Lecture notes, lectures 1-8, 10 - introduction to international relations PDF

Preview

Summary

Introduction to International Relations...

Description

Introduction to International Relations Lecture 1



29/09/2014

What is International Relations?

There is no sweeping meaning for the term, the course will introduce you to the various debates which will help you make your own interpretations. The term International Relations is somewhat out-dated, and it acts under the premise that Nations and the State are one in the same. However, contemporary IR also takes into account the relations between and amongst non-governmental organisations (NGOs), International Organisations (the UN) and Transnational Companies (Apple)



Why IR theory is unavoidable

The use of the word theory in the framework of IR is an abstract system of thought used to simplify complicated and intricate events; however some IR theory is quasi-scientific, but this is rare. It is impossible to avoid IR theory, as anything you say will be under a certain school of thought, i.e. realism, liberalism, neo-liberalism, constructivism. The roles of IR theory are to describe events, explain why the world is as it is, acting in a normative function; telling us what is right and wrong, being prescriptive advising on how a situation should be, being policy relevant offering advice on what to do, being constitutive, being an amalgamation of various subjects and their individual needs/implications and being emotive to make us feel a certain way.



Overview of IR Schools of Thought

As a note, it is very difficult to define liberalism, constructivism and post-structuralism in one set way.

Constructivism: This isn’t a specific theory, it is more of a wider approach; the theory of how meaning is constructed. Constructivism posits that International Relations is a part of sweeping discursive struggles. Meaning implied by position, timings and tradition; focussing on identities and discourses. They look at HOW people arrive at certain thoughts, i.e. identity. Interests are questioned, as to how people arrive at certain interests i.e. climate change. Progress, seeing identities at now wholly separate, linking into poststructuralism and postcolonialism.

Historical Materialism (HM):

This theory posits that there is an imperial hierarchy within capitalism, and how it affects global class relations (i.e. Chinese capitalists and their interests in London property). Fundamental division between those who own capital, or work for capital- as the class conflict drives the political situation in various places; i.e. 1970s Unions vs Profits, altered the shape of UK politics. From a Historical Materialist perspective, there would be progress if there was a reduction or end to capitalist exploitation.

Liberalism:

World politics is one, the ‘global community’. There are shared practices and goals, most are on the same wavelength; this drives the politics in this sense. Liberalists approve that people will have different values, but there are universal interests that shape certain values. Through this school of thought, progress is defined as the spread and the institutionalisation of liberal values of individual rights and responsibilities.

Realism:

Realist theory alludes to the idea that ‘world politics’ is an anarchic system, with no overall, controlling authority. A key idea is that states rely on self-help for security, there is no sense of order- survival is key, and you cannot rely on others, only yourself. It states that politics is driven by relative military power- demonstrating the ability to survive and avoid being crushed in the whirlwind of world politics. The interests are national and objective, different states will have different objectives. Progress is not apparent because there is constant war, conflict, power and states, and the realisation that world politics is so anarchic, there will be little progress made.

Globalisation: Perspectives and Debates

There is no agreement on this term, has the world globalised or is it globalising? Is the position of the state being weakened, strengthened or transformed? Globalisation is new, positive and transformative. There are ideas such as interdependence, communications revolution, global culture, global governance, shared multiple risks, develop through an economy which are related to globalisation. Globalisation is familiar, negative and has limited change: new facet of Capitalism.

Introduction to International Relations Lecture 1 Week 2

06/10/2014

The United States in World Politics

Orders: Pre-modern, modern

World politics in the last millennium were organised in a plethora of ways, a dispersed authority, with monarchical, authoritarian, and ancient diplomacy as displayed in Rome, Greece and the Ottoman Empire. As demonstrated by ideas such as the Divine Right of Kings, there were firm structures in place, in England for example. However, the modern system allows each sovereign state to be formally equal- each state has one vote, and only one vote. You’re a sovereign state, when you have the final authority over a population, territory and other actors whom play a part in the sovereign state. This proceeds into the idea of the nation state, which then factors in to nationalism felt by the population of the state. Example: 17th Century Napoleonic, same as HIS3F ideas of Walpole/Townshend, the Whigs etc.

However, there is a debate as to whether political organisation will remain dynamic, or whether it stops at the idea of a sovereign state. It has been demonstrated that the sovereign state has lost some of its power, over decision making and policy making as there are more organisations such as the WTO, the European Court of Human Rights etc. Therefore, there are more actors on the stage of global politics insofar that the idea of the nation state is now changing; much to the disappointment of contemporary British politicians. Global Governance.

In the period of empire, the idea of a sovereign state was not present as the idea of an empire pushes the external ruling of a group of peoples/territory, by a body who felt as though the territory is not capable of ruling itself. Decolonisation spend up after the end of World War Two, as it was claimed that any nation had its right to become a sovereign state. This set out a precursor as to how the dynamics of world politics were to become post-1945. This was the preface to the Cold War.

Will the US continue to exist at all/in its present form?

