The curriculum of a Bachelor of Arts in International Relations program typically introduces aspects of foreign policy, methods of negotiation, diplomacy and economics, at times specifically related to a particular geographic area. Some classes focus on the importance of international relations to certain professions.
Students who complete this program will be able to:
- Demonstrate a working knowledge of several subfields of the international relations discipline.
- Demonstrate strong research skills.
- Critically analyze international events and issues.
- Apply theories of international relations.
- Demonstrate effective written communication skills.
Any applicant who meets the minimum entry requirements for admission into the University may be granted admission, the requirements are :
- An A’ Level Certificate (a Degree, HND or PGD) with 2:2, Lower credit, or Pass respectively and above.
- Transcript of the A’Level result.
- Copy of International Passport data page.
- A copy of CV.
To register for any of the available courses take the following steps
- Click on courses on the menu bar or apply now button to pick a course
- After selecting the course, click apply now to add to cart
- View the cart to fill the application form
- Submit the form to go to the payment page
- Complete the payment form and select method of payment and submit.
- You will receive an email letting you know of your registration and your application status
- You will be contacted by one of our admission team member to guide you on the admission.
- After making the payment of application fee admission letter will be sent to your email with fee structure.
- You will need to make payment of at least 70% of the tuition and acceptance fee for you to be granted access to the course applied for.
- After making the payment an email will be sent to your email with access link to your registered course.
- You study online and can come to school every semester for exams.
Tuition per Session
Tuition Fee = ₦480,000
Application = ₦10,ooo
Acceptance = ₦ 20,000
Course kit =₦30,000
Administrative Charges = ₦60,000
Project supervision = ₦20,000
Convocation = ₦40,000
Total = ₦690,000
International Law and Institutions
Charter of the UnIted natIons and statUte of the InternatIonal CoUrt of JUstICe
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our life- time has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims. Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
DIplomatIC anD Consular relatIons
The States Parties to the present Convention, Recalling that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognized the status of diplomatic agents, Having in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations, Believing that an international convention on diplomatic intercourse, privileges and immunities would contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems, Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States, Affirming that the rules of customary international law should continue to govern questions not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present Convention, Have agreed as follows:
For the purpose of the present Convention, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereunder assigned to them: (a) the “head of the mission” is the person charged by the sending State with the duty of acting in that capacity; (b) the “members of the mission” are the head of the mission and the members of the staff of the mission; (c) the “members of the staff of the mission” are the members of the diplomatic staff, of the administrative and technical staff and of the service staff of the mission; (d) the “members of the diplomatic staff” are the members of the staff of the mission having diplomatic rank; (e) a “diplomatic agent” is the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission; (f) the “members of the administrative and technical staff” are the members of the staff of the mission employed in the administrative and technical service of the mission; (g) the “members of the service staff” are the members of the staff of the mission in the domestic service of the mission; (h) a “private servant” is a person who is in the domestic service of a member of the mission and who is not an employee of the sending State; (i) the “premises of the mission” are the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission.
International Political Economy
Contemporary Theories of International Political Economy
In the previous chapter, we learned about three of the most important foundational schools of thought, or theoretical perspectives, in IPE. These foundational theories, as we have seen, are still relevant today, and still inform the thinking of scholars and nonscholars alike. In fact, those of you reading this book likely subscribe to one or the other of the foundational theories—at least in part—because the ideas from those theories have become so deeply embedded in our world. There are, however, a number of relatively new, or contemporary, theories about which any student of IPE needs to be aware (“relatively new,” in this case, means that they have been around for the past three or four decades—still a long time, but recall that Marxism, the youngest of the foundational theories, dates back to 1867, while liberalism dates back to the late 1700s).
Demystifying the Complex World of International Political Economy
There are many books on international political economy, or IPE for short. Not surprisingly, each contains its own assumptions and views about the key concepts, issues, and concerns of IPE. Sometimes the authors of these various books hold the same assumptions and share the same, or at least very similar, views about how the world works.
Sometimes they don’t. In fact, as we will see in a few of the chapters that follow, the perspectives of the people who write and think about IPE are often dramatically, if not fundamentally, different. You may already have an inkling that mainstream economists and radical economists (e.g., Marxists) do not agree on many central issues and concepts. But even among those who seem to share basic ideas, there can be sharp disagreements. Within the broad school of neoclassical economics, for example, there is an intense and still-unresolved debate between those who believe that markets must be left alone and those who believe that government intervention in markets is sometimes necessary.
Foundational Theories of IPE: An Unconventional Introduction to Mercantilism, Liberalism, and Marxism
The Three Major Perspectives of IPE: Still Going Strong?
IPE, as we have already seen, is a contentious field. This does not mean, however, that there is a complete lack of agreement among IPE scholars. In fact, for a long time,
research in IPE has been broadly divided into three major schools, or perspectives, which we
can classify as mercantilist, liberal, and Marxist. Each of these perspectives has been around for a long time. Mercantilism is the oldest of the three, dating back as early as the 16th century (perhaps even earlier). As a coherent politico-economic theory, however, many scholars point to Friedrich List (1789–1846) as the intellectual father of mercantilist thought. The National System of Political Economy (first published in 1841) is List’s best-known work on the subject. List, it is important to note, mounted his defense ofmercantilism as a response to classical economics and, more specifically, to the writings of
Adam Smith (1723–1790), whose An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (or more simply, Wealth of Nations), published in 1776, quickly became one of the basic treatises of the liberal perspective. Marxism, then, is the youngest of the three. Karl Marx published his most famous work, Das Capital, in 1867 (later, his colleague Friedrich Engels used Marx’s notes to publish two additional volumes, in 1885 and 1894). Marx, too, wrote Das Capital partly as a critique of classical economics, but also as a larger
examination of the social and historical forces that shape human society.
