Theories of International Relations - Summaries of Readings PDF

Preview

Summary

Theories Realism The basics A very harsh environment world. The strongest state is the one with the most power relative to the others. main motivations are military power. States exist under anarchy. The derives from the fact that there is no central body of governance that can restrict or even guid...

Description

Theories Realism The basics -

-

-

-

-

-

-

A very harsh environment – dog-eat-dog world. The strongest state is the one with the most power relative to the others. States’ main motivations are military power. States exist under anarchy. The “anarchy” derives from the fact that there is no central body of governance that can restrict or even guide the behaviour of the actors within the system.  The implications, in neorealism, are that this existential state drives them to only be concerned with security.  State interests, rather than human rights or ideological preferences, are the driver for every action. It’s about the maximization of power. o As a result, military security is paramount. States are the only important actors… other actors are irrelevant, as states act through them, or their actions are of limited importance. Waltz’s analogy… NGOs, NATO, EU are small firms… you only worry about the big firms in a market, and they are states! What do states do? o Build weapons o Forge alliances o They can even co-operate! But, this is at the constant risk of breaking down.  All to the end of increasing security! The fundamental tenets? o Statism o Survival o Self-help Scholarship o Machiavelli/Hobbes… competition in human nature (classical) o In reaction to idealism, Carr, Morgenthau, Kennan said that international system would always be competitive (30s and 40s). Power will always be important for security, and security will always dominate concerns. o 1979 – Waltz – Theory of International Relations – Birth of Neorealism  Anarchy is what drives states. Their actions are a result of the set-up, not a cause! Other dynamics o Defensive (Waltz) vs Offensive (Mearsheimer) realism  Achieving security is placed above expansion of power in the former.  Waltz sees security maximisers… Mearsheimer sees power maximisers! General thoughts/issues o It’s capable of explaining to us what’s occurring when a state has its security threatened… it thus provides great explanations in times when security was lacking, such as during the Cold War!  Throws up a con… not great at telling us what’s going on when security isn’t really at risk. It suggests everything is to do with power… but is that realistic, at all times and everywhere?



o

o

o o

And this is circular. Realism says, “states are always threatened”, and then provides good arguments when they are. But are states truly always threatened? Cruder realist views focus solely on military power, which is becoming increasingly unimportant in recent times. Better to think about other forms of power!  Power has to be made legitimate – Hurrell. Realism gives little place for the motivations or desires of the people living within a state… it makes little attempt to explain them. Most people dislike war… realism has little to say about that! Globalisation, and increasing interconnectedness, is somewhat eroding the explanatory power of realism. It’s flawed to not give multiple actors some agency. Understanding Uzbekistan as a more powerful or important player on the international stage than the EU is deeply unsettling, and the theory encourages this.  It would argue that the EU simply reflects the wishes of other powerful states and has been entered into them to help them increase their relative power.

Wohlforth – Realism chapter (2008) Take care not to reduce realism to a single internally consistent, and logically coherent theory. It is multifaceted, and not that simple. You can’t just defeat it by oversimplifying. 4 central propositions 1) 2) 3) 4)

Groupism (basically statism, in the IR context) Egoism (narrowly self-interested) Anarchy (this constrains actors and guides their behaviour) Power politics (regrettably, IR is largely politics of power and security)

From these central propositions, realist arguments are formed!    

Politics will be conflictual if there is no central authority to enforce order Constant threat of violence Failure of co-operation States continually arm themselves

Diversity within realism comes from putting different stresses on these different arguments/propositions! -

Defensive and offensive realism came in response to Waltz, due to his inadequate focus upon variations in geography and (weapon) technologies.

