International Relations Lectures - Michaelmas Term PDF

Preview

Summary

International Relations Lectures MT         MT16 MT16 MT16 MT16 MT16 MT16 MT16 MT16 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 – Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 - The Study of IR at Oxford (Prof A. Hurrell) Realism and the Return of Geopolitics (Prof D. Johnson) The 'English ...

Description

International Relations Lectures MT        

MT16 MT16 MT16 MT16 MT16 MT16 MT16 MT16

Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week

1 - The Study of IR at Oxford (Prof A. Hurrell) 2 - Realism and the Return of Geopolitics (Prof D. Johnson) 3 - The 'English school' (Prof E. Keene) 4 - Power and the History of IR (Prof E. Keene) - slides and handout 5 – Traditions of War (missed it…) 6 - Social Constructivism (Dr J. Leader Maynard) 7 - Critical and Marxist Approaches to International Relations (Dr J. Leader Maynard) 8 - Identity and Culture in International Security (Dr J. Leader Maynard)

MT1 – Andrew Hurrell – The history of International Relations, and its theories, as a subject  Has a brief handout to accompany it. Three questions 1) What is international relations? 2) How have debates about the nature of the post-CW world affected the way in which IR has been understood? 3) When people talk about theory and IR theory, what do they mean? 1) Kant. The enlightenment – the idea that we can know laws that guide and determine the world around us – was birthed from Kantian ideas - and the idea in social science that we should aim to generalise as laws the ways that things occur and are guided comes from Kantian thought. Analytic, generalizable. Herder – a student on Kant. Preferred the idea that the way in which we should understand the world is through interpretations of things. Historical, interpretative. International relations at times takes one tack, and at times takes another.

History of the subject In describing how IR as an academic subject began started after WWI. Birthed alongside international law, which came to exist after WWI as well. In the early phase of IR study, a bundle of liberal ideas (often termed idealism), which grow out of the desire for peace globally. Idealists argue for League of Nations, 20’s and 30’s was an early heyday of Idealists. Realists come in and puncture their illusions. (an early phase of what is often seen as a long cycle that has repeated throughout history since IR was birthed). The subject during this period is very much concerned with war, conflict and peace, all in relation to power, great powers, diplomacy, and the things around them.

Realism.

 Need power to resist each other. There is no 999 to call, and so you must look out for yourself. Therefore, power competition is the (crude) recurring theme in Realist international relations. BULL – The Anarchical Society – a slightly more optimistic view than realism, that doesn’t just stress power but also stresses ideas and institutions and law and diplomacy, but is still quite focussed on the traditional core and is still truly engaging with Realism as the orthodoxy which it tries to lay a position against.

2) Post-cold war world… many think/thought “THAT WORLD HAS GONE”. International law is now strong and well defined. The United Nations and other institutions are particularly well entrenched. Not just a European phenomenon anymore. The old world of anarchy and conflict, with minimal bits of order, appears to have been overturned. In the post CW world with global governance, had things flipped, with more order, and minimal conflict? So the Post CW reality… could that really be represented by the classical, realist outlook on IR? Non-intervention during Cold War. Sovereignty rewritten after end of Cold War. How could you say in a peaceful and happy world that a government does not have to look after its own people? Essentially, the agenda is always changing with IR. The idea that IR is not a linked to other part of politics should be eroded. Maybe the “return of geopolitics” – that is fighting over territory, over resources, back to the old consensus of conflicts and power struggles being always present overtly in IR – really has occurred! Nationalism is back on the rise. It’s now a central force not just for minor international players, but to all of the major players too! India, Russia, UK, China, France, USA, etc. So a lot of new international relations seems to be familiar. A lot of neo-realism can be easily seen in the recent world. Perhaps the old world has not gone away.

Andrew Hurrell thinks we live in a hybrid world. Three elements make it a bit different from how things were though… I.

Material reality between great powers (even if great powers are still in conflict, they still need to do something different to what they did before – the notion that simply spheres of influence without dealing with global material realities, like financial crises and global warming, need to also be dealt with co-operatively. Globalisation has caused this.).

II.

