Ch.1 Introduction to World Politics Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Ch.1 Introduction to World Politics Notes PDF

Description

Introduction to World Politics Thursday, August 24th

Studying International Relations and World Politics • All politics are global • Global trends (such as global oil prices) impact: • Economy • Travel (exchange rate of dollars—European currency has changed as a result of the European Union and the advent of the Euro as the universal currency for these countries). • Environment • When the US chooses not to participate in environment-related treaties, it effects the effectiveness of these treaties, effecting the environment, effecting, (eventually), us. • Human rights • Same-sex marriage, capital punishment, etc: decisions on these issues tend to have global “spillover” effect. • Physical security—protection from harm (nuclear strikes, terrorist attacks, etc) • Security precautions change as we change our definition of threats—airport security post-9/11, etc • “International relations” suggests a focus on relations among nation-states as key actors • “World politics,” in contrast, implies the casting of a broader net, to include the host of non state actors such as the United Nations, European Union, Doctors without Borders, criminal organizations, terrorist groups, individuals • The trend is recent years has been to label the study “world politics”

How do we understand the way the world works? • How de we understand the way the world works? Or put another way, how do we understand how states interact with one another and make foreign policy? • Scholars use various methods and paradigms/world-views when understanding the way the world works. Grand Debates • Traditionalists vs. Positivists • Traditionalists focus on case studies • Positivists try to make the study of world politics (or any social science) more scientific, using the scientific method • Methodology • Qualitative data is more descriptive (traditionalists prefer this kind of information) • Quantitative data is more statistics, etc (positivists prefer this kind of information) • “yes, science is useful, science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur, but history can tell you why it’s a bad idea” • Inter-paradigm debate (paradigm=perspective) • This course will be examining 5 paradigms or ways of viewing the way the world works • Realist—most widely accepted worldview • Liberal—realists’ longest standing rival • Constructivist—emerged to explain the sudden peaceful ending of the Cold War • Feminist—offshoot of Constructivism • Neo-Marxist—another offshoot of Constructivism

Introduction to World Politics 1. Which paradigm is the most comprehensive? 2. Which paradigm most closely aligns with your vision of the way the world should be? 3. Ideal types

The Realist Paradigm • Emerges after the second world war and is dominate through the 1800’s—can be traced back far further than the end of WWII because the study of international relations is fairly new. • Despite challengers, the realist paradigm is still the dominant paradigm in the sub-field of world politics • Realist scholars see International relations as driven by the unrelenting and competitive pursuit of power by states in the effort to secure state interests. • Power —> States —> Interests = States purse power to satisfy their interests • Role of military capability • Two broad categories of realists: • Human nature realists “classical realists” • Believe human nature is violent • Structural realists • Believe the structure of world government forces states to be power-driven Ten Points of Structural Realism 1. Anarchy exists in world politics 1. UN is NOT a supranational system because it only serves the interests of five states— the victors of the second world war 2. Hobbes and the state of nature—“nasty, brutish, and short” 2. States are sovereign—supreme political authority 1. Peace of Westphalia—1648—gave states the right to sovereignty 3. States are rational, unitary actors • Realists mostly focus on international system level of analysis • billiard ball model • Rational actor model of decision making aligned with realist perspective • for realists, states have interest that transcend special interests of individuals, such as: 1. Physical security 2. Prosperity (rational means they are driven by what’s best for them, not passion/emotion—states cannot be self-sacrificing; unitary means everyone agrees on these interests—not divided by political parties/differing political opinions) national interests: physical security, economic security, political sovereignty 4. National Security requires Self-Help Two Main Forms of Self-Help -building up military resources -alliances with other countries 5. One nation’s security can mean another nation’s insecurity • prisoners dilemma/security dilemma 6. War is inevitable

