International politics and domestic politics

How does international politics affect domestic politics? Let’s see it.

Introduction

Today, I want to speak to you about the role of international politics in domestic politics. Most people disregard this topic, but it has more importance than they think. So, on this occasion, I’m going to discuss how international and domestic politics are intertwined. Besides, I’m interested in showing how relevant international politics is in the domestic realm. I know I’m going to question some dominant assumptions in international relations theory. Still, I believe it is necessary to provide a systematic and comprehensive approach to this matter. To develop this discussion, I need to start by making some preliminary clarifications about what international and domestic politics are. Afterward, I’m going to analyze how world affairs influence on domestic politics.

The differences between international and domestic politics

What makes the fundamental difference between international and domestic politics? The territorial principle is the answer. Indeed, territoriality is the bedrock of modern politics because it involved the separation of these two realms, namely, the internal and external spheres. The Peace of Westphalia is considered a tipping point in legal terms because it represents the birth of the modern State system. Nevertheless, territoriality was already present in European politics before 1648. When States become a territorial and sovereign institution, they delimited their authority to a specific geographical area. In this way, they started to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in this territory. From then on, they didn’t recognize any superior authority.  As a result, there are two different realms in politics that we call international and domestic politics.

Besides, these two domains involve different rules. So, they don’t work in the same way. For instance, domestic politics constitutes the internal sphere of the State. It takes place in a specific geographical area. In this domain is where the structure of the polity takes shape. Domestic politics determines who makes binding decisions, how to regulate social relations, and so on. That shows us how politics works in this realm. It contrasts with international politics because it takes place in the global sphere, where world affairs develop. This domain is outside the polity and constitutes a specific and autonomous realm beyond its borders in which international relations occur.

What are the main characteristics of the international realm? Aside from what I’ve already mentioned, I have to stress its anarchic organization because there is no superior authority above States. Therefore, there is no world government regulating relations between nations. That’s the main feature of this domain, and it is very indicative of how politics works here.  In this respect, international politics has to do with power relations between States in the world stage.  

Due to the absence of a world government, each State adopts commitments with other countries and, in this way, they establish their rules. Nevertheless, nobody can enforce them. States observe by themselves their agreements, so, at any moment, they can stop complying with them. This situation happens when a State thinks the commitment isn’t convenient for its national interest anymore. Thus, relations between States usually tend to articulate according to their capacities, namely, the power they have on the global stage. Not always, but very often, these relations are based on the use of force or the threat of using it.

All of these contrasts with the domestic sphere, in which citizens can, in theory, rely on law enforcement agencies to protect their persons and property. In this domain, people can turn to a central authority to solve their disputes. There are courts to render a verdict and, more importantly, the law enforcement agencies to execute the court’s ruling. That shows us how different these two realms are. In the international sphere, things go different. The State only can achieve a satisfactory outcome by using its power to impose its will on another State. That also includes its bargaining power. Not all is brute force.

Hence, the nature of international politics is the interactions between the States. And these interactions are shaped by the existence of an international power structure based on national capabilities. The main feature of these interactions is the pursuit of national interest. That is the fundamental motivation of any State in global affairs, and it provides international politics with rationality. In an anarchic environment, rivalries dominate mutual relations between States, and they distrust each other. For this reason, politics results in a power struggle to ensure national security.

Although realist authors stressed the radical distinction between domestic and international politics, they are wrong in considering them watertight compartments. They are right when they argue that these domains work following different rules, but that doesn’t entail they are not interconnected.

The existence of a central authority in charge of law enforcement and of keeping social peace shows us the nature of the domestic domain. There is a regulatory institution that controls social relations. However, the international sphere lacks this central authority, and every State has the sovereign right to develop its foreign affairs as it pleases. In sum, they both follow different rules, but as I said, that doesn’t mean they are detached from one another.

Approaches to the influence of international politics in domestic politics

The interrelation between international and domestic politics is still an unknown field. That makes this matter appealing because only a few articles have dealt with it. Furthermore, we don’t have a clear explanation of this interaction, only some descriptions. The truth is that a few scholars addressed this topic, and for this reason, I want to mention the most relevant approaches to set out their main ideas. Afterward, I’ll give my explanation.

Among the most relevant contributions, we find those made from neorealism. In this case, the attention focuses on State behavior in the global sphere. However, they consider the State in abstract terms and don’t go into the interconnections between the internal and external domains. They pay attention to the role of the world power structure and its effects on the States’ foreign policies.

One of the first scholars who studied the interrelation between these domains was James Rosenau. He analyzed the overlap between domestic and foreign affairs. But this is not an explanation by itself, only 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 as neorealists do but from a different perspective. 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 I said before, very unusual.

None of these scholars drew a clear conclusion from their researches. They usually gather information from other academics’ texts and make observations about some facts related to this issue. An exciting example of this is Peter Gourevitch, who compiled the bibliography available. His research is insightful because it sets out the different existing approaches on this matter. They are the international economic system point of view and those authors who stress political-military rivalry. In the first group, we find several 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 analyses focus on the impact on the national political economy.

Although these perspectives represent a remarkable contribution to the understanding of this matter, I find much more interesting the point of view that stresses the international geopolitical rivalries. In this regard, Gourevitch addressed those authors that focused their attention on the role of war. Otto Hintze and Anderson are an example of this because they emphasized the organizational requirements of providing security. Besides this perspective, we have 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, Gourevitch only set forth these points of view and didn’t analyze them in-depth, so his contribution is shallow.

Robert Putnam is another scholar who addressed this topic. In this respect, he wrote a paper that explained the relationship between diplomacy and domestic politics. Putnam based his contribution on a real case. He spelled out how the inner conditions of different States interacted with external conditions and made an agreement possible 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. This agreement was possible because a powerful minority within each government favored it in the domestic sphere. That illustrates how external conditions influenced domestic politics and boost the implementation of new public policies.

Michael Desch also wrote a paper that 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. We can’t overlook the fact that his point of view reflects the time of the end of the Cold War. That explains why Desch speculated about the disintegration of some States and the end of the growth of others after the Cold War. Despite this, he pointed out that there was little theoretical research in the field. So, there weren’t studies on how security issues affect domestic politics. The situation hasn’t experienced substantial improvements since then in this respect.

The influence of international politics on domestic politics

The interrelation between domestic and international politics works in both directions. As I claimed before, they are not separate realms, although they follow different rules. There are shreds of evidence of this. For instance, the USA’s rejection 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. That poses a relevant question about 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.

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 how 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.

The context of competition in the early modern age facilitated the formation of the modern State considered as a territorial and sovereign entity. This circumstance did the search for security its main driven force for its following development. 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.

In this way, international events on the global stage have forced changes in societies and became a social, historical, political, economic, and even technological development factor. Every State has reacted in a different way to similar stimuli because external forces operated throughout internal conditions, and they required different responses. However, the geopolitical rivalries have worked similarly in general terms, and explain the social and political change in modern times.

Question of the day

Question of the day! How much does international politics influence your daily life? Post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.

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