Lecture Notes - International Relations

1.27 - What is International Relations? ● Narrow definition: ○ the relationships and interactions among states, nations, and governments ● Broad definition: ○ entire range of actors, structures, processes, and influences that define international politics ● Collective Goods Problem ○ How we get states and other international actors to cooperate and work together for mutual/collective benefit or the common good ■ Utilitarianism ○ Example: ■ Healthy environment and trade require many states working together for long-term goals that work towards the common good ● International Anarchy ○ The absence of a world government or police force to help enforce global order and ensure states cooperate for common good/benefit ● 3 Core Principles of International Relations (offer possible solutions to collective goods problems and cooperation even in the absence of a world government): ○ Power/Dominance ■ Create a power hierarchy where those at the top are able to influence or control the behavior of those below ■ There will always be people at the top of a society ● Positive: can force actors to cooperate for the common good and create order/stability through domination ● Negative: oppression and resentment by those under control can lead to instability and power struggles ○ Reciprocity ■ Rewarding positive behavior that contributes to the collective good and punishing negative or harmful behavior ● Positive: can reward and make incentives for the common good ● Negative: can cause downward trends as each actor reciprocates negative acts of others ○ Identity ■ Redefine actor’s identities as part of a larger shared community and being bound by shared rules and expectations ● Positive: encourage cooperation by prioritising broader group interests vs. pure self interest ● Negative: can lead to demonising those outside the community and increase the potential for conflict ○ Making groups might put those outside looked down Section 1 1.29 - What are State Actors? ● State Actors: the most important actors in IR continue to be the world’s governments, or state actors ○ As a field, IR tends to be most concerned with studying the decisions and actions of states in relation to other states within the international system ● What is a state? ○ A territorial body that possesses a domestic population/ citizenry and economy ○ However, there can be variation in population, size, and economic power (GDP) of different states ● What is sovereignty? ○ A state exercise sovereign control over the territory they own ○ No higher authority than a domestic nation’s own laws ○ Mutual agreements among state that each is accorded equal status and respect, exercises sole jurisdiction over its territory, and should not interfere in the internal affairs of others ● States are always led by governments ○ Executive, legislature, agencies, judiciary, civil service, departments, etc. ○ Great variation in types of government and political systems ■ Democracy v. dictatorship v. monarchy ○ States are almost always represented by an individual leader acting as a representative internally and abroad (i.e. Queen Elizabeth II, Vladimir Putin) ■ Trump serves as both the head of state and government ○ Together - these components make up the state actor in IR ● Non-State Actors ○ States are also heavily influenced by a wide variety of non-state actors ○ Majority are transnational actors with activities and influences that go beyond borders ○ Examples: ■ European Union ■ NATO ■ United Nations ● Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) ○ Private organisations operating within and between states ○ Huge range in operations (25,000+) with just as many agendas ○ Examples: ■ Amnesty International ■ GreenPeace ■ Red Cross ● Multinational Corporations (MNCs) ○ Private companies whose business dealings extend across national borders ○ Increasingly, wealthy, influential and powerful global actors ○ Examples: ■ Disney ■ Apple ■ Amazon ● Other Non-State Transnational Actors ○ Private individuals and groups who work transnationally to influence policy ○ Impact can be both positive and negative ○ Examples: ■ Barack Obama ■ Osama Bin Laden (terrorist groups) ■ Hollywood actors/wealthy individuals ● The International System ○ The “stage” on which states and other actors play ○ Patterns of relationships among global actors and formal/informal norms governing interactions among international actors ○ Modern State System (post 1648) ■ Sovereign territorial nation-states ■ Diplomacy (Embassies/Ambassadors) ■ International Law and Customs ■ UN Membership/UN Charter ● Levels of Analysis ○ A way for IR scholars and practitioners to sort out the complexity of international politics by categorising influences, actors, and politics by categorising influences, actors, and processes into different levels of analysis ○ Basic “lenses” used to focus on different actors and influencers to explain why and how events happen in IR ● Level of Analysis: Individual ○ Explain international events through focus on