It must be recorded at the very outset that with the end of world war II in 1945, the vision and the global perspectives ensconced in the temporal nature of history created and crafted the role of International relations (Ir) worldwide as never before in the history of mankind. apart from the evolution of modern diplomacy, there arose the issue of implementation of the efforts to synergise not only the relationship of cooperation amongst the nation-states but also to enhance the process of bridging the gap between the realm of ideas and the domain of public policy-making to safeguard the integrity and the core values of all the nation- states. This paper is restricted to theories of Ir. Ultimately, readers will be the judges in determining their relevance to the real world and happenings as they are occurring now e.g. Crimea and Ukraine. There is a need for an exposure to the larger dimensions of Ir. Unfortunately, across cultures and in the international arena, every diplomat thinks that he knows all about the world and that his memories, based on his service experience, are good enough to be perpetuated.
1945 to 1990
The Cold War Before dealing with the 21st century, it is essential to see the transformation of the world during the last half of the 20th century. The international system between 1939 and 1990 underwent specific transformations. Between 1939 and 1945, the strategic consideration during world war II,42 was to win the war. Technology reigned supreme to produce maximum destructive power, culminating in the production of the biggest weapon in the form of the atomic bomb. The United states led the alliance system and demonstrated the political will to use the atomic bomb with the conviction that it would bring the war to an end with the surrender of Japan. while the war ended, it also ushered in a classical unipolar world in which the United states maintained a complete monopoly over nuclear weapons. Hence, the first paradigm shift that occurred as World War II ended was the emergence of the United states from amongst the allies as a single, true superpower, with monopoly over the possession of the nuclear weapon. The second paradigm shift took place with the former soviet Union having produced its own atomic bomb to usher in the concept and reality of a bipolar world. Thus, the international system between 1945 and 1950 underwent two paradigm shifts having a deep impact on international relations globally.
Development of International Relations
The history of Ir based on sovereign states, can be traced back to the Peace of westphalia of 1648, which began the development of the modern state system. Between 1500 and 1789, one witnesses the rise of independent sovereign states and the institutionalisation of diplomacy and armies. The French revolution added to this the idea that neither the princes nor an oligarchy but the citizens of the state, defined as the nation, should be defined as sovereign. Hence, the state in which the nation is sovereign would be termed as a nation-state as opposed to a monarchy or a religious state. The term republic increasingly became its synonym. an alternative model of the nation-state was developed in reaction to the French republican concept by the Germans and others, who, instead of giving the citizenry sovereignty, retained the princes and nobility, but defined nation-statehood in ethnic-linguistic terms, establishing the rarely, if ever, fulfilled ideal that all people speaking one language should belong to one state only. The same claim to sovereignty was made for both forms of nation-state. (It is worth noting that in Europe today, few states conform to either definition of nationstate: many continue to have royal sovereigns, and hardly any are ethnically homogeneous.) The particular european system supposing the sovereign equality of states was exported to the americas, africa, and asia via colonialism and the “standards of civilisation”. The contemporary international system was finally established through decolonisation during the Cold War. However, this is somewhat oversimplified. while the nation-state system is considered “modern”, many states have not incorporated the system and are termed “pre-modern”. Further, a handful of states have moved beyond insistence on full sovereignty, and can be considered “post-modern”. The ability of contemporary Ir discourse to explain the relations of these different types of states is disputed.
Theories of International Relations
Frameworks of analysis The study of international relations began as a theoretical discipline. Two of the foundational texts in the field, E. H. Carr’s, The Twenty Years’ Crisis (first published in 1939) and Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations (first published in 1948) were works of theory in three central respects. Each developed a broad framework of analysis which distilled the essence of international politics from disparate events; each sought to provide future analysts with the theoretical tools for understanding general patterns underlying seemingly unique episodes; and each reflected on the forms of political action which were most appropriate in a realm in which the struggle for power was pre-eminent. Both thinkers were motivated by the desire to correct what they saw as deep misunderstandings about the nature of international politics lying at the heart of the liberal project – among them the belief that the struggle for power could be tamed by international law and the idea that the pursuit of self interest could be replaced by the shared objective of promoting security for all. Not that Morgenthau and Carr thought the international political system was condemned for all time to revolve around the relentless struggle for power and security.
During the 1980s two debates structured International Relations scholarship, particularly within the American mainstream. The first was between neorealists and neo-liberals, both of which sought to apply the logic of rationalist economic theory to international relations, but reached radically different conclusions about the potential for international cooperation. The second was between rationalists and critical theorists, the latter challenging the epistemological, methodological, ontological and normative assumptions of neo-realism and neo-liberalism, and the former accusing critical theorists of having little of any substance to say about ‘real-world’ international relations. Since the end of the Cold War, these axes of debate have been displaced by two new debates: between rationalists and constructivists, and between constructivists and critical theorists. The catalyst for this shift was the rise of a new constructivist approach to international theory, an approach that challenged the rationalism and positivism of neo-realism and neoliberalism while simultaneously pushing critical theorists away from metatheoretical critique to the empirical analysis of world politics.
If there is anything that holds together the disparate group of scholars who subscribe to ‘critical theory’ it is the idea that the study of international relations should be oriented by an emancipatory politics. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent ‘war on terrorism’ showed, among other things, that unnecessary human suffering remains a central fact of international life. It would be easy, and perhaps understandable, to overestimate the novelty or significance of September 11 for world order. After all, the world’s greatest power was dealt a devastating blow in its national capital, Washington, and its greatest city, New York. In attacking the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre, the perpetrators were attacking two icons of America’s global power projection: its military and financial centres. For critical theory, any assessment of the degree to which September 11 changed world order will depend on the extent to which various forms of domination are removed and peace, freedom, justice and equality are promoted.