Many of the problems of international relations have been attributed to the malign influence of bad, or misguided individuals, or to relatively small groups of evil, self-interested or deluded groups. This chapter focuses upon the problems faced by individuals, groups and governmental systems, in making effective decisions about international conduct, rather than upon the wider political and societal influences that shape the broad context within which such policy-makers operate. The difficulties confronting the adoption of rational action models has encouraged attention to turn to improvements in the processes of decision-making. Rational decision-making processes appeared to offer one promising path to a better international future. The greatest concern raised by group policy-making, particularly in the area of international relations, is the danger of group-think. Popular proposals for improving decision-making in international affairs and for enhancing the quality of international and inter-society communication all deserve serious consideration.

A diversity of terms has been employed to denote the complex and uncertain world, but the notion of fragmentation captures most of the important points: fragmentation of the power and position of states; fragmentation of any neat, linear paths of future development; and the fragmentation of intellectual approaches to world affairs. Fragmentation can be detected in a wide range of contemporary conditions and intellectual responses. The intellectual response to contemporary developments in world affairs is also fragmentary. A general sense of fragmentation in social, political and world affairs may, itself, be a function of prevailing patterns of political performance. If fragmentation within international relations and the domestic circumstances of established states is a growing trend, then the world is clearly faced with a number of pressing problems and/or exciting possibilities. Viewing international relations through the lens of fragmentation in a period of growing globalisation reveals different and conflicting realities.

The selective review of some of the major approaches to international relations, past and present, has been intended to introduce students to some of the central ideas with which the subject has been studied during the twentieth century and some of the ideas that will concern students in the twenty-first. Globalisation embraces many of the developments in the economic, technical, social and cultural arenas that underlie much of the contemporary dynamic. Increasing regionalisation offers one possible pattern of response to contemporary pressures and developments, particularly for beleaguered governments seeking to restore some measure of control over an apparently runaway world economy. Intellectual fragmentation has also marked the turn of the century/millennium. There is nothing new about such an intellectual kaleidoscope. Ideas and approaches tend to clarify and simplify at times of serious and pressing problems in the real world.

In terms of the international relations theory, the modern state and the system to which it gave rise, began in 1648, following the Treaty of Westphalia. This treaty had brought to an end the Thirty Years War, the great war of religion in Europe. The concept of the state, however, often has a somewhat indiscriminate implication. In practice, it has always been clear that not all states are equal in power and influence. Societies that display undue levels of aggressiveness also create problems for those who would reduce the incidence of international conflict and place international relations on a permanently peaceful footing. The advocates of democratisation accept many of the critiques of democratic peace theory and do not assume that greater political democracy is a panacea for the world's problems. The push for democratisation has thus become one of those global forces impinging on both state and society.

The current picture of regionalisation is complex and its future path unclear. Two facets of regionalisation are prominent: political regionalisation and economic regionalisation. South East Asia has exhibited tendencies towards regionalisation: under both economic and political influences. Economically, South East and East Asia has been an area of spectacular economic growth and development during the 1980s and 1990s. Advancing globalisation also creates pressures for regionalisation. Globalisation creates new problems for effective governance. The primary forces for more regionalisation may not, however, be located exclusively in the world outside each region. The creation of any region within the world system may require many of the same processes that marked the formation of many modern nation states. Fragmentation within the world system might have a political and/or an economic complexion. Indeed, the pattern of fragmentation might differ, initially at least, in the political and economic domains.

The idea of globalisation offers a sharp contrast to the 'traditional' realist, and other state focused views of international relations or the notion that the structure of the international political system is the overwhelmingly dominant factor in world affairs. Some of the best evidence for the strong globalisation thesis is provided by the current level of global financial integration and the institutional arrangements which underlie that integration. Advocates of the globalisation perspective also emphasise the role of transnational corporations. Such corporations are defined by their ownership and control of subsidiaries in more than one country. Many of the sources and consequences of globalisation might fuse together to challenge effective public governance, in general, and the capabilities of state-level governments, in particular. Global financial integration has clearly reduced the degree to which state governments are the masters of their own financial fates.

Some leading academics in the field of international politics, such as Kenneth Waltz, have argued that the analysis of the nature and structure of the international system is central to an effective study of international relations, arguing that the structure of the system is a key factor in determining how the system operates as a whole and, consequently, how individual states behave within it. The sources of the international system, and its characteristic structures, remain largely exogenous within Kenneth Waltz's Neo-Realism. The international system grew in size dramatically with the de-colonisation of most West European empires. However, the bi-polar structure seemed to prevent cooperation on all but the most minimal of levels within the global community. The analytical and practical problems posed by the notion of the international system and the central concept of the balance of power are intertwined, as are the possible paths to their solution.