IRT - samenvatting - Summary International Relations Theory PDF

Preview

Summary

Uitgebreide lesnota's van de verplichte teksten en de vragen...

Description

International Relations Theory: summary !

1. Introduction: what is theory of international politics ? Reasons to be optimistic or sceptical Optimistic - Violence becoming too costly - Institutions - Organization of power: monarchies, republics, democracies - Interdependence - Functionalism - Middle classes - Normative shift - World socialism - International society

Sceptical - Lupus est homo homini - Anarchy - Security dilemma - BOP - BOT - Power transition - Geopolitics - Mercantilism

What is a theory ? “ a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained” -

Parsimonious (zuinig / karig) Explanatory Falsifiable

(1) Diagnosis àmake it more clear, know the problem àthe more explicit in certain terms, the better (2) Prediction e.g. realists say: one getting richer à BOP à Bad e.g. liberalists say: one getting richer à good bc of globalization Ø Combination = best Ø If you use different approaches à you understand more (3) Prescription àcausality to describe problems E.g. Waltz: US: using cheap energy à protectionist reaction of US = rise taxes ó liberalists: market will fix 1!

International Relations Theory: summary ! (4) Evaluation à policy analyses (5) Theory = useful to seek hidden motivations for world leaders bc they have a different world view e.g. South-Korea à realist : self interest What does Walth mean with the first, second and third image ? Why is he sceptical about the durability of peace ? (1) first image: human nature Optimists Spinoza à importance of reason and eduction Individual good depends on common good • • • • •

Pessimists Niebuhr

selfishness, aggression, stupidity St-Augustine: desire for self-preservation Reinhold Niebuhr: man is finite with infinite aspiration, dark unconscious sources in the human psyche Spinoza: self-preservation through high-mindedness, reason Morgenthau: lust for power Can it be improved? à Reason Does it matter? à Waltz: nature may in some sense have been the cause of war in 1914, but by the same token it was the cause of peace in 1910 à Waltz: so what if we can make people better?

System level: people are always socialized in a negative way à if only 1 small group = bad à others must change People are aggressive because of security of grieve Ø Security: only growing when other do à defensive Ø Grieve: it is never enough à keep growing power à offensive realist e.g. US after Berlin Wall = MAXIMIZATION Ø E.g. Primark à greed or need ? Ø (2) The second image: state and society Bodin: internal unity by finding an external enemy • Despots • Natural frontiers • Deprived countries •

Reform states: harmony Liberal take Adam Smith; free market J.S. Mill: improvement via liberty à if we make citizens strong à we make them via the liberal view more critical Jeremy Bentham: positive socialization Bernard Mandeville: Greedy bees à need discipline in society à nature of states will increase

Communist take Marx: capitalist state Lenin: powerful communist state

2!

International Relations Theory: summary ! Thomas Paine: democracy Wilson: community of power •

Waltz: Ø No market without regulation à the idea of Smith is great but who will control ? it will fail between states Ø Power and unfair competition Ø Geographic exceptionalism à islands have no traditional problems with neighbors SO they are not balancing Ø Messiahs: liberal interventionism Ø No values without enforcement Ø Peace is a good cause of war e.g. Irak à liberal powers use their power under pretext of the liberalism to interfere (Opium War, Commodore Perry) SO: does it matter ? à state is stuck in international system = zero-sum game à states are forced for certain behavior e.g. the desire for national borders on foreign policy (FR with Alpen-Rijn doctrine) Ø Deprived country à PROBLEM: they don’t feel comfortable in position SO go after the rich and take revenge when the opportunity comes CHINA: no democracy / free market à building missiles, laying low BUT using periods of peace to modernize à problems with national borders à alter military BOP

(3) The third image: the international system Thucydides: the balance of power à socialization à if other countries show different behavior à you also act different ( BOP) Rousseau: stag hunt à you cannot rely on others Can state relations be improved? • The end of states is the preservation and prosperity of its members • Patriotism • Kant: enlightment

Waltz: • •

Need for control, power to assert good World order = characterized by: Ø Anarchy Ø Negative socialization Ø Self-help Ø Quest for survival Ø Balancing : 2 ways I. Internal à improving own capabilities II. External à allies e.g. IS à stabilizing middle)east

3!