perceptions, choices, and action of key individuals ○ Emphasize the importance of decision making and individual or group psychology in explanations ○ I.e. World War II without Hitler? ○ I.e. Cuban Missile Crisis without Kennedy and Khrushchev? ■ These events cannot be separated from those individuals ● Levels of Analysis: State ○ Explain international events by looking to influences from within states and societies ○ Different types of government systems? (Democratic v. Non-Democratic) ● Levels of Analysis: Interstate ○ International events can best be understood by looking at the nature/structure of the international system itself and how this drives actions of different actors according to their relative power and rules of the international system ○ I.e. “superpower” or great power interests differ from those of the “middle” or “lesser” powers ● Levels of Analysis: Global ○ Explain international events as the result of broader global forces and trends that are beyond the control of any one state or other actors ○ I.e. global environmental change, globalization, global inequality Section 2 2.3 - Theories in IR ● Why do we need theories in IR ○ Attempt to provide causal explanations behind what drives patterns of conflict and cooperation in international politics ○ Theory is used to both explain and predict events in international politics ● Wide range of different theories, each with distinct causal explanations for patterns or events in world politics ○ Ongoing debate - no single theory is able to explain all of the complexities of IR and each has strengths/weaknesses ○ Core Theories: ■ Realism/Neorealism ■ Liberal/Neoliberalism ■ Social Theories (Constructivism, Marxism, Feminism, etc.) ● Realist Theory ○ Founding theory of IR: emerged following WWII as a critique of perceived idealism in the interwar period after WWI which emphasized human goodness, progress, cooperation, and community ○ Claims to explain the world as it actually is, not how we wish it was ○ Much more pessimistic view of IR as unending conflict and competition vs. peace and cooperation ○ Focus on state actors as the primary unit of analysis in international politics ○ States are unitary actors ○ States are rational and purposive actors who seek to maximise self-interest and goals in IR ○ Cost vs. Benefit ○ Core influence on actions of state actors is international system of anarchy ○ All states operate in self-help system of anarchy, so they’re forced to look after their own self-interests ○ What do state most want/seek to maximise in IR? ■ Power ■ States are motivated by a rational drive for power ○ In Realist theory, with power national security and interest are increased ○ States are forced to seek “relative power” compared to other states to ensure security in a zero-sum environment ○ Pessimism : ■ Zero-sum struggle for relative power forces states into enduring patterns of conflict and competition ■ Can lead to direct aggression to gain power ● I.e. Cold War (direct aggression isn’t always necessary) ■ Also an inevitable “security dilemma” even without direct aggression ■ Zero-sum / self-help system means a state’s attempts to increase relative power necessarily creates insecurity for other states ● How do we know if a state is powerful? ○ State power is determined by measure of relative levels of influence and capabilities ○ Influence: ■ Ability to get actors to do things they would not otherwise do and protect vs. influence or power of other ○ Capabilities ■ Sum of material capabilities held by a state that allow it to protect its own security and project influence around the world ● Material Power Capabilities ○ 1.) Military Capability ■ Size and strength of armed military forces ■ Advanced weapons technologies ■ Training, morale, etc. ○ 2.) Population and Economic Size ■ Overall size and strength of population base ■ Size and power of state’s economy and trading power ■ Very important for fielding a strong military presence and having global influence ○ 3.) Access to Strategic Resources and Geographical Advantages ■ Importance of access to resources required to sustain modern economics and military (oil) ■ Potential natural advantages granted by geographic position in the world (US and UK → separation from warring countries) ● Other end is the Middle East ● Power Politics ○ Relative power of states is considered to be a key determinant driving their interests and interactions with other actors in the international system ○ IR is a game of power politics: ■ Great Powers ● Predominance in both military and economic power and global influence and interests ○ US, UK, China, Russia, Japan, Germany, France, etc. ■ Middle Powers ● Midsized military economic power with more limited global influence (mostly in the Global North) ○ Canada, Italy, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico, Pakistan, etc. ■ Small or Lesser Powers ● Everyone else! Tend to be dominated by the power of others 2.10 Lecture - Realist Theory II ● Superpowers ○ States whose power and influence greatly exceeds all