Legitimacy. One problem with the crude realist view is a narrow view of power. Power isn’t just guns, tanks, missiles. It’s about making material power LEGITIMATE. That is clear in the modern world. a. The old way was “how other powers saw you” and that determined your legitimacy, that was the notion of legitimacy. Nowadays, you can’t just ignore countries that you wouldn’t name legitimate.

III.

The players that did exist are not the same as the ones that now do exist. The system is more global… agency as well as power have diffused over more actors than previously were important. Think China, think the future of Russia/India… nowadays, bilateral world does not exist, and the multilateral world that does exist is different to that which existed pre-CW.

3) Liberalism VS Realism VS International Society is a way of organising our thoughts about IR. This is what is meant by Theory as Mapping. In terms of actually applying these distinctions to real events, they are not often the most useful as they blur distinctions. REAL events see overlaps between how actors do react. See handout for other explanations + notes of various theories.

MT2 – Realism and the Return of Geopolitics – Dominic Johnson Arguably the dominant theory of IR, Realism is simple and has a focus on power politics, competition and war. It is often caricatured for its simplicity, but the insights that it holds are enduring, and often can be considered to give the most power explanation for state behaviour.

• Realism’s Context Among IR Theories No “laws” to IR theory, and basic assumptions and fundamentals remain contested. There is little consensus in the field. Often thus, same events are interpreted quite differently. One point has broad consensus… THE WORLD IS IN A STATE OF ANARCHY, that is to say:

 No international Leviathan  Overcoming the collective action problem of free-riding on other states is hard  No final arbiter (authority figure who decides something) of conflict -> war always possible. OBJECTION – UN and other international institutions...? Do they not contradict? Not really. International things are necessarily limited and NOT sovereign. Thus, states ultimately left to themselves, with co-operation hard and war always possible.

IR vs Domestic Political Science? Cooperation not hard in domestic politics, and sovereign actor exists. This is why they are completely different studies. This slide is fun.  Now, the three key theories – brief analysis.

--

-REALISM

 Power politics – Foreign policy conducted on basis of power gained in relation to other states

 Competition – need for security to ensure survival, and states must help themselves!  Security dilemma – alliances forged and weapons built. Increasing one’s own security of course decreases someone else’s security! If US gets stronger through widened alliance, USSR gets weaker! Distinction between capabilities and intentions important here. You can know capabilities, but you can’t truly know intentions. Realism is PESSIMISTIC. Self-help, a lack of trust and relative gains characterise the Realist world. But, also the FIRST IR theory, and the one which appears to have most recurred across 2500 years of time, and a world of space! LIBERALISM

 SHIFT FROM ANARCHY – due to three things (economic interdependence (trade), newer institutions, and democratisation), countries start to trust more and cooperate. I’d like to add social interdependence too TBQH. o Economic Interdependence – nowadays, victories will be pyrrhic. War decreases prosperity for all sides except those not involved! (Free rider problem).  NOTE – Many said this in 1914… look what happened next… and Cold War was a war after all! So really… did we ever stop warring? o Institutions – international law and institutions like the UN / EU have increased transparency between nations. States are now able to be cooperative. Collective interest and long term gains have replaced short-termism that dominated realism. o Democratisation – Democracies don’t fight. One could argue (through some theoretical fiddling) that no democracies have fought for 200 years. Democracies only fight non democracies, and non dems fight amongst themselves. Liberalism is OPTIMISTIC. Institutions may not eradicate war, but they have helped states to do so. Key problems…? Most run along the lines of West is dominating and simply has upper hand in a

realist world and has imposed this to keep it that way. Realism bubbles away beneath the surface. AND, B) Wars do happen, and will happen. Idealism/Constructivism

 Reality is CONSTRUCTED – IR is shaped by ideas, norms and values, and Anarchy is whatever states make of it (Wendt). Thanks, Dom. This isn’t really that useful. Idealism can be EITHER OPTI OR PESSI! Prevailing ideas/norms shape the prospects for what will happen in the international stage, and these can be bad (Nazi Germany) or these can be good (End of the slave trade). However, generally, the theory appears hopeful. States are not predestined for conflict. INTERLUDE – Is IR 0-Sum? Liberalist – NO (states worry about absolute gains); Realists – YES (states worry about relative gains). So for realists, international policies that benefit everyone (the same) do nothing to solve the security dilemma.

