Domestic politics and international politics

Today we are going to see the differences between domestic politics and international politics, but also the way they are interconnected.

I’m going to address the main differences between domestic politics and international politics. If you still don’t know what domestic politics is, I recommend you to read this article.

So, today I want to focus on international politics to explain what it is, but also how domestic and international politics interact. In this way, I’m going to introduce some ideas that confront dominant assumptions in international relations theory. Let’s get started.

Domestic politics takes place inside the political community, that is, in a specific geographical area. It shapes the structure of this community and determines who makes binding decisions, how to regulate social relations, and so on. However, the sphere of international politics is entirely different because it takes place outside the political community. Its field is where relations with other political communities take place.

Politics works in a very different way in this realm, because there is no superior authority, such as a world government, to regulate states. As a result, anarchy is the main feature of the political stage in the international sphere. Each State adopts commitments with other countries and, by doing this, they establish their own rules. But nobody can enforce them. States observe by themselves their agreements, so, at any moment, they can stop complying with them. This situation turns out when a state thinks the commitment isn’t convenient for its national interest anymore.

Yes, and here we have the cornerstone of international politics — the national interest.

But leave it for later. For now, it’s more important to understand the main difference between domestic and international politics.

So, in domestic politics, citizens can, in theory, rely on law enforcement agencies to protect their persons and property. Let me give you an example.

When two citizens have a dispute, they can appeal to the courts to render a verdict and, more importantly, the law enforcement agencies to execute the court’s ruling. But the absence of any superior authority above states capable of establishing laws, deciding how these apply in specific cases, and compelling the states to honor the court’s ruling, explains the international scene. On this level of analysis, international politics works differently because a State only can achieve a satisfactory outcome by using its power to impose its will on another State. It happens when the issue at stake is critical, and it puts in risk the national interest.

Generally speaking, international politics constitutes an autonomous realm, because its nature is the interactions between States. And these interactions are shaped by the existence of an international power structure based on national capabilities. And the main characteristic of these interactions is the pursuit of national interest. This feature is evident in an anarchic global environment because every State distrusts each other. For this reason, politics results in a power struggle to ensure national security

For this reason, realist authors established a radical distinction between domestic and international politics. Both fields work in a very different way. There is a clear order in the domestic realm, due to the existence of a central authority in charge of law enforcement, and of keeping social peace. Nevertheless, in the international sphere, there is no central authority above states, and every State has the sovereign right to develop its foreign relations as it pleases.

However, from this distinction comes another assumption, which is the absence of any interconnection between both realms. Constitutional principles inform the legal system and arrange the domestic field. Yet, international politics follows the national interest. These two concepts keep these realms separated. But just in theory, because facts are a different matter. That’s why I’m going to talk about interconnections.

In my opinion, this topic about the interrelation between domestic and international politics is fascinating because we have just a few articles on this matter. Besides, there is no clear explanation of this topic, but some descriptions. Not many scholars in international relations or political science have studied this subject. Now I’m going to mention the main approaches and portray their core ideas. Afterward, I’ll give my explanation.

The main interest of the most common approaches is to look for an explanation of State behavior in the international realm. An example of this is neorealism, especially Kenneth Waltz. However, those works that tried to explain how international relations influence domestic politics are a handful of articles or chapters.

One of the first scholars who studied this interrelation was James Rosenau. He analyzed the overlap between domestic and foreign affairs. But this is not an explanation by itself, just a description of reality. After Rosenau, other scholars wrote some articles on this matter. Most of them focus on the behavioral aspect of this interconnection. They tried to explain how domestic politics affect international affairs in terms of behavior, or the other way round, how international relations influence domestic politics. The latter approach is, as we said before, very unusual.

None of these scholars reached a clear conclusion. They usually gather information from other academics’ texts and made observations about some facts related to this issue. One example of this is Peter Gourevitch, who compiled the bibliography available. He studied two different approaches, the international economic system point of view, and those authors who stress political-military rivalry. In the first group, there are different theories, such as the late industrialization standpoint associated with Gerschenkron, the world-system theory of Wallerstein, the liberal model, the transnational relation-modernization approach of Nye, Keohane, and Morse, the neomercantilism of Gilpin, and the state-centered Marxist approach of Schurmann. They all analyze the influence of the international economic system on domestic politics in different ways. However, their analysis focus on the impact on the national political economy.