others in the world ■ i.e.) US or USSR ● Central Tenets of Realist Theory ○ States primarily unit of analysis in international politics and are treated as unitary actors ○ States are rational and purposive actors out to maximize self-interest ○ Pessimistic: states interact in international system of anarchy that leads to selfhelp behaviour and unending cycles of conflict and competitions ○ Classical Realism: self-interested drive for power and security is rooted in basic selfish human nature ○ Absent higher authority, prudent statement must assume others are out for themselves and so seek power and security ■ Neorealism - creates insecurity and causes inevitable zero-sum self-help behavior between rational states to act competitively to seek power ○ Why not only realism? ■ Despite drive for conflict, we know that the world doesn’t exist in a constant state of war and that states do frequently cooperate on matters considered vital to national security ● The realist answer: caused by the very same motivations that drive conflict and competition ● A result of states’ rational and self-interested drive for power and security under the self-help system of anarchy ○ Balance of Power: eternal force which governs behaviours of conflict and cooperation between states under a system of anarchy ■ Fear for own security causes states to come together to balance their relative power v. a potentially dominant state or group ■ Driven purely by a state’s rational self-interest for relative power, security, survival, and selfpreservation under anarchy ○ Not static: balance of power is constantly changing or shifting over time ■ Will shift due to internal or external changes ○ In rational self-interest of states to seek relative power equilibrium to keep dominant powers in check for their own security and survival ● Balance of Threat (under Realism) ○ Other realists have argued that balancing may depend more on perceptions of relative threat v. purely objective material power capabilities ○ May help to explain “bandwagoning” behavior and alliances vs. those most threatening to a state’s survival ■ Western Europe siding with the US during the Cold War as it was threatened by the USSR ● Relative Distribution of Power ○ Most important explanation of stability in the international system dependent on relative distribution of power ○ The polarity of the international system at any one given time can determine relative stability/instability ○ Determined by the number of poles of power (powerful states or groups of states present at regional or global levels) ● Relative Distribution of Power (continued) ○ Most dangerous system for war is when distribution of power is unclear, when there are rapid changes to the existing poles of power, or challenges to the dominance of leading powers ■ Rising China v. US? ○ Most stable system is a unipolar one with clearly defined and stable power hierarchy and no close challengers ● What is a Hegemon/Hegemony? ○ Hegemony: unipolar power distribution in which the top state is exponentially more powerful than all competing states ○ System controlled by a global or regional hegemon ○ Hegemon can use power and influence to enforce stability and cooperation and set the rules of the game over all aspects of IR ■ Security, trade, norms, etc. ○ US post Cold War? ● Hegemonic Stability ○ Hegemon can help to mitigate the worst problems of anarchy by serving as a de facto “higher authority” ○ Can help mitigate collective goods problem and enforce stability and cooperation through dominance ○ USA as the World Police ○ But … driven by the hegemon’s self interest … ● Power Politics ○ Strategies or statecraft by which states seek to advance their interests using their relative power to influence other actors ○ Self-help system dictates foreign policy should be guided by rationality and self interest v. idealism or morality ■ Mearsheimer/ Walt ● Deterrence ○ State uses power to threaten punishment to prevent other states from taking action against its own interest ○ Must be a certain and credible threat of action to be effective ○ Nuclear deterrence during Cold War based on Mutually Assured Destruction between the US and USSR ■ Ration cost/benefit analysis ● Compellence ○ Use power to change behaviour that state is already engaged in ■ Naval Blockade in Cuban Missile Crisis ■ Iran Nuclear Deal ○ Rationale for the target state to stop if costs made to outweigh benefits, but risks escalation ● Alliances ○ States cooperate and pool power resources to achieve common aims or protect a population 2.12 Liberal (Liberalism) Theory ● Originally a reaction to the creation of realist theory being too harsh in society ● Tenets of Liberal Theory: ○ Marked by optimism and idealism lasting peace and cooperation are possible and realistic under anarchy ○ Human potential and ingenuity can allow us to work together to escape the past tragedy of unending conflict and competition ○ Potential for positive transformation and forward progress towards lasting peace and cooperation ○ Dynamic process -- but