Introduction to World Politics • isn’t necessarily always occurring, but is always an option • Clausewite: “War is simply a continuation of policy by other means” • states are always either at war, preparing for war, or recovering from war Tuesday, August 29th Ten Points of Structural Realism, cont. 7. The road to order lies through the balance of power • alliances tend to form in a way that balance the power of the world, which leads to a lower assurance of victory, lowering the chances of an outbreak of war • balancer state: a state that is willing and able to switch sides in order to maintain the poworldly balance of power • bandwagoning: states joining the side that already has the advantage, thereby further throwing off the balance of power 8. Power trumps justice • ex. Thucydides and the Melian dialogue • states cannot afford to be seen as “weak” by their adversaries, therefore, they make decisions that assure their own physical security 9. World politics is not primarily about good and evil • states cannot self-sacrifice—they’re not individuals and they have to protect their national interests • Problems with viewing the world as a battle between good and evil • Over-simplistic defense of ones own nation; demonization of adversaries • Condemnation of own state • ex. 1st Gulf War (1991)—although the mission was “successful” in the technical sense, it was perceived negatively because George Bush (Senior) engaged in a lot of rhetoric about Sadam Husaem, clouding the intent of the mission. Americans expected the military to topple Sadam Husaem, which was never the intent of the mission: the mission was only meant to restore order in the region. 10. The possibility of cooperation and change is limited • unless the entire international system is rewritten (states relinquishing their sovereignty, anarchy being eliminated), change is very unlikely

Alternatives to Realism Realism has long been the dominant paradigm, BUT not everyone accepts its assumptions as essential truths—especially at the end of the Cold War. BUT…no single paradigmatic challenger to realism has emerged Trends Emerging @ End of Cold War • Democratization • (waves of democratization were taking place before the Cold War) Globalization • • Terrorism • International Crime

Introduction to World Politics

Liberalism • The “idealist” perspective • Between WWI and WWII, the major challenger to the realist perspective was idealism • View that the term suggested well-intentioned but utopian perspective • Offshoots: liberalism and constructivism 4. Believe that significant global cooperation is possible -key assumption: peace and cooperation among states can produce absolute gains for all (gains that are shared by all; win-win situations) -for realists the issue is relative gains (gains on one side=losses on the other) -Robert Axelrod: “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemna” states will find it in their interest to act in cooperation with each other and seek absolute gains -origins: Immanuel Kant (18th century German Philosopher) -“To Perpetual Peace;” tells us that the state of nature can be escaped when: 1. “Federation of free states” committed to maintaining international peace and security 2. “Spirit of commerce 3. Republican government in which executive power is checked by an independent legislature Liberal Institutionalism • believe that international institutions can ensure global cooperation • Proponents of liberal institutionalism look to intentional institutions to reduce the anarchy of the international system • Rules that govern elements of world politics and the organizations that implement them • Kant’s “federation of free states” (these nations voluntarily join these organizations) • League of Nations • United Nations • Goal: provide an opportunity for actors in the global system to escape from the Hobbesian state of nature (in terms of the individual arena) that realists take as a given. • NOTE: a common assumption between realists and liberal institutionalist: • As long as anarch exists, world politics will retain its power-seeking nature Liberal Commercialism • Proponents of liberal commercialism share a belief that a state of more or less permanent peace among nations can replace the Hobbesian permanent state of war • Focus on the spirit of commercialism • Economic globalization has reinforced the position of liberal commercialist (economic interdependence) • Some nations remain outside the global economy • North Korea • Solution: bring them into the system Liberal Internationalism

Introduction to World Politics • Proponents of liberal internationalism draw their inspiration primarily from Kant’s notion that republican government is an important source of “perpetual peace” Key to peace: expanding the number of republics • • Trends in the late 20th century provided contemporary Kantians with reason for optimism as democracy has spread “Democratic peace theory:” democracies don’t go to war against each other • Democracy, Commerce, & Institutions, all working together, are proponents of PEACE; called the “Kantian Triangle” Russet and O’Neal, “International Systems: Vicious Cycles and Virtuous Circles” Russet and O’neal: the Kantian triangle • Combined impact of international institutions, economic interdependence, and democracy mutually reinforce the global propensity toward international cooperation and peace

