and opinions. Propaganda can be used, as it was used by Hitler and later on by super powers during Cold War, for the systematic falsification of true propositions or positions and the establishment of suitable ones. India’s factually strong case on Kashmir has been distorted by a systematic and ceaseless propaganda by Pakistan, so much so that quite some people in the world may wonder as to what, after all, the facts of the case are. Publicity through radio, television magazines and other literature is also used as an instrument of foreign policy.
Thus these three factors-diplomacy, publicity and propaganda-are employed by a nation for building up its public relations, for removing undesirable or discreditable . factors like embarrassment, misunderstanding, suspicion, fear, etc. between itself and other nations, and for projecting a favorable and acceptable image to other nations. These also help in increasing the power and prestige of a nation.
3. Balance of Power.
This method is used for avoiding imbalance of power and strengthening the position of given nations. For example, Britain employed the principle of balance. of power for a long time in the European power politics in order to maintain the status quo and prevent any particular power from being too strong.
4. Collective Security.
The principle of collective security is adopted to secure collective defense as threateningly‘posed or actually mobilised against a powerful nation or nations. Balance of power and collective security are extremely useful M as instruments for smaller nations which have a limited capacity to defend themselves.
5. International Law and Organizations.
These are also used by nations whenever possible for advancing the objectives of their foreign policy. During the post-War (1) period, Britain and France used the League of Nations to maintain status quo which was in their favour. Now we see that a number of third World countries are using the platform of the United Nations for some of the basic goals of their foreign policies-anti-colonialism, anti-racialism, disarmament and so on. ’
6. Economic and non-political methods.
Various economic methods are also adopted by various nations to achieve their foreign policy objectives and also to harm the interest of Opponents. Economic organizations are formed for this purpose e.g. E.E.C., E.C.M., COMECON, [Ml-I Economic methods have already been discussed in detail in the previous chapter on “National Interest’. Sometimes nations also exploit religious, cultural and ethnic affinity to fulfill foreign policy objectives tag. the use of islam by many muslim countries.
7. War and Peace.
The institutions of war and peace are a kind of ultimate answer to the problems of a nation’s foreign policy. Of the two, peace comes on the heels of war, generally ‘ inaugurating a basic change in the foreign policies of nations concerned. But war is generally a devastating answer to the problems of a nation’s foreign policy. When objectives bf foreign policy cannot be achieved through other means, nations resort to war as an end argument.
Determinants of Foreign Policy
Foreign policy of states is determined by a number of factors. These important determinants having bearing on foreign policy can be broadly classified into three categories: (i) general or objective, (ii) specific or subjective or internal, and (iii) external factors. The general and objective factors determine the framework in which policy choices are to be made and operated. These are the factors which are common to all the countries in determining their foreign policy. While the specific and subjective factors vary from country to country in accordance with their internal conditions and needs.
These specific factors determine the specific response of leadership to a particular situation, and therefore indicate the direction of a foreign policy: There are some external factors also that influence a country’s foreign policy. All these factors are of great significance, and they clearly indicate that foreign policy can . never be satisfactorily explained by any simple determinant. These are explained in detail as follows:
General and Objective Determinants
These are of four types that play role in determining the foreign policy of all the states.
1. Sovereignty and Integrity of the Slate.
The first factor that every state keeps in mind while formulating foreign policy is the safeguarding of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is the main responsibility of a state to safeguard the property of citizens and to protect their interests whatsoever they are. This responsibility also involves the concept of security. of national boundaries and if necessary to occupy other alien part of the territory. The states aiming at the protection of their own territory, pursue the policy of status quo. The states endeavoring to subjugate occupied or non-occupied territory may be named as pursuing the expansionist policy. The policy of safeguarding the interest of the citizens inside or outside the state, is known as policy of ’prestige’.
2. Inter-dependence of States.
All the states big or small, rich or poor are dependent on one another for one or the other reasons. This inter-dependence may result in -conflict or cooperation so the states under these stresses attempt to create a situation under which international behaviour may not be broken completely. Foreign policy is formulated in such a way as to maintain a balance with bargaining. For example, India did not recognise Israel for long, to dissuade the Arab countries_from siding with Pakistan in the event of Indo-Pak dispute.
3. Promotion of National Interest.
It is the primary duty of all states to promote and further their national interests through their foreign policies. There may be difference between the interests of one state with that of another as they naturally vary according to time, place, location and circumstances, but the interests as self-preservation, security and well-being of its citizens are the common interests on the basis of which foreign policy is generally made.