they claim it is trending this way ■ There has been a steady decline in the number of international conflicts (including in-state/domestic issues) around the world have been steadily declining over the past 70 years ■ We manage to live in a world where countries have the ability with nuclear powers to knock the world out, but it has only happened twice (US) ○ Possibility of absolute or mutual gains in IR vs. zero-sum or relative gains assumptions of realist theory ○ What are absolute gains? ■ Lasting peace and cooperation can be the logical and rational outcome when actor’s interests and goals converge ■ Can result in mutual benefit/gain of all involved ○ Central importance of reciprocity to aiding lasting and ongoing cooperation in international relations ○ Repeated interaction between actors over time leads to longer term thinking/calculations of interest cs. Immediate or selfish short-term gains ○ Can build trust and establish patterns of long-term cooperation for even more mutual benefit for all vs. irrational conflict and competition ○ Recognise crucial importance of other actors beyond the state to shaping nature of international politics ○ International institutions/organisations can have independent role in promoting cooperation and stability ○ Challenge “unitary actor” assumption that realists have: liberal theory looks inside the state to the domestic level of analysis and domestic actors to understand global politics ● Immanuel Kant ○ Intellection found of Classical Liberal Theory in IR ○ Wrote Perpetual Peace (1795) ■ Argued even under anarchy it is in ration self-interest of state to avoid destructive war and seek peace & cooperation on issues where they hold a harmony of interest and can achieve mutual benefit ○ Kant’s 3 Paths to Peace 1.) Growing network of trade linkages between states a.) Promotes mutual benefits and well being (wealth) that incentivizes cooperation b.) In state’s self-interest to avoid disrupting trade partnerships via conflict/war 2.) Creation of a peaceful league or federation of states a.) Institutions, rules, organisations can help facilitate mutually beneficial cooperation among states b.) Can help mitigate worst aspects of the collective good problem 3.) The creation of a pacific union of peaceful legislative republics (liberal democracies) a.) Checks and balances of democratic government and citizens vs. war-like leaders b.) Democratic peace among like-minded and restrained states ● Neoliberal Theory ○ Modern scientific version of classical liberal theory building on Kant’s foundation ideas ○ Argue that peace and cooperation will often be the logical and rational choice vs. conflict/competition for self-interested states even under the international system of anarchy ■ Realist presumptions vs. “idealism” ● Interdependence Theory ○ Core theory for neoliberals ■ “Power and Independence” by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye ○ Growing number of transactions between states has led to increased interlinkages and interdependence among states ○ Globalization → increases the number of ongoing interstate transactions (money, goods, service, people, communications, etc.) ○ What is interdependence? ■ Nations are so financially/trade/etc. dependent on one another now ○ Interdependence creates situations where there are strong reciprocal effects (mutual sensitivity or dependence) among states that many make it in self-interest to cooperate and avoid conflict ○ Increased globalization has led to creation of even more “complex interdependence” → now bound together by multiple state/non-state ties ○ Does great independence = greater likelihood of peace? ● Neoliberal Institutionalism ○ Neoliberal theory focused on role international institutions (formal and informal) can play in facilitating cooperation among state actors ○ Rational to create rules, structures, and organizations in which help states to work together to advance long-term self-interest in areas they can’t achieve goals on their own ■ Environment, health, trade, etc. 2.17 LECTURE - CONSTRUCTIVISM ● Exams will cover all lecture material, lecture notes, some questions with discussion readings, walt’s one world many theories question ○ 40 multiple choice questions and some short answers ■ Open book/open note but still only 60 minutes ● Constructivism’s tenants ○ 1.) Ideas ○ International relations is influenced, sharped, and rive by the power of ideas ■ Reject materialist focus of other theories in favour of ideational explanations of actor’s actions and interests ■ International politics is highly subjective as opposed to being simply a material objective fact ○ 2.) identity ■ Keyway ideas drive IR is through identities: self understandings held by an actor about themselves and their relationships with other actors ● Identities shaped through social interaction -- never fixed but can transform over time ● Identities are intersubjective -- only exist as recognized and shared among actors ○ 3.) State Interests ■ State goals and interests are shaped by identities