Besides this perspective, Gourevitch went into the point of view that emphasizes the international geopolitical competition. He discussed those arguments which stress the role of war. Hintze and Anderson are an example of this because they focused on the organizational requirements of providing security. Also, we find the realist theory and its reflections on the nature of foreign relations. These approaches have a complement in the diplomatic history with territorial compensations, but also the analysis of revolutions with the strains of foreign involvement. However, the study of these points of view is shallow, and Gourevitch didn’t analyze them in-depth.

Another scholar who addressed this topic is Robert Putnam. In an article, he explained the relation between diplomacy and domestic politics. The analysis he set forth is interesting because it illustrates a specific case. He spelled out how the inner conditions of different States interacted with external conditions and made possible an agreement in fiscal policy in the 1970s between the most powerful economies at that time. In this particular case, key governments adopted policies different from those that they would have pursued in the absence of international negotiations. The agreement was possible thanks to a powerful minority within each government who favored it in the domestic sphere. So, external conditions influenced domestic politics up to the point of implementing new public policies.

Michael Desch also wrote an article in which he described the relationship between international security competition and the strength of States. He related internal cohesion and the increase of the scope of States with war, and the reduction of security competition with weak States. His point of view reflects the time of the end of the Cold War. For this reason, Desch speculated about the disintegration of some States and the end of the growth of others after the Cold War.

Nevertheless, Desch pointed out that there was little theoretical research in the field. So, there weren’t studies on how security issues affect domestic politics. Today, the situation is still similar.

Now I’m going to share my point of view on this.

The connections between domestic and international politics go in both directions. They are not separate realms. There are shreds of evidence of this. For instance, the rejection of the USA to adhere to the League of Nations shows how domestic politics can shape the international stage.

On the other hand, we see how the Great War caused the removal of autocracy in Russia.

At this point, we may wonder which of these realms is dominant. There are different opinions. While classic realists argue the type of State affects its behavior in foreign affairs, and neorealists claim the opposite, there is a third path. Instead of considering this topic in behavioral terms, we should take a different perspective in the same vein of authors I have mentioned, such as Hintze.

Robert Putnam said, “Domestic politics and international relations are often somehow entangled, but our theories have not yet sorted out the puzzling tangle. It is fruitless to debate whether domestic politics determine international relations or the reverse”. He was right when he referred to the absence of theories, but the effort to find out how this interconnection works is not fruitless at all.

Here I recall two authors. One of them is the German historian Leopold Ranke, who referred to the “der Primat der Aussenpolitik.” It means the supremacy of foreign policy to understand the State structure, and therefore, the way international relations shape domestic politics.

The other author is David Lake, who said: “…The State derives its interests from and advocates policies consistent with the international system at all times and under all circumstances.” It may sound a cutting remark, but it’s still an interesting outlook.

As I see it, the birth and development of the modern State took place in a context of competition, and this circumstance made the search for security its main driven force. International hostilities and rivalries meant a powerful stimulus, and it had its effect on domestic politics. The need for security boosted inner changes to adjust internal conditions to match the external challenges. But, how has this relation worked in history up to our current days?. That is what we’ll see in the next video. Subscribe if you don’t want to miss it.

Question of the day

Question of the day! What do you think is the dominant factor in politics, the domestic or the international realm?. Post your opinion in the comments section, and I’ll read it.

Bibliography used:

Putnam, Robert, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Levels Game” in International Organization 42 (3), 1988, pp. 427-460

Desch, Michael C., “War and Strong States, Peace and Weak States?” in International Organization 50 (2), 1996, pp. 237-268

Gourevitch, Peter, “The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics” in International Organiation 32 (4), 1978, pp. 881-912

Waltz, Kenneth N., Man, the State, and War

Rosenau, James, “Toward the Study of National-International Linkages” in Rosenau, James (ed.), Linkage Politics: Essays on the Convergence of National and International Systems 

Rosenau, James, “Theorizing Across Systems: Linkage Politics Revisited” in Wilkenfield, Jonathan (ed.), Conflict Behavior and Linkage Politics