Other realist theories  Balance of power – joining forces in order to balance the power of another country. Britain & France vs Crimea  Balance of threat – similar to balance of power, but with a focus on the perceptions of particular threats that countries provide, not just their power differentials  Security Dilemma – security seeking states are constantly thrust into costly spirals of mistrust and rivalry

 Offence-Defence – Technologies, geographies and other factors should lead us to distinguish between whether countries are acting defensively or offensively  Hegemonic stability – a hegemon makes for stability by exerting dominance over the international system  Power-transition – in situations where a hegemon breaks down, all states are thrown into a power grab… this makes clashes more likely Important to try and look at the individual nuances of the theories… some variants of realism will escape the criticisms that you level at them, whilst others will not. Realism can explain peace, and war. Your earlier assertions that realism is circular is a mistake made by focussing simply on one principle of the theory! Other realists -

-

-

Waltz – structural realists minimise the importance of national attributes… all states are functionally similar units! o Force remains an important and effective tool of statecraf Grieco – modern realists! o Critics of the neoliberals, they emphasise that absolute and relative gains matter o Two barriers to co-operation – fear of those who won’t follow the rules, and the relative gains of others Security studies scholars o Offensive neo-realists – importance of relative power is emphasised o Defensive neo-realists – ofen confused with neo-liberal institutionalists!  They hold that the costs of war are high, and result from irrational forces in society  The difference between them and the neo-liberals? They’d still stress that the world needs weapons, thanks to some states being expansionary, you need to protect yourself!

Waltz – Theory of International Politics - 1979 Structure of the system has three elements…  Organising principle o World politics operates under anarchy  By focussing on the structure, one can explain why functionally dissimilar units act in similar ways!  Differentiation of units o Functionally-similar sovereign states are relevant… unit level variation (i.e. Hitler vs Churchill) is irrelevant!  Distribution of capabilities o Who has the power to do what is the FUNDAMENTAL differentiator between states.  Power is a means to the end of security. Level of power is the independent variable dictating international outcomes. Other thoughts -

Thinks that institutions can never dominate states (UN?)

-

-

It’s not violence that is ever present, but the threat of it… co-operation is necessarily limited as a result. Bipolarity is safer than multipolarity, since… o In multipolarity situations, states will adapt to partners to woo them (France and Britain, 1894) o Alliance leaders in bipolarity need not worry as much about defections to another bloc… there’s only one other option, and they’re unlikely to take you, as you’ve been the direct enemy!  Less defections… this makes multi-polar order less stable! Balancing internally – becoming stronger Balancing externally – forging alliances

Liberalism (Neo)liberalism Presentation: What kinds of liberalism exist? Will focus on two: Classical Liberalism (Locke/Kant etc.) & Neoliberalism (Keohane/Nye etc.). The Core Insights of Liberalism: What does the structure of the international system look like? What are the implications of this? Classical Liberalism:  No world government, but states are interdependent and global governance does exist to some extent  This means the emphasis on power politics is reduced, leaving open other issues...  Power isn’t the only concern Neoliberalism:  Agree with realists that global system is one of anarchy  But, anarchy ≠ chaos  States may be self-interested, but cooperation is still possible via institutions Who are the main actors and what motivates their behaviour? Classical Liberalism:  States are important actors, but they are not islands! States are interdependent – for example, economically – so, cooperation can be mutually beneficial (N.B. It’s not all about power-politics!)  To aid with this, international organisations play a large role in international politics (They can help bring about/enforce liberal ideals – e.g. UN collective security/ free trade & the WTO) Neoliberalism:  Again, states and then institutions