4. Internal and External Conditions.
Foreign policy of every state is conditioned by certain internal and external factors. Internal factors include geography, population, economic needs, ideology, history and culture, military capacity, social structure, personalities, public Opinion etc. External factors are global environment, great power structure, alliances, international organizations, world public Opinion, reaction of other states etc. The degree of influence of these factors on the foreign policy may vary from country to country. That is why they ‘ are discussed in detail in subsequent headings.
Specific, Subjective or Internal Determinants
Every state has its own specific interests that require specific decision in foreign policy making. A state may be facing certain problems and difficulties and therefore, has to take several internal factors into consideration while formulating its foreign policy. These internal factors are known as subjective or special factors and may differ from state to state. These particular or specific factors are a under: .
A permanent and stable determinant of foreign policy is geography. It determines the temperature, resources, frontiers and neighbors. The size of the state, topography, shape, location and climate are important components of geography. A size large enough to support a population sufficient to man an adequate military establishment; a climate which is uniform and conducive to physical .vigour, preferably either temperate or tropical highland, a topography offering boundaries with natural defense barrier such as mountains, forests, swamps, rivers, deserts and oceans and a shape which is compact rather than disintegrated or scattered and thus easier to defend, provide part of the necessary power potential allowing a state to pursue an independent foreign g policy. Location is one of the crucial elements in molding the foreign policy outlook. The insular location of the United Kingdom has influenced the general character of the British foreign policy as decisively as the isolated geographic position of the United States in the case of the American foreign policy. Location has created for them a sense of security as the vastness of size has conferred the same sense upon Russia and‘China.
In the context of new technological developments, the importance of geography has suffered a set back. The coming of supersonic jets, inter-continental ballistic missiles and rockets have made the mountains and seas vulnerable. Now within few hours any distance can be covered and heavy bombers can encircle the globe. Possibility of offensive defense against nuclear missiles is remote. A state while formulating its foreign . policy takes a distant country as seriously as it takes a neighboring country. Notwithstanding the above developments, the importance of geography its still intact as the foreign policy of every state continuous to be related to its geography, though partially.
Another guide to foreign policy is the history of the country. From history alone the nation inherits a style and culture which in turn influence the foreign policy making. History is the past record of the doings of a community, of its failures and successes. The past experience, failures and successes guide policy makers to deal with present problems. If a specific policy had proved _to be rewarding in the past, policy-makers would-like to try the same policy for tackling similar situations in future. On the contrary, if a particular policy had proved to be a failure to deal with a situation, the policy-makers would try a different policy under an identical situation in future.
History shapes the current tradition and the self-image of a society, and therefore, the specific national style. The British habit of muddling through, the French concern with security, honour and glory, the German ruthlessness, the Soviet obsession with secrecy, and the American habit to interpret international issues as moral issues, India’s policy of non-alignment and Panchsheel, have definite and specific historical roots. In every case, such a national style and character influenced the making and execution of foreign policy.
it, as a determinant of foreign policy, is relevant both in quantitative and qualitative terms. The political, economic and military phases of a nation’s foreign policy is also moulded by the size, character and distribution 01 its population. It is believed that the greater the number of population, the greater will be its power. Manpower determines the standard of living, values, the way of life and even expectation of a nation. The significance of China and India rests partly on the large size of their pOpulation. Besides the quantity, the quality of population as revealed in its educational level, skilled labour, technical know-how, health and strong national character, is a determinant of foreign policy. The quality of papulation also influences the quality of political system, public administration, leadership and even execution of foreign policy.
4. Natural Resources.
Food, minerals, metal, coal, crude oil,water resources constitute an important element of national power and consequently of foreign policy. Availability of these resources in plenty definitely enhances the importance of a country. For example,the presence of petroleum has significantly strengthen the position of West Asian countries ‘ i in international relations. They have used oil as a tool of their foreign policy. If natural resources are not locally available, 3 they have to be procured through international cooperation. Availability of strategic and crucial raw materials will place a v country in advantageous position in foreign affairs. On the contrary, a country lacking in these resources will follow a weak foreign policy.
5. Economic Factors.
Today, no state in the world can boast of economic self-sufficiency. Even the United States is greatly dependent upon world trade for economic prosperity. This mutual interdependence of the economies also works as a determinant of foreign policy. Economic interdependence leads to international economic activity which is expressed in terms of tariffs, import quotas, trade agreements and other financial arrangements. Sometimes Mal adjustments in international economic relationship create tension in the world which further takes the form of political and military action. States are not equally gifted by nature with natural and economic resources nor they are capable of utilizing available resources. Therefore, nations make their foreign policies in a way so that the supply of war materials may not run short and their trade may have a favorable balance. international economic activity also needs facilities and protection of foreign investment. All these economic factors have bearing ‘on foreign policy.