and related ideas (not always the same) ● State’s identity and ideas can define, shape, and constrain their goals, interests, behaviors, and relationships ● If identities are (re)constructed through social interactions, it means they can never take goals, preferences, or interests as “fixed” ○ i.e. ) WWII to the EU in 30 years ○ 4.) International System ■ The international system itself is socially constructed intersubjective, and subject to transformation vs. given ● The meaning and impact of international anarchy is also socially constructed and open to change vs. always zero-sum/self-help conflict ● Positive social interaction and shared identities can lead to peaceful relations, friendship, trust and cooperation ○ Constructivist explanations ■ Constructivists use the theory to try to explain issues or events in IR that remain puzzles under dominant theories of realism/liberalism ■ Highlight international phenomena that only appear explainable by looking to the key role played by ideas and identities ● Zones of Peace ○ Existence of these zones or security communities marked by lasting peace and cooperation where no war longer seems expected or even possible ○ Appear to have escaped the tragedy or vicious circles of anarchy via mutual identity: share self-interest, norms, history of positive interactions ● International Norms ○ Importance of these norms in shaping the behavior, interests, and actions of states and other actors ○ See norms as linked to identity and followed by a logic of appropriateness vs. logic of consequences (e.g. liberalism) ○ Consequences: change cost/benefit ○ Appropriateness: because it’s right or you should based on identities and a state’s ideas ■ Norm Dynamics ● Norms constantly change and become weaker or stronger over time to the extent that they’re internalised and institutionalised by actors 2.24 Lecture → Foreign Policy & Decision Making ● Foreign Policy ○ Strategies and policies used by states to guide their actions and interactions in international relations ○ Central objectives/goals of a state in regards to an issue area, specific situation, or interactions with another state, region, or organisation ● Foreign Policy Process ○ Study of the process through which different policies are chosen and implemented ○ Key role of decision making processes - how/why a state chooses to adopt a particular foreign policy around a given situation, state, or issue area ○ Crucial to understanding both explanation and prediction regarding how/why states take actions in International Relations ● Models of Decision Making ○ Different conceptual models used by scholars to explain the processes of foreign policy ○ Each characterised by different set of underlying assumptions/presumptions ● Rational Actor Model (RAM) 1. States are unitary actors able to set clear FP goals and order them by relative importance a. States make rational foreign policy decisions using cost-benefit analysis of possible outcomes and consequences to maximise/optimise ganis and minimise losses to national interests/goals b. Game Theory: can use mathematical models to predict state decisions given assumed preferences and payoffs c. Concerns with the Model: i. Complexity and uncertainty means may not always be able to predict consequences/optimal course of action ii. Deviation in decisions and times when states don’t act “rationally” or maximise cost/benefit (conflicts) iii. Challenge to RAM’s assumptions of states as rational and unitary actors - may need to look inside the state to understand foreign policy decisions 2. Bureaucratic Politics/Bargaining Model a. Decision making as representing the outcome of internal political bargaining among multiple key domestic actors and organisations i. Foreign policy is the result of competition, compromise, or confusion between multiple internal actors all pursuing their own goals and interests b. Foreign policy is driven by outcome of internal power politics among key players involved in decisions c. Key importance is power and position of main actors influencing FP d. All constrained by the “rules of the game” (decision making structures and procedures) of government and FP e. Conflict and compromise can lead to unintentional or unforeseen outcomes 3. Organizational Process Model a. Primary focus on the role played by existing organisational systems and structures which handle intel and FP decisions within states i. Stresses importance of lower-level decision makers mostly following orders vs. big player decisions ii. Emphasise fitting a given situation or issue into “standard operating procedures” or routines vs tailored responses iii. Organisations, structures, and routines constrain the range of possible options and can lead to suboptimal or irrational outcomes iv. Can “filter” information which flows up to higher level decision makers, and the decisions that flow down to FP actors v. Map create distortion and disinformation in decision making 1. example.) telephone game as a kid 4. Individual Decision Making Model a. Focus on importance