Constructivism • Comes up in the late 1980’s—early 1990’s (1989; “spiritual” ending of the Cold War) in response to the sudden and peaceful ending of the Cold War • Other paradigms are unable to explain the international relations that led to the ending of this strange, non-confrontational conflict • How did they escape the “security dilemma”? • 3 Points on Constructivism 1. Structure is not all-determining • Alexander Wendt: Anarchy is what states make of it—human beings can construct the system in which they operate instead of simply responding • 3 Levels of Analysis 1. Systemic: what does the system look and like and how do states operate within it (realists) 2. Domestic: Considers the political system that is in place (liberals) 3. Individual: focuses on the individuals impact on world politics—could be the president, head of a terrorist organization, etc. 2. Norms and ideas are important. • Fire in a theatre: response is different based on whether the people in the theatre are strangers/friends; cultural norms of location of fire; etc Gorbacheu • • National/international security are intertwined • Economic power > military power • Global threats exist that no one nation can confront on their own—self-help is not sufficient • Constructivists see realists as a self-fulfilling prophecy • Power of changing ideas 3. Individuals and non state actors are key to the promotion of ideas • Traditional advocacy networks

Introduction to World Politics

Feminism • Politically, feminism in the US and elsewhere has been focused primarily on the acquisition of equal rights for women and men • Conduct of foreign affairs and international relations has remained a heavily maledominated preserve • As a political movement, therefore, one goal of feminism might be to increase the access of women to positions of power and authority in the realm of foreign affairs As • a theoretical movement in the scholarly discipline of international relations, feminism makes two further assertions 1. Our traditional scholarship on International relations reflects a predominately male perspective on the world 2. The inclusion of more women in positions of authority in international relations would change the way world politics is conducted • Question as to whether it should be considered a fully developed paradigm Realism as a Gendered Perspective • Feminist scholarship asserts that realism is essentially a male-perspective: a “gendered perspective” • Dominated by male scholars • This may be changing as more women receive Ph.D.s in international relations • Feminist theories: different research agendas; different perspectives • Interstate relations that affect the everyday lives of individuals are as important as high-level security relations among states Foreign Policy-Making as a Male Preserve • Central point in feminist scholarship is that males dominate the conduct of international relations • Generally, feminists assert that women would tend to be more inclined toward nonviolent, cooperative solutions to global issues than their more aggressive, war-prone male counterparts • Fukuyama: biologically hard-wired from birth • Others, perhaps the majority of feminist theorists, believe these differences are a function of socialization • Democratic peace: function of having more women involved in politics • Critics of feminism often point to examples of women in power who have seemed to be as inclined and willing to use force and violence in the pursuit of state interests as any man Neo-Marxism • Neo-Marxism is still seen as a relevant alternative view of how world politics operates. • Less influential, however, after the Cold War • Marxists saw Cold War as a clash between Western democratic capitalism versus Communism • Fundamental assumptions of the theory: • Conflict is rooted in certain structural characteristics of the international and world system. • Competitive pursuit of class interests is key to understanding the world. • Define class interests in economic terms • Class based, economic analysis; different interoperation of events

Introduction to World Politics Realism

Liberalism

Constructivism Feminism

Neo-Marxism

Nature of World Politics

Unavoidably conflictual

Potentially cooperative

Potentially cooperative

Potentially cooperative

Unavoidably conflictual

Key Actors

States

States and international organizations (IOs)

Individuals, NGOs, transactional advocacy networks

Individuals, gender-based NGOs, & advocacy groups

Socioeconomic classes

Central Idea (BumperSticker Version)

Anarchy breeds insecurity & conflict

Institutions facilitiate cooperation

Anarchy is what states make of it

Gender makes Classes will a difference conflict

Policy Prescriptions

Acquire power (especially military power)

Create IOs, promote democracy, promote economic interdependence

Develop and Have more diffuse norms of women in power cooperation and other valued ideas

Acquire wealth

Trend-Line in the Discipline

Dominant paradigm under increasing challenge

Holding steady at #2

Rising fast; the “growth stock” of the discipline

Steep decline after the Cold War

Slow to make inroads, but rising in importance...