 More of a realist interpretation of state interests – absolute gains and security predominate (although note that there is some room for empathy and idealism – helps coordination problems in establishing institutions)  Institutions – help with mutual gains by arranging jointly profitable ventures for states. Also aid sustained cooperation by allowing states to demonstrate reliability (lemons problems) & reduce the impact of imperfect information (repeat games & decentralised enforcement by states themselves) Doyle 1997 – Four-dimensional definition of liberalism The link between liberalism as a political/economic theory, and as an international theory, is becoming ever more prevalent and relevant. 1) All citizens are juridically equal and possess rights to education, free press, and religious toleration 2) The legislative assembly possesses only the authority invested in it by the public 3) The right to own property and productive forces is universal 4) The markets are the most efficient system of economic exchange Domestic & international institutions are required to protect and nurture the above values. What dynamics/issues do scholars care about and why?  Sustained cooperation – sees failings on realist assumptions  Game theory – rational basis for this cooperation  Democratic peace – Again, seemingly unexplainable via realism – e.g. just a proxy for bipolarity: From Doyle: (i) Liberal Pacifism (Schumpeter) – Capitalism + Democracy = economically rational citizens who will never allow for war (ii) Liberal Imperialism (Machiavelli) – Liberal states aren’t democracies – & peace through imperialism - system of 3 powers which all veto the other. This and exploitation keeps the peace... (iii) Liberal Internationalism (Kant) – The Pacific Union (essential the start of Dem Peace Theory) – Liberal states have shared values and so don’t fight one another. This doesn’t extend to non-liberal states. The three liberalisms outlined above all provide a reason as to why then democratic peace has

held. Keohane & Martin – Institutional Theory as a Research Program (2003) -

Article describes challenge of Neoliberalism to realism, particularly Waltz’s neorealism

Where do realists and neoliberal institutionalists agree? -

States are the primary actors States act rationally, to maximise expected gains States pursue their own interests, and don’t act altruistically States operate under anarchy, without common government

What changes things? The variable of information… Key anomalies in realist theory -

-

International co-operation is extensive and highly institutionalised o WTO, IMF, EU, and NATO… this co-operation expanded afer the end of the USSR, though realists would have expected it to secede.  Deep patterns of co-operation, with meaningful outcomes and states putting themselves at risk of short-term exploitation, in order for the promise of longer-term benefits of co-operation. The institutions they’ve created SUSTAIN AND ENHANCE these patterns of co-operation. The role of reciprocity, and of increased information, allows the sustenance of co-operation. o Information isn’t fix at a poor level, as in realism… it is a variable! As it increases, we can avoid the discord that we see in purely realist analyses and expectations.

Realist retort  Realists recognise that co-operation exists, but downplay its importance o It only takes place in the context of, and to serve the ends of, the power realities that fundamentally shape and limit it! Institutional theory doesn’t account for the role of power enough.  Relative gains are still prevalent in co-operation, and institutions just provide a way in which both can gain, whilst thinking they are gaining relative to one another, or to other states! o INSTITUTIONALIST RETORT – the chance of others undermining co-operation is LOW. This is because institutions create a lot of reason to co-operate and provide high costs in risks and losses to those that don’t co-operate  Afer bipolarity passes, conflict would ensue o It didn’t, not between any major powers! Mearsheimer – Endogeneity trap  International institutions have minimal influence on state behaviour, because the most powerful states create and shape institutions. International institutions are epiphenomenal (a secondary phenomenon accompanying another and caused by it). o Institutions are endogenous to international structure… anarchy still drives their formation, and states’ self-interests and power differentials are highly evident in the goings-on of international institutions How to escape this trap?  Agency becomes central to institutional theory o The relationship between states and institutions is one of delegation, not just puppeteering.  Institutions genuinely and properly delegate authority to international institutions, in order that such institutions do coherent and useful work.  How to prove that delegation, and not puppeteering, occurs? o Multiple equilibria exist in non-zero-sum games  Many different strategies can be played to reach various equilibria… the institutions can influence which ones is reached! Therefore, there’s no endogeneity, because the institutions have a real causal effect on which outcome emerges

o

o

Organisation theory  Institutions remain stable in the face of changes in structural variables  Legally binding actions by IOs remain valid Agency theory  IOs have their own leaders, with institutionally affected interests of their own. They aren’t just the puppets of states!  More emphasis is put on agency. Use Ban Ki Moon and the notes from your UN revision tutorial as a basis for this argument… the institutions genuinely have independent thought.

