International Relations: How Countries Work Together and Resolve Conflicts - Part 1

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, did you wonder why some countries sent weapons while others remained neutral? Why didn't NATO immediately intervene militarily? How could the United Nations seem so powerless to stop the aggression? These questions highlight the complex web of international relations that shapes global events far more than most citizens realize. Understanding how countries interact—through diplomacy, trade, alliances, and sometimes conflict—helps make sense of a world that often seems chaotic and unpredictable. International relations encompass the formal and informal ways nations engage with each other, from trade agreements that determine product prices to military alliances that prevent wars. This invisible architecture of treaties, organizations, and diplomatic norms affects daily life in countless ways: the price of gasoline, the availability of products, immigration possibilities, and even whether your country faces war or peace. Yet most citizens remain largely unaware of how this system works, leaving them confused by international events and unable to evaluate their government's foreign policy choices. This chapter demystifies international relations, explaining how countries cooperate and compete in an anarchic world lacking supreme authority. From the United Nations to trade agreements, from diplomatic immunity to international law, you'll learn how the international system functions—and often doesn't. Whether you're concerned about global conflicts, economic relationships, or wondering why international cooperation proves so difficult, understanding these mechanisms empowers more informed citizenship in an interconnected world. ### How Countries Interact Through Different Systems and Organizations The international system operates through multiple overlapping mechanisms that facilitate cooperation while managing competition. Unlike domestic politics with clear governmental authority, international relations occur in anarchy—not chaos, but the absence of supreme power above sovereign states. This fundamental difference shapes how countries interact. The United Nations represents the most comprehensive attempt at global governance. Founded in 1945 after World War II's devastation, the UN includes virtually all countries as members. The General Assembly provides a forum where each nation gets one vote, creating a space for diplomatic engagement. However, real power concentrates in the Security Council, where five permanent members—United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, and France—hold veto power over substantive decisions. This structure reflects post-WWII power realities but creates modern frustrations. Any permanent member can block action, as Russia does regarding Ukraine or the US does regarding Israel. The UN can authorize peacekeeping missions, economic sanctions, and even military intervention, but only with great power agreement. When they disagree, the UN often appears paralyzed. Yet it provides invaluable forums for dialogue, coordinates humanitarian assistance, and establishes international norms even when enforcement remains weak. Regional organizations offer more focused cooperation among geographic neighbors or countries sharing interests. The European Union represents the most integrated example, with 27 members sharing economic policies, regulations, and for many, a common currency. EU citizens can live and work freely across borders. Common institutions make binding decisions. This deep integration emerged from determination to prevent another European war by making conflict economically impossible and politically unthinkable. Other regional bodies pursue different integration levels. The African Union promotes continental cooperation while respecting sovereignty. ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) emphasizes consensus and non-interference. The Organization of American States addresses hemispheric issues. The Arab League coordinates positions among Arab nations. These organizations provide regional dispute resolution, economic coordination, and collective representation in global forums. Military alliances create security commitments among nations. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) exemplifies collective defense—an attack on one is an attack on all. This Article 5 commitment deterred Soviet aggression during the Cold War and was invoked only once, after 9/11. NATO's expansion eastward after communism's collapse remains controversial, with Russia viewing it as threatening encirclement while Eastern Europeans see essential protection. Other alliances serve different purposes. The Five Eyes intelligence alliance (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) shares signals intelligence globally. The Quad (US, Japan, India, Australia) coordinates Indo-Pacific strategy countering China. Defense treaties between the US and Japan, South Korea, and others extend American security guarantees. These alliances shape global power balances and constraint calculations. International economic institutions facilitate trade and development. The World Trade Organization (WTO) establishes trading rules and adjudicates disputes, though its dispute resolution mechanism currently faces paralysis due to US blocking of judge appointments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) provides emergency lending to countries facing balance of payments crises, often with controversial conditions requiring economic reforms. The World Bank funds development projects in poorer nations. These Bretton Woods institutions, created in 1944, embedded liberal economic assumptions about free trade and market economies. Critics argue they impose Western models inappropriately and benefit wealthy nations. Supporters credit them with facilitating unprecedented global prosperity. Emerging economies increasingly create alternatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, challenging Western-dominated institutions. Treaties and international law provide frameworks for cooperation. Bilateral treaties between two countries address specific issues—trade, taxation, extradition. Multilateral treaties involve multiple nations on common concerns—climate change, nuclear weapons, human rights. Some treaties create institutions; others simply establish rules. Treaty negotiation involves complex diplomacy balancing different interests and sovereignty concerns. International law differs fundamentally from domestic law—no world police enforce violations. Countries follow international law from combinations of self-interest, reputation concerns, and reciprocity