International Relations Theory: summary ! Can we engineer a society, its economy and its institutions in a way that conflict becomes less likely ? Emile Durkheim: the duty of the statesman is that of a physician to prepare the outbreak of illness by good hygiene Harold Lasswell: “politics of prevention” • • • • • •

Social scientist to Russia A kindergarten at the UN Education: addressing the ignorance of the desires of either people, emotional education Knowledge of cultures à if we would understand other cultures à more peace bc through common understanding We must know what Chinese mothers say to their babies Get rid of stupid elites

Waltz: does better understanding lead to peace ? à problems: can we do it fast enough, how to start it, how to coordinate it > too great a risk of mishaps and negative socialization Neo-realists: maximize power to maximize security Why can the pursuit of wealth cause conflict ? Liberalists: absolute gains ó realists relative gains Economic cooperation could lead to bigger gains for all BUT people consider this from their own individual paper: • • •

Desire to maximize wealth Desire to emulate and surpass the other’s success Fear if the other become too powerful

SO relative gain = more important than absolute gain • • • •

Trade wars: escalating tariff wars = when a country hunts taxes on the export of other powers MNO’s like general motors: the quest for monopoly BOP The hardening of economic interests

How does Doyle explain the fault lines in the liberalist debate about peace ? (1) Machiavelli: liberal imperialism Primacy of security: elite and state security • “The Prince” • Republic > liberty > disunion > expansion • Expansionism as a way to channel the energy of the people • Search security and glory • Ideal: Athens and Rome à aggressive in maximizing power Doyle: •

In modern states, the majority of the people might not accept the warmongering of the elite 4!

International Relations Theory: summary ! (2) Liberal pacifism: Schumpeter Primacy of material interest • “the sociology of imperialisms” • Old imperialism: warlike instincts and autocracy • Modern imperialism: warlike instincts and export monopolism • Forces for peace: capitalism and democracy • Capitalism: absorb people’s energy through production, economic rationalism, equal gain Doyle: • • •

Too economic in its approach Does not recognize the inequality in political life Not all states will embrace liberal pacifism

(3) Liberal internationalism: Kant Primacy of morality and law • Perpetual peace • First Definitive Article à a republican constitution: legal equality, moral autonomy, social order and individualism à republicans will not go to war together • Second Definitive Article à a pacific union between free republics: a non-aggression pact enforced by the negative experience of war • Third Definitive Article à cosmopolitan law: universal hospitality to citizens of the union

• • •

• • •

Social evolution: peace becomes an ethical duty bc men come to understand the tragedy of war à education = more peace Cultural evolution: of understanding the rights of all citizens Rational evolution: the spirit of commerce and free trade Doyle: Alliances among liberal and nonliberal states have been broken but the political bonds of liberal rights and interests have proven a remarkably firm Liberal states have not escaped from anarchy Respect for individual rights as a cause of conflicts

An overview of theories of international relations Realism . Concerned about the world as it is not how it should be . Cooperation and peace between polities is not sustainable . Polities are driven by distrust, uncertainty about the future, fear and greed . International anarchy rather than supranational governance . Self-interest prevails . International affairs shaped by the distribution of power . Military capabilities remain a crucial part of power

5!