• Realism’s Development Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau. They all stressed the reality of competition in human nature and in political entities. Their maxims were for ensuring security thus! 30s-40s saw “Great Debate” – how to end wars. Interwar idealists sought this… but realists (Carr, Morgenthau, Neibuhr, Kennan) said it wasn’t gonna happen due to competitiveness of international politics and importance of power. Neibuhr thought we were destined to war due to our evil nature. Morgenthau put it down to our lust for power. However, classical realism lacked any mechanism to explain behavior purported to drive it. Waltz waltzes in with an innovation – he explains warring as the result of the STRUCTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM, not a result of actors. Structural realism, that’s what that’s called. Anarchy on international state, unlike domestic hierarchies. Sovereign states are similar, and unit-level variation is irrelevant (AKA Hitler VS Churchill). Number of great powers determines the system structure! Thus we have moved from multipolarity (WWI) to bipolarity (CW) and are now at unipolarity (today). How does morality link in with realism for state elites? States must pursue power if they are to survive. It is thus the duty of statesmen to figure out the best way to increase security in a hostile environment. Leaders may pursue moral principles within the state, but this is subordinated vis-à-vis other states, and given that actions are judged by consequences, not the morality of right or wrong (e.g. US and Hiroshima), even conquest and imperial expansion might be considered “legitimate” for a realist statesman. A couple nice bits n bobs that didn’t fit in the above •

Waltz: “In anarchy, security is the highest end. Only if survival is assured can states seek such other goals as tranquility, profit, and power.”

•

TBF, war IS rare (only around 1 in 14,000 inter-state dyad-years). But even if war itself is rare, its effects are constant:

–

Security; Budgets; Defense; Deployment; Diplomacy; Alliances; Deterrence; Strategy

• Realism’s Variants and Predictions BALANCING TO SURVIVE – Internally, one builds up military and economic power. But this isn’t enough to deter a powerful rival…so formations of alliances come through also. Napoleonic wars/WWI/etc., but this also occurred far before recent times too. Furthermore, if you are a weaker state, you are going to try and align with the state most likely to win. FURTHER, you want to try to avoid paying the costs of balancing… so you’re going to pass the buck, if you can. For example, UK avoided many costs from World Wars, given they were never fought on our soil! Another bit of variation… POLARITY Morgenthau – stability greater in multi-polar systems. More possible coalitions against aggressors, and thus more likely that issues defuse before leading to war. Waltz/Mearsheimer – Stability greater in bipolar systems. Less uncertainty about other actors, as essentially there is only one, and its normally so big that you know quite a lot about it. No collective action problem either in having balanced coalitions.

Think – defensive, classical or offensive realism? See image below. Another difference

 Waltz – states are SECURITY maximisers. Thus, this could translate into defensive realism.

 Mearsheimer – states are POWER maximisers. This lends itself to offensive realism. The “tragedy of great power politics” is that they all want to be this global hegemon. Cooperation possible where mutual interests, but short lived! (reaction – what does Andorra want eh?)

Neoclassical realism… is the distribution of power really enough to explain the behaviour of states? Sure, the behaviour is important. But what REALLY matters are the PERCEPTIONS and the EXECUTION of power by agents as to how they really act. By looking at perceptions, we can understand why executions are made. “Recurring optimism is a vital prelude to war. Anything which increases that optimism is a cause of war. Anything which dampens that optimism is a cause of peace.” —Geoffrey Blainey (1973).

Commonalities to all Realist theories:

 Primacy of the state. State is the primary actor in IR theory  Sovereignty is its primary trait.  Concern for state survival is paramount – security comes first, and relative power gives security.  Anarchy reigns thanks to a lack of a leviathan, and thus states fend for themselves.

• Realism’s Successes and Challenges Failures   

Realism explains broad trends but often fails to explain triggers of war. Is the state really still primal and sole actor? What about G8? EU? NATO? UN? What is power? Do states and heads of state feel (relative) power as a motivating factor?



Does military power always translate into influence? (No!)