The End of the Cold War as mainly change In the Cold War, the US was in favour of multi (liberal) democracy, but the problem they had was that the Soviet Union was v hostile and would move into any area where there was weakness; bribing and vote rigging. “We can’t let state go Communist due to the stupidity of their people” Liberals who look back and think that the US was sometimes over the top, worrying over the implication of elections and the power of the Soviet Union, possibly due to domestic interest groups.

The Realists said that the US had no choice but to back the dictatorships, and even overthrow democracies because they were at danger of becoming Communist. This posits the question as to if things have changed, what have they changed to? The ‘battles’ are still present, but have morphed into different scenarios. The ‘new threats’ perceived by the US are the rising power of China and India, Domestic ethnic conflict, the drug problem and terrorism (post 9/11 and also linked to the trade of weapons of mass destruction). Therefore, the world hasn’t really changed, so the US should be acting in a new and different way to deal with modern threats.

End of Cold War as mainly continuity

The North-South dimension is still present, as the north, in general the richer area of the world, exploit the south even to present day. This continued even with the end of the East-West struggle. World order is based on inequalities between developed capitalist North, and the apparent underdeveloped South. Therefore, the problem for the US is the economic nationalism in the less industrialised world- self-sustentation undermining the dominant position of the US.

The Contemporary Position of the USA

Unipolarity: When all actors are separate, and one is just very powerful compared to the rest. Empire: Controlling a territory with formal ties of authority over a group, whom between them have strong ties. Hegemony: The dominant actor in the system, ruling through cooperation not overt conflict. You are leading because others agree to buy into your leadership; they have to commit resources. I.e. the US pushing Iraq out of Kuwait with a coalition, it cost the US lots but it worked.

Factions and Ideological Themes in the George W Bush Jr administration 2001-08

Neoconservatives: is using US military offensively for ‘moral’ purposes to get rid of anti-US authoritarian governments. With the end of the Cold War, was a time to use the US military offensively to get rid of those authoritarian governments and dictatorship. Therefore, people will not ‘boo’ the American imperialism, but would rather advocate their actions and allow the US to act in the name of ‘democracy’. However, under Bush there was a real coalition, known as the Unilateralist Hawks who believed that they should use military power pre-emptively before foreign threats become too great, this was especially prominent after 9/11 which in effect created this coalition of ideologies. Pragmatic Multilateralists were to use US military power unilaterally only as a last resort where doing deals with anti-American authoritarian governments was not possible.

In the period from 2005-08, the US was seen as globally unpopular. They were seen as acting like the “global policeman” which was a label that was not appreciated by many sovereign states.

US Role and Wider Global Context

Since 2009, how much has the role of the US changed? There are still topical issues such as: the war on terror, globalisation, global economic crisis, climate change, the EU and the BRICs.

History of Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism took off in the 1970s to overcome trade unionism and limits on the profitability of labour- a conscious effort to shift power from the workers, to the businesses themselves. There is a massive contradiction between the theory of Neoliberalism (low taxes, low inflation, no regulation and privatisation) and the fact that this is abandoned when power is shifted from workers to businesses. Advocates claim that it is more efficient and positive for everyone, in an increasingly globally competitive economy. There is also a contrast between increasing wages for those in senior management regardless of performance, and workers having more competition, larger taxation and large pay cuts. The state are having less and less control over the big businesses (tax havens/only considering large businesses). Countries view to compete with lower tax to attract the big businesses.

(Washington Consensus) 80s and (post-Washington Consensus) 90s

Neoliberalism: Theoretical, Practical and Interest Related Definitions

Theoretically Neoliberalism in this sense is individuals pursuing their own interests in global competitive capitalist free markets, as the main principle of rational and just social organisation. It is distinctive as it elevates the markets as the main principle, which shows its difference from liberalism. There is a concept known as Extending Commodification whereby more and more aspects of life are governed by the capitalist free market: monetary transactions have become more important. There should be a removal of boundaries and (possibly links in closely with globalisation). Neoliberalism has changed the way in which we perceive ourselves, the idea of a ‘market person’ is a normal and natural ideal (Apprentice/Dragons’ Den shows the right we feel, that people have to their capital, how they should go about it- we all have an opinion).

Pure Neoliberalism cannot exist in the real world: it is purely theoretical. There are no fully free, selfcorrecting markets: there are always regulators that correct the markets, they are not self-

correcting. Neoliberalism is a process, not an outcome. It is a hybrid whereby we must contextualise neoliberalism as there are communities and languages, which lead away from the self-interested premise of Neoliberalism. It is inherently unstable, where there are crises of commodification and there is regulation within all markets. It is finally inherently contradictory: regulation underpins and undermines markets, so anti-state, but neoliberalism needs/has to use the state (we’re in the biggest state of regulation now).

If the state were to own an industry, then it would control it completely. If it were privatised, the state would regulate it as they would need to make sure that they were playing ‘to the game’, as this neoliberal ideal will, paradoxically, always lead to regulation.