International Relations Theory: summary ! Classical realism . The behaviour of policies is determined by human nature . Human nature is dominated by egoism, fear, greed, and ignorance . States are the best way to provide stability . Intentions matter: there is a difference between revisionist and status-quo powers . Norms and rules matter, but they are filtered through national interests Hans Morgenthau, 1948, Politics Among Nations: A good foreign policy minimizes risks and maximizes benefits. Edward Hallet Carr, 1945, The Twenty Years' Crisis: Cfr. League of Nations: A harmony of interests and laissez-faire economy is only in the interest of the strong Niccolò Machiavelli, 1513, The "New Prince" must preserve his power by providing security as an alternative to moral corruption Neorealism . The third image: states' behaviour is determined by the international structure > negative socialization . The structure is usually anarchic (many competing states), but can also uni-, bi-, or multipolar . Anarchy makes that states have to be continuously on their guard and cannot play it "nice" . States mind relative gains: even if cooperation implies benefits for all (absolute gains), states fear the other party gaining more (relative gains) . Security dilemma: power = security: one country's gain of power means a loss of security to the other . If states lose power, they will balance - internally or externally (alliances) . Stability is achieved if there is a balance of power. Multipolarity means disorder. . The effect of the balance of power is complicated by the balance of threat, proximity, threat perceptions based on history, political ideology and the nature of weapons (offensive or defensive) . Defensive neorealism: states mainly want to defend their security, not to expand . Offensive realism: states want to maximize their power. Economic power > military power > aggression Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War, 1959. The Third Image Stephen Walt, 1990. The Origins of alliances John Mearsheimer, 2001, The Tragedy of Great power politics: The best way to achieve security is to maximize power Randall Schweller, 1996: Bandwagoning for profit: Small states do not balance against rising powers, but join them for profit Robert Jervis, 1976, Perceptions and misperceptions in IR: people perceive what they expect to be present Robert Gilpin, 1981 War and Change in international politics: Great power wars start when a rising power threatens the status-quo Neoclassical realism . States that the tendency to balance is heavily determined by domestic factors . Overbalancing, hyping up the threat; underbalancing, underestimating the threat; non-balancing passing the buck, bandwagoning, Idealism . National interests can be overcome by common interests, ideals and international institutions 6!

International Relations Theory: summary ! . International competition can become peaceful . Wars can be prevented . Positive socialization: states learn to cooperate if only they get the opportunity to do it long enough Woodrow Wilson Desiderius Erasmus Pacifism Liberalism . Common interests and norms prevail . If absolute gains are big enough, states will forget about relative gains . States can be disciplined by international agreements, rules and organizations . Peace is possible Liberal pacifism . Capitalism can absorb peoples' passions Schumpeter Liberal internationalism . Primacy of morality and law Immanuel Kant Interdependence liberalism . Economic interests make states prioritize peace and cooperation . The greater the trade interests between states, the more they have to lose in war . Open markets promote economic competition and competition boosts productivity and wealth . Competition leads to a division of labour and thus more mutual benefits . A division of labour leads to mutual vulnerability: states depend on each other for certain goods or knowhow . Globalization has made the world more interdependent . States are pressured towards peace by economic elites, multinationals, etc. . States have to work together to regulate trade, to provide in infrastructure and security . New technology allows greater connectivity . As a result, states become less powerful Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, 1971. Power and Interdependence . Functional liberalism . The European integration demonstrates that starting with economic cooperation can lead to political cooperation . Spill-over of international cooperation from low-politics to high-politics . Increased institutionalization: the more complicated cooperation gets, the more institutions are needed Institutional liberalism . International institutions can constrain states in pursuing their interests 7!

International Relations Theory: summary ! . International governmental organizations facilitate negotiations and thus reduce the chance of a conflict . International governmental organizations fade the difference between weak and strong > democratization of IR . International governmental organizations create a feeling of community between diplomats, ministers, as they meet frequently . International governmental organizations lower transaction costs and thus benefit the prosperity of states . International governmental organization help the strong powers gain legitimacy: a peaceful way to exert influence . International governmental organizations can lead to regimes: a set of rules and procedures that remains influential even if some states dispute it . Non-governmental organizations can name and shame states, and thus affact their status and legitimacy . Non-governmental organizations can set important narratives that influence the thinking of states Democratic liberalism . Wars in the past were mostly caused by aggressive monarchs . Republics and individual liberty make states more peaceful, because citizens in general do not want to make sacrifices in war . Democracies do not fight with each other . Middle classes in a democracy are a strong pacifying force Regional integration liberalism Regional security complex theory: states in a certain region (security complex) can cooperate if they recognize security interdependence: common threats Regional integration: European integration: once power becomes supranational, those supranational organizations have a strong influence on states Regionalism: provinces and cities can drive regional integration and hence affect states' behaviour

