In common language we speak of "countries," or "nations," or "states" or, sometimes "nation-states." We generally have roughly the same thing in mind when we use all these words. When we begin to explore the differences between the very large and disparate international community and the much more narrowly defined idea of the international system, however, it becomes clear that there are differences between "nations," "states," and "countries."
For purposes of clarity, it is best to refer to a nation when we mean a group of people that is bound together by a sense of national unity. A state is a legal entity which enjoys or seeks the diplomatic and legal recognition of other states. When we speak of a country we are usually talking about a nation-state, that is a legal entity in the international community which enjoys diplomatic recognition and is bound by a common sense of national unity that is widely shared by its citizenry.
If we get too comfortable with the idea of a nation-state, we may began to think that all governments represent nation-states, that is, they represent a single people bound together by a will to live together, sharing common ethnic, cultural, or linguistic background. There are some nation-states which fit this mold. But not all countries in reality conform to this idea. Many modern states are multinational in composition. India, for example, is made up of many nations, many different cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious groups. Yet such "multinational nation-states" as India continue to function in the international community as though they were nation-states. Moreover, there are many nations that are not represented by a single state. The Baluchi of west Pakistan for instance, do not have a territory over which they exercise sovereignty. In a sense, such peoples or nations might be described as "stateless nations." Kuwait, in contrast, is a state that has no historical nation associated with it; it is a "nationless state."
International relations has traditionally concerned the interaction of nation-states with a limited role played by non-state actors. The big questions of international affairs concerned nation-states. All the important actions or decisions were taken by nation-states. In a strict sense, the term "inter-national relations" did not really refer to relations among nations, it referred to relations among nation-states. Thus, "inter-state relations" may have been a more accurate term to use. When the League of Nations was established it was really a "League of States" since, strictly speaking, all the members were really states, not "nations." When the United Nations was formed in the mid-1940s only states-not nations-were invited to join. Since the UN consisted only of states, a more correct name for the organizations might have been the "United States" but that name was already taken.
Common usage does not strictly observe this technical definition of international relations. In a broad sense, international relations has come to mean all of the interactions in the international community not merely those between and among governments. Consequently we often find it convenient to use the term international relations to comprehend the generic category of all international affairs, including formal and official relations among nation-states, and also including "transnational relations," that is relations among states and non-state actors such as private firms, and relations between nation-states and international organizations.
International organizations are those bodies that serve common or public interests but whose representation derives mainly from nation-states. The World Bank is an example of an international organization. Its authority is based upon the agreement of its signatory states, each of which enjoys national sovereignty. We also refer on occasion to supranational organizations, that is those institutions which exist above the level of the nation-state and whose legitimacy and authority derive from some source other than that of the nation-state. There are no formal supranational organizations with legitimacy and authority in international community today, although historically there have been empires which carried out this function. The world communist movement started out early in the twentieth century as a supranational organization. The goal of the communist movement was to supplant nation states with a world communist organization. The goal of world revolution was relaxed in the 1930s in favor of "communism in one country" and then later abandoned altogether.