Usually, a developed nation tends to follow an independent foreign policy whereas a backward nation is inclined to pursue a dependency policy. The latter, owing to its poverty and military weakness, would rely on developed nations for economic development and] or for its protection against a powerful enemy. Such compulsions do not normally perturb strong and developed nations. However, security is a relative term and even the most powerful nation perhaps does not feel fully secure. Many a time developed nations like Britain and France are not able to follow independent foreign policies. They are often required to toe the line of NATO dictated by the United States. Although Japan is an economic power and threatens to overcome the United States in the economic sphere’ in near future yet it is militarily weak and is dependent upon the US for its security vis-a-vis Russia and China. Japan is compelled to follow the dictates of the US 1n the realm of foreign policy. Thus, 111 foreign policy corelationship between development and independence is indefinite and uncertain.
In general, developed states have more active foreign policy than developing states. The former, due to their superior resources, can afford to be more involved in external issues. However, sometimes even developing states, follow active foreign policies to the extent of intervening in other countries, directly or indirectly e.g. Sukarno’s Indonesia, Nasser’s Egypt, Gaddafi’s Libya, Saddam’s Iraq etc.
7. National and Military Capacity.
It includes the military preparedness of a state, its technological advancement and modem means of communication. The economic development and enlightened political institutions are also associated with the national capacity. States with adequate military capacity will have greater initiative and bargaining power in foreign policy matters. Only those states have adopted aggressive postures who feel themselves militarily strong.
National capacity determines as well as executes foreign policy effectively. If the state increases its national capacity, its foreign policy will need a big change. It will strive to attain a position of distinction 111 international relations, if it decreases, the state will have to compromise with its poor status For example, at the, end of the Second World War Britain became a less powerful state. Change in’its national capacity had considerably changed British foreign policy. The change in the US foreign policy after the war was owing to the tremendous rate of economic growth and military success in the war that encouraged it to pursue a policy of involvement instead 0t isolation.
There has been a great debate on whether ideology per se acts as a determinant of foreign policy. Some scholars say that democratic nations believe in peace while dictational regimes believe in war. But reality falsifies this hypothesis. America and Britain, by no means, are less wan prone than Russia and China. At times a leader makes the use of ideology merely to justify his policy or behaviour in familiar terms which is acceptable to his countrymen. But on the other occasions a nation goes to war not for national security but only to compel others to subscribe to its ideology. An objective view on this matter is that ideology alone is not a policy goal‘ This is proved by the fact that nations professing Opposite ideologies live in peace with each other for a number of years‘ However, there is another side of the picture. Foreign policy of the Soviet Union cannot be fully explained if one ignores the ideology of communism. ’ World revolution’ remained one of the chief objectives of the USSR’s foreign policy for many years. Russian expansion after 1945 aimed at establishing of communism as much as her political domination.
However, the role of ideology as a determinant of foreign policy should not be over emphasized. Often ideologies are used simply to obscure the real facts of a situation or real motives of ambitious rulers. Sometimes governments stand for certain ideas only to command popular support at home and preferably abroad also. The foreign policy of India and many other countries despite ideological overtones cannot be explained except in terms of national interests. In short, it can be said that ideologies do not fully determine foreign policy objectives although they influence to some extent their directions.
After 1986, end detente has once again returned and Super Powers like the USA and the USSR came closer. People have again started talking of the ’end of ideology.’ Even ex’ President Gorbachev had stressed the need for de-idealization of international relations.” He is also 0f the opinion that nations with Opposite ideological systems should not merely co-exist peacefully but should move further in the domain of constructive cooperation. Ideological camps or blocks which emerged after the Second World War have almost disappeared now. No country is interested in ideological rigidities. All these recent developments have further lowered the role of ideology in the formulation of foreign policy.
9. Public Opinion .
Specially in democratic countries public opinion cannot be ignored as one of the determinants of foreign policy. It is often vague, volatile, amenable to quick changes and difficult to mobilize. But once on a particular problem public opinion is mobilized and expressed in clear terms, it becomes difficult for the government to overlook it while taking decision on the issue in question. lt was the force of the public Opinion in the United States politics, that compelled the government to order withdrawal of the American forces from the South Vietnam. Likewise, it was also under the pressure of public opinion that Krishna Menon had to resign in 1962 after the Chinese aggression. Thus generally public Opinion acts as a determinant in shaping the foreign policy of a nation.