Constructivism . What matters is not material power, but the ideas behind it . If the ideas change, so will the importance of certain capabilities . States are an ideational and social construction . If it identity changes, so will its values, norms, interests, and behaviour . States can be positively socialized Social constructivism . A state is a socially constructed community . Anarchy is socially constructed, is what states make of it . The international structure, as described by neorealists, is important but must not be violent . If states' conception of anarchy changes, it can become cooperative . International organizations can change the construction of interests of states . States have strategic cultures and these cultures can change

8!

International Relations Theory: summary ! . Normative power Alexander Wendt, 1999. Social Theory of International Politics Martha Finnemore, 1998. National Interests in International Society Peter Katzenstein, 1996. The Culture of National Security Ian Manners, 2011. Normative power Europe. Radical constructivism . Relativize material reality of states and claims that also concepts are the result of subjective ideas . Focuses on the way people shape their discourses and concepts . The social construction of knowledge . If we emancipate people and make the question international politics, states will be force to change Stefano Guzinni Marxism . International politics is shaped by the struggle between classes, rich and poor . Capitalism needs war to survive . Destruction means profit . Capitalism uses powerless states to break open foreign markets . Material, economic interests prevail . National security is what the rich want it to be Marxist imperialism . Excess capital forces states to search for investment opportunities and to enslave weaker countries . Excess industrial capacity forces states to search for export markets and to promote open-door policies . Military force is important to serve the interests of the capitalists and to make profit abroad John Hobson, 1902. A theory of imperialism. William Appleman Williams, 1959. Tragedy of American Diplomacy World system theory . Since the 16th century, the world is a capitalist system . The Atlantic world (US-EU) is the centre . The South is the periphery, countries like South Korea, Japan the sub-periphery . The periphery is locked into unequal relations with the centre: centre gains more . This is made possible because the elites of the centre make alliances with the elites of the periphery . Yet, even the periphery will slowly get rich > crisis of capitalist system Giovanny Arrighi, 1994: The Long 20th Century. Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times Emmanuel Wallerstein, 2001. World System Theory Dependency theory . Rich countries dominate poor countries by penetrating them with multinationals, 9!

International Relations Theory: summary ! ngos, ideology Gramscians . The strong dominate not only because of their economic power, but because of their ideological hegemony . This means that they can promote norms, ideals, expectations, so that the weak want what they have

10!

International Relations Theory: summary !

2. What is the role of states and what defines their power? How do international relations theories describe the role (agency) of states in today’s world ? How do you position yourself in this debate ? What alternatives do scholars present for traditional state power based on territory,

military capabilities and industry ? Should be expect the importance of traditional state power to disappear ? Traditional state power - Primacy of hard power - Control or influence over territory - Economic success = key - Soft power depends on hard power - Litmus test: military coercion

Normative power Civilian Power - Ability to use economic power instead of hard power - Diplomatic cooperation to solve problems - Legally binding rules - Supranational institutions Normative power: - Beyond Westpahlia > supranational - Beyond economic power > norms - Power = the ability to govern the creation of norms within a system - Exposure and experience rather than

The virtual state States do not disappear, but their resources of power and influence become less visible Rosecrane: The virtual state is an entity that prospers from dependence on others. It does not rely on the products of land or on manufacturing capacity, most of which has been shifted abroad. It focuses on creative and management services, designing new products to be made in the factories of other nations. In doing so, it reaps profitable return. This mutual profit can

11!

International Relations Theory: summary ! coercion and conditional engagement: unintentional contagion, informational procedural, transference and assistance overt diffusion...