DEFINITIONS
Both words in the title of this book have been a source of puzzlement for the student of international relations. It is worth examining them more closely before turning to the realities they represent when joined together. The term international, thought to be the creation of Jeremy Bentham, is often seen as a misnomer. Instead, it is claimed, the term ‘interstate’ or ‘intergovernmental’ should be used when describing an activity – war, diplomacy, relations of any kind – conducted between two sovereign states and their governmental representatives. Thus talk of an ‘international agreement’ between state A and state B to limit arms production or to control the selling of computer technology refers not to an understanding between the armament manufacturers of A and B or to a pact between their computer firms, but to an arrangement by state A’s governmental representatives with those of state B.
This state and government-oriented view of the word ‘international’ has been increasingly challenged over the past four decades. It is no longer used synonymously with ‘intergovernmental’ to mean ‘interstate’ or relations between the official representatives of sovereign states. Instead the term has come to include activities between individuals and groups in one state and individuals and groups in another state, as well as intergovernmental relations. The first types of relationships – those not involving activities between governments only – are known as transna tional relations. Connections between one branch of government in one state (say a defence ministry) and a branch of government in another country (its defence ministry or its secret service, for example), which do not go through the normal foreign policy-making channels, are called transgovernmental. All these relationships – intergovernmental, transnational and transgovernmental – are now usually included under the heading ‘international’.