Markets, Capitalism and Neoliberalism

Market refers to the exchange of goods and services, for something in return (not necessarily monetary exchange) Capitalism is a means by which society is divided into Capitalists (factory owners, who own the means of production) and Wage Labourers (own their labour, but don’t own the means of production). The imperative of survival is important in capitalism: labourers work for wages, and capitalists work for profits. It is embedded within political power, on which it relies for a context in which to operate- companies rely on the state, if there has been conflict between capital and labour, then the state has historically sided with the capitalists (miner’s strike/trade unions/riots). Neoliberalism in this sense is individuals pursuing their own interests in global competitive capitalist free markets, as the main principle of rational and just social organisation. Competitive Market is where sellers, as well as buyers, compete with each other. Free Market is where exchange is solely determined by supply and demand for goods and services. This is a very idyllic approach, as it does not really exist as every market is regulated by a body. The Functions of the Market Mechanism are signalling, rationing and incentive functions. Markets like to give as little as possible, and want to maximise returns, very self-interested. Community is where helping others is desirable in itself, it isn’t an exchange.

Other ways in which the markets can be organised is through Feudalism by which workers are granted possession of means of production (like Land), but have to give a portion of their product or labour, to a (religious) leader. Socialism with the common, shared ownership of means of production. Community-based.

Capitalism is not necessarily neoliberal, for example: 1970s Western Europe where there was a large proportion of state ownership and the fact that the state provided many incentives for civilians.

Political Concepts Lecture 1 Week 2

06/10/2014

Why start with Power?

Power is a very tricky concept to deal with, so it is a good place to start as it requires analysis akin to that used on this course. The study of power will allow the exploration of different meanings that we attach to words etc. Power could also have the effect as to quell certain questions that maybe should be raised, therefore dominant meanings often allude to political causes, which therefore have consequences in the political world.

What is a concept? A concept is an idea picked out by a word or a phrase. A single concept can be picked out by more than one word, but there can be more than one concept picked out by a single word (e.g. freedom (to do or become something i.e. job, or freedom from something i.e. absence of torture). Therefore, it is important to think about words, what they mean, as they have such an important part to play in contemporary politics. How many concepts are there in the world? Is power one concept, or are there many conceptions of power? It is therefore required to ask ‘what power really is’. Usually, with words such as power, there can be several concepts that are embodied within this one word, rather than a ‘masterconcept’ that comes in different forms. E.g. Isiah Berlin who argued that there are two concepts of Liberty; negative (freedom from) and positive (freedom to).

The General Idea of Power

Dahl on power “A exercises power over B when she/he gets B to do something she/he would not otherwise do.” Take the example of Obama, can he really make us do things that we don’t currently plan on doing. Obama could, hypothetically, place sanctions on the UK or send troops into the country. This would bring about a very large cost; so does someone really have power, if by exercising it, they would lose it? These exercises of power may be seen as so awful to use, therefore they are unusable. Power and Virtue alludes to the idea that (Obama) has power over people perceived as ‘bad’, those ‘rogue states’, if there is coercion between the public and Obama. Is there an extreme abundance of power within the world, as presumably all of us can effect violence upon one another- violence, threat, and harassment. This can lead to people doing things that otherwise they might not have done, demonstrating an important facet of a power-dynamic.

Exercises in Power

Dahl posits that for there to have been an instance of power, there must be observational conflict. But, is it conflict, and is there really power, if someone accepts a request that is relatively costless on their part. Therefore, is there conflict in this instance? There is difference between: Can I ask you to Stand and Stand! Therefore, is it only power if our language makes that transparent? Is gentle persuasion or encouragement an exercise in power if it produces changes in behaviour? Do the British have no power, but large influence due to excessive politeness, by using, for instance, the word ‘sorry’? Can someone have power over someone else if they cannot control which ‘someone’ has their behaviour altered. As opposed to A having power over B, is it still power if A could not control whether B-Z were affected, but B’s behaviour was still altered (random selection). Perhaps, A demonstrated power over B, whereas in the future B would not change their thoughts/actions.

Conclusion

Humans care about power, and want to try to identify and reorganise it in the world.

Political Concepts, Lecture 1, Week 3

13/10/2014

Liberty

Why does it matter? It is used to justify proposals and to criticise the status quo, as well as inspiring and legitimising rebellions, invasions and interventions (including perceived ‘terrorists/freedom fighters’). Liberty/Freedom is a form of power, to change what people construe as freedom/liberty, to change what they demand from freedom and what they see freedom as. It is the cornerstone of political language and therefore political behaviour in contemporary society. There is also a theoretical importance of the concept of liberty and freedom. Freedom may be a key ideal, even after reflection, something that governments should deliver through policy, or something that should be institutionalised within society. It is possible to say that no system is legitimate, and therefore does not deserve our obedience, if it doesn’t maximise our freedom. Isiah Berlin is an important writer on Liberty- he conceived the idea of negative and positive liberty.

Isiah Berlin’s distinction between negative and positive liberty

Negative Liberty is defined as the absence of obstacles/barriers/constraints- things which are there, and which stop you from doing or becoming something. It is usually spoken as ‘freedom from’ e.g. freedom from torture, freedom from harassment, freedom from negative things. ...