expectations. When violations occur, responses range from diplomatic protests to economic sanctions to military action. The International Court of Justice adjudicates disputes between states, but only if both consent to jurisdiction. Diplomatic relations enable day-to-day international interaction. Embassies provide official communication channels and protect citizens abroad. Diplomatic immunity prevents host countries from arresting diplomats, enabling frank communication even between adversaries. Professional foreign services develop expertise and relationships crucial for managing international relations. Summit meetings between leaders attract attention but often ratify previously negotiated agreements. Modern technology transforms diplomatic practice. Leaders communicate directly via phone or social media, bypassing traditional channels. Cyber operations blur lines between espionage, sabotage, and warfare. Global media scrutinizes diplomatic activities instantly. These changes accelerate decision-making while potentially undermining careful deliberation diplomacy traditionally required. Track II diplomacy involves unofficial exchanges between non-governmental actors—academics, business leaders, former officials. These informal channels can explore possibilities when official relations remain frozen. Cultural exchanges, educational programs, and people-to-people connections build understanding that facilitates official cooperation. Public diplomacy attempts to influence foreign populations directly. Economic interdependence creates both cooperation incentives and vulnerability. Global supply chains mean disruptions anywhere affect everywhere. Financial markets operate continuously across borders. Multinational corporations navigate multiple jurisdictions. This integration generates prosperity but also transmission mechanisms for crises. Countries balance efficiency gains from specialization against security concerns about dependence. Despite multiple cooperation mechanisms, international relations remain fundamentally competitive. Countries pursue national interests that often conflict. Power disparities shape outcomes more than abstract principles. Geography, resources, and military capabilities create unchangeable advantages. Yet even powerful nations benefit from predictable rules and functioning institutions. The challenge involves managing competition within frameworks preventing destructive conflict. ### Real-World Examples of International Cooperation and Conflict Examining specific cases reveals how international relations theory meets messy reality. These examples demonstrate both cooperation's potential and its limits when core interests clash or power disparities overwhelm institutional constraints. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 nearly triggered nuclear war, demonstrating both conflict risks and diplomatic resolution possibilities. The Soviet Union's secret placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba responded to US missiles in Turkey and the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. When U-2 spy planes discovered the missiles, President Kennedy faced choices ranging from invasion to blockade to diplomacy. The "quarantine" (avoiding the legally problematic term "blockade") combined coercion with negotiation room. Tense negotiations through multiple channels—official communications, secret back-channels, and informal contacts—eventually produced compromise. The Soviets removed missiles from Cuba while the US secretly agreed to remove missiles from Turkey and pledged not to invade Cuba. Both leaders faced domestic criticism for "weakness" but avoided catastrophe. The crisis led to the Moscow-Washington hotline and nuclear arms control efforts, showing how near-disasters can motivate cooperation frameworks. The European integration project demonstrates unprecedented peaceful cooperation. From the 1951 Coal and Steel Community involving six nations to today's 27-member European Union, former enemies created supranational institutions. France and Germany, who fought three wars in 70 years, became partners driving integration. Common markets led to common policies, shared currency, and coordinated foreign policy. This didn't happen smoothly. The UK joined late then left through Brexit. The Euro crisis nearly shattered monetary union. Migration disputes divide members. Yet the EU survived these challenges, providing members prosperity and security impossible individually. Small countries gain collective weight. Common regulations create the world's largest single market. Peaceful expansion replaced military conquest as the continent's organizing principle. The Iran nuclear negotiations illustrate complex multilateral diplomacy. Concerns about Iran's nuclear program led to escalating sanctions and military threats. The P5+1 (Security Council permanent members plus Germany) negotiated with Iran for years. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) traded sanctions relief for nuclear program restrictions with intrusive inspections. The deal demonstrated diplomacy's potential—preventing both Iranian nuclear weapons and military conflict. Yet it also showed agreements' fragility. US withdrawal in 2018 under Trump despite Iranian compliance highlighted how domestic politics can override international commitments. Iran gradually resumed nuclear activities. Biden's efforts to revive the agreement face mutual distrust and changed circumstances. The case reveals both diplomacy's achievements and limitations. China's rise challenges existing international order while demonstrating engagement benefits. After Mao's isolation, Deng Xiaoping's reforms integrated China into global institutions. WTO membership in 2001 accelerated economic growth through trade. China became the world's factory while lifting hundreds of millions from poverty. This integration seemed to validate liberal assumptions about economic engagement promoting political liberalization. Yet China's model challenged Western expectations. Economic growth strengthened authoritarian governance rather than undermining it. China benefits from international institutions while selectively rejecting inconvenient rules. The Belt and Road Initiative creates China-centered networks. Military modernization challenges US Pacific dominance. Technology competition blurs economic and security concerns. Managing China's rise within or alongside existing institutions defines current international relations. Climate change negotiations reveal cooperation challenges on global commons problems. The atmosphere belongs to no one, so everyone has incentives to free-ride on others' emission reductions. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol excluded developing countries and lacked US participation. The 2015 Paris Agreement included all countries but relied on voluntary commitments without enforcement. Despite limitations, climate cooperation progresses. Renewable energy costs plummeted through international collaboration. Countries, cities, and companies make commitments beyond requirements. Youth movements create political pressure. Yet emissions continue rising. The gap between necessary action and political feasibility demonstrates international cooperation's limits when addressing long-term collective challenges against immediate economic interests. Humanitarian interventions test sovereignty versus human rights. The Rwandan genocide's 800,000 deaths in 1994 occurred despite warning signs because no country saw strategic interests justifying intervention costs. The UN peacekeepers present couldn't act under restrictive mandates. "Never again" proved hollow when tested. Later interventions showed different problems. NATO's 1999 Kosovo bombing campaign stopped ethnic cleansing but lacked UN authorization due to Russian opposition. The 2011 Libya intervention had UN approval but regime change exceeded the civilian protection mandate, making Russia and China resist future humanitarian interventions. Syria's civil war saw massive atrocities without effective intervention due to Russian protection and intervention fatigue. These cases reveal the unresolved tension between sovereignty and humanitarian imperatives. Global financial crisis management demonstrates both cooperation and competition. The 2008 crisis originating in US subprime mortgages spread globally through financial integration. Initial responses were national, but G20 coordination prevented competitive devaluations and protectionism that worsened the 1930s Depression. Central banks coordinated unprecedented monetary expansion. IMF resources expanded to assist struggling countries. Yet underlying problems remain unresolved. Financial regulations differ across jurisdictions. "Too big to fail" banks grew larger. Inequality increased despite recovery. COVID-19 responses showed similar patterns—initial nationalism (hoarding vaccines and medical supplies) followed by partial coordination. Rich countries recovered faster, increasing global disparities. These crises reveal cooperation occurs but remains limited by national interests and power disparities. Terrorism and transnational crime require international cooperation by nature. The 9/11 attacks prompted unprecedented intelligence sharing, financial tracking, and law enforcement cooperation. Yet this cooperation faces limits—sovereignty concerns, human rights conflicts, and differing threat perceptions. Edward Snowden's revelations about NSA surveillance damaged trust between allies. Counter-terrorism sometimes provides cover for repressing dissent. The COVID-19 pandemic tested international cooperation catastrophically initially. Despite previous pandemic planning, countries hoarded supplies, closed borders unilaterally, and competed for vaccines. The World Health Organization faced criticism from all sides—too deferential to China for some, too intrusive for others. Wealthy countries secured vaccine supplies while poor countries waited. Eventually, limited vaccine sharing occurred, but the initial response revealed nationalism trumping cooperation when facing immediate threats. These examples show patterns. Cooperation occurs when interests align or institutions facilitate mutual benefit. Shared threats can motivate collaboration but also nationalist responses. Power disparities shape outcomes regardless of institutional rules. Domestic politics often override international commitments. Trust, once broken, rebuilds slowly. Yet despite limitations, international cooperation enables addressing challenges impossible to solve alone. ### Common Misconceptions About International Relations Widespread misunderstandings about how countries interact lead to unrealistic expectations and poor policy choices. These misconceptions arise from oversimplified media coverage, nationalistic education, and the genuine complexity of international affairs. The most damaging myth treats international relations as simple morality plays with good and evil countries. Reality involves nations pursuing interests that sometimes align with broader values but often don't. Democratic allies support dictatorships when strategically useful. Authoritarian regimes sometimes promote humanitarian causes. Countries rarely act from pure altruism or malice but from complex interest calculations including security, economics, and domestic politics. Many believe the United Nations can or should solve all international problems. This misunderstands the UN's fundamental nature—it's a forum for sovereign states, not a world government. The UN has only powers member states grant and can act only when major powers agree or abstain. Blaming the UN for inaction ignores that it reflects member state divisions. When interests align, the UN facilitates cooperation. When they don't, it provides dialogue forums but can't impose solutions. The "international law will prevail" misconception ignores enforcement realities. Unlike domestic law with police and courts, international law depends on voluntary compliance and power relationships. Countries follow international law when beneficial or when violation costs exceed benefits. Powerful states violate law more easily than weak ones. International Court decisions get ignored regularly. This doesn't make international law meaningless—it shapes behavior and provides legitimacy frameworks—but it's not self-enforcing. People often assume military power translates directly into influence. While military capability matters crucially, its utility has limits. The US military dominance didn't prevent 9/11, win hearts and minds in Iraq, or compel Iranian nuclear compliance. Nuclear weapons provide ultimate security but little daily influence. Economic power, diplomatic skill, and cultural attraction often achieve more than military threats. Understanding different power types and their applications prevents overreliance on force. The "sovereignty is absolute" myth misses how interdependence constrains all countries. Even powerful nations can't ignore international markets, supply chains, or environmental spillovers. Small countries pool sovereignty in organizations like the EU to gain collective influence. Trade agreements, military alliances, and international institutions all involve sovereignty compromises for broader benefits. Absolute sovereignty is theoretical; practical sovereignty involves managing interdependence. Many believe diplomacy means