Can we make predictions with Structural Realism? (it poses as a scientific theory)

 Waltz ventured general ones o Bipolarity more stable than multipolarity o States will balance against rising threats o Did say Cold War would last long into 21st Century o Argued spread of nuclear weapons prevents war  Empirical successes of predictions like these and others? o Bipolarity was relatively peaceful o Nuclear deterrence successful o States clearly prioritise security often o Interstate conflicts didn’t subside – anarchy and war remain  Empirical challenges to these predictions o Cold War ended, which realists did not predict (though Soviet decline in relative power, no…?)

o NATO persists o Rise of non-state actors and organisations

o Pursuit of democratization o US not caring to contain China o State with more power commonly lose wars (think of all the proxy wars since WWII!)

• The Return of Geopolitics Civil wars now persist/spiked over interstate ones. This however was mainly due to CW. Now that CW is over, third-party interventions are freer to act once more. End of history? Like Fukuyama thinks? (triumph of capitalism and liberal democracy…)? Maybe. Maybe not. Lets wait and see! Do we have a unipolar moment now with the US? Will China/SE-Asian monolith interrupt that? Arguments that geopolitics is back after a CW intermission…

 Rise of China  Russian Resurgence  The gulf and wars involved  Nuclear weapon states now include India, Pakistan, China  BRICS are rising, as are other nations, causing relative decline in US power  US has pivoted foreign policy to focus on Asia. IT KNOWS!

Conclusions • Realism arguably the oldest theory of international politics • At least 25 centuries since Thucydides • Also arguably the most successful and parsimonious • “Timeless insights”, even if never a complete explanation • Many variants with radically different predictions • Empirical data has so far failed to adjudicate among them • Makes explicit predictions • Broad predictions for systemic change, war, and alliances

• Limited predictions for Foreign Policy and a given state’s actions • Empirical challenges • E.g. end of Cold War, lack of balancing against the US and China • Likely to become more rather than less important

Lecture 3 – The English School – see handout too! ONE REALISM – as in IR theory. The arena is harsh, relative power rules, security concerns dominate. REVOLUTIONISM – change the world away from being a realist world in which we have to operate, but instead revolt and turn the world on its head! RATIONALISM – Inbetween the realists and revolutionists (or the Grotians). Grotius – father of modern international law. Rationalism is the MIDDLE WAY. It’s broad and extremely nuanced. Realists aren’t right about how awful things are… yes, Anarchy is a fact of life, but co-operations/diplomatic relationships between states ARE possible. Most states, most of the time, are willing to obey international law… and so it isn’t quite the dangerous international system that realists describe. BUT, also world is nothing like (and will not be like) the revolutionists’ aspiration of heavenly, peaceful and just world order. Instead, there is a minimal, fragile order that states have been able to carve out for themselves exist instead.

READ ANARCHICAL SOCIETY! Here is an overview of the book…

 These three traditions of Wight correspond to three potential systems. o International system – corresponds to realists’ view o World community – corresponds to revolutionists’ view o IN BETWEEN – the International Society. This corresponds with Grotian tradition.  Bull then explores this idea, via observation of history (how did we get to this point?)  Sees two options then for this world community. o Pluralism international society. This minimal set of rules and conventions that exist between societies. o Solidarist international society. The sovereign states show greater solidarity with one another in enforcing the rules of international society upon one another.  States recognise that their ultimate purpose is to allow citizens’ lives to flourish. Solidarism is working collectively internationally in order to achieve that.

o BULL discusses a lot where on this continuum we are. He thinks that it is very risky to head towards solidarism, and also believes that we are never going to reach world community. He thinks moves towards solidarism are more likely to damage the pluralism that we HAVE achieved. SO Bull is still a very conservative thinker! A la fois, behaviourist revolution in IR theory in America. Let’s gather data, lets crunch numbers etc. This scientific approach was rejected by English school, and preferred classic approach of a mixture of philosophy, history and law (Bull’s words!).

TWO - WESTPHALIA Modern international society of states is founded on the reciprocal recognition of territorial sovereignty between states. (This is the fundamental of the English School. Barry doesn’t agree). (Barry is the lecturer).

 Nothing above the sovereign. Sovereign is a French word, roughly translat...