The attitude of policy and decision makers is also carried weight. Leadership determines the strength and the direction of a foreign policy. The role that a country performs at a particular time, and the foreign policy that will be pursued, are outcome of the qualities of those who are in the position to make decisions. How decision-makers perceive national interest and their image of the external and global environment has much to do with the making of foreign policy as final decision regarding foreign matters lies in their hands. In fact, policy decisions in external matters can never be separated from the psychological traits, the personality or the predisposition of the leaders. They, and not the abstract state or organization take the most crucial decision concerning foreign policy.
11. Domestic Instability.
Sometimes domestic instability also works as a determinant of foreign policy. Quincy Wright, an eminent scholar of international politics as well as war has observed that a ruler prevents sedition by making external war. It is a common saying in India that Pakistan has been continuously following an aggressive and hostile attitude towards India as it has never been able to deal with numerous ‘ internal issues challenging its very legitimacy and existence. Some Pakistani also allege the same thing about New Delhi.‘ Many people suspected that the nuclear explosion of 1974 by India was primarily meant to divert the attention of Indians from domestic. difficulties and enhance the image of. Mrs. Gandhi who was then fishing in troubled water at home.
The opponents of President Nixon criticized that in October 1973 he over emphasized Russian threat in Middle East and resorted to ‘nuclear alert’ because he wanted to escape from the Watergate which was about to dethrone him. Thus it is the insecurity of the ruling elites often projected or taken as domestic instability that moulds the foreign policy on several occasions.
Certain external factors and situations also influence and shape a nation’s foreign policy. These factors are as follows:
1. International Organizations.
These include international law, the U.N.O., and its activities, UNESCO, I.L.O,‘ W.H.O., I.M.F. etc. The nations cannot completely ignore international law, treaties and contracts so that their violations may not put in danger the policies. Almost all countries are also members of the U. N 0. Its decisions and activities effect the foreign policy of many nations. The Communist China for a long time .ignored international organizations and consequently could not secure its due position in the sphere of international relations. In 1971 she became a member of UNO and this fact caused several shifts in China’s foreign policy.
2. World Public Opinion.
World public Opinion provides dynamism to external environment. It is always changing. It is very difficult to know it unless it becomes very clear and organised. Like a flicker of light it influences the foreign policy rarely. The characteristic of consistency is absolutely absent in it. Only if domestic public opinion of many countries combines it becomes an effective world public opinion. Then it also serves as a determinant of foreign policy No country howsoever powerful can go ever challenging world public Opinion
3. Reaction of other States.
The states cannot always neglect the viewpoint of other states while making their foreign policies. Moreover, every state has some friendly nations or allies. Their reaction about a particular policy has to be given special attention States usually never attempt to pursue those interests which are totally Opposed to the fundamental interests of other state it a police ignores the reaction of other states it has little chance to succeed.
4.Other External Factors.
The other external factors that have a bearing upon foreign policy are general world conditions, whether tense or relaxed, cold war like or detente like, war prone or peace oriented. General regional environment, whether surrounded by hostile or friendly neighbors. Special endemic ‘ problems inflicting the region like Palestinian problem in West Asia. Political and economic global problems like arms race, nuclear proliferation, economic depression, economic protectionism, economic inequalities e. g. North-South problem, refugee problem etc. prevailing alliance system and power structure. in the world-bipolar or multi polar also influence foreign policy of various states.
1.FH. Hartmann, The Relations of Nations (New York, 1967) Third Edn… p, 6.
3.NJ. Padelrord and CA. Lincoln, The Dynamics of Intcrnational Politics (New York, 1961) Second cdn., p. .197.
4.GP. Schlezchcr, International Relations (New Delhi, 1963), p130.
6.Supra n. 4, p. 129.
7.Charles 0. Lcrché, Jr. and Abdul A. Said, Concepts of international Politics (New Delhi, 1972) 2nd cdn., pl. 31. 8.Anderson C. Rodeo, Introduction to Political Science (McCraw Hill C0. 1112.. 1957,, 501.
9.George Modelski, A misery of Foreign Policy (London 1962) p 3.
10. Mahendra Kumar, Theoretical Aspects of International Politics (Agra 1972) 2nd Rev. edn., p. 259.
11. Ibid.p 262
12. Felik Cross, Foreign Policy Analysis (New York 1954), pp 47 48.
I3. Supra n. 7, p. 31.
14. Supra n 10, p 262.
15.R.T jangam, An Outline of International Politics (Calcutta 1970)p-47
16. Supra n 10,p 261