NEO-NEO DEBATE (in Globalisation of World Politics, 2010). 1) ANARCHY – both agree that the system is archaic. Neoliberals emphasises interdependence and institutions as a vehicle for it as a way to overcome this… neo-realists focus on how this determines the struggle for security. 2) CO-OPERATION – neo-realists see it as hard to maintain, yet neoliberals see it as possible and even likely in areas where states have mutual interests and meaningful institutions 3) GAINS – Neoliberals focus on absolute gains; neo-realists focus on relative gains (and use this to explain why co-operation is limited… fear that the other will gain too much) 4) STATE PREOCCUPATIONS – Realists see power, security, survival, and self-help are the key drivers of state action… liberals believe that economic welfare, the environment, international political security, etc. are most important. 5) INTENTIONS – neo-realists emphasise power, not intentions. Uncertainty of intentions means that one should focus on power. Neoliberals instead focus on states’ intentions, seeing them as credible. 6) INSTITUTIONS – Neoliberals believe them to be significant global forces. Neo-realists think their impact is massively over-exaggerated, and that institutions are endogenous to anarchy.

Constructivism Hurd – “Constructivism” – 2008 -

The theory emphasises the social and relational construction of what states are and what they want

4 distinguishing features 1) An alternative to materialism a. Constructivism focuses on the meanings of material objects, because people act towards objects on the basis of the meanings that those objects have for them i. I.e. having a large army only matters if others fear it b. Neorealism and neoliberalism are explicitly materialist – they seek to explain behaviours as the result of purely material forces. i. Constructivists understand forces through the social concepts that define them c. Strategy, intelligence, and resolve, are all non-material forces 2) Construction of state interests

a. National interests are formed via SOCIAL processes. The social interactions and the history between the US and NK make for the unstable relationship between them. We’re more worried about NK’s 5 nukes than the US’s 100s. b. How can state interests be constructed socially? i. Norms are socialised and internalised. Countries follow each other’s suit. ii. The presence, or absence, of feeling accepted into an international community iii. The drive for social recognition and prestige 3) Mutual constitution of structures and agents a. Not just the structure driving the agents’ behaviour… but the actions of states contribute to making institutions and norms of international life, which are important parts of the structure under which states operate! Anarchy isn’t the only important structural thing, and anarchy can be overcome! b. States too are changed, because institutions and norms contribute to defining, socialising, and influencing states. 4) Multiple logics of anarchy a. Waltz derived a set of predictions from anarchy about the behaviour of units… balancing behaviour, self-help strategy, self-interested identity, etc. i. WENDT – these don’t simply follow from anarchy… they come from the additional assumption that units see each other as rivals over scarce goods 1. There’s a spectrum of anarchies 2. An anarchy of friends differs from one of enemies (1995) 3. Community, rivalry, hierarchy, conflict, co-operation… any and all of these can exist under anarchy! Conflict isn’t prescribed. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th points follow from the first – that world politics is partly socially constructed!  States transform anarchy into something that isn’t really anarchy anymore. The word choice is wrong. There’s still no over-arching material authority, but perhaps a socially constructed and immaterial one resides! Conclusion -

To be a constructivist means looking at IR with an eye open to social constructions of actors, institutions, and events. Actors behave primarily based upon how they understand and ascribe meaning to the world around them Material power can still be important, and actors can still make instrumental calculations of their interests… but this isn’t the only thing going on in IR. Assuming that it is leads us down poor paths of analyses.

Wendt – Anarchy is what states make of it – 1992 -

Nothing logically or causally flows from anarchy. Finding oneself in a self-help world is due to process, not to “structure”. Institutions are cognitive – they are constructed and exist because actors have ideas about how the world works. Identities and structure are mutually constituted

o o

Self-help is an institution, one of various structures of identity and interest that may exist under anarchy There’s a continuum of security systems – these are all possible and are determined depending on how actors view the world and politics, as a result of their identities!  Competitive system may exist (as in realism)  Individualistic system may exist (with states indifferent to one another, absolute gains important, and collective action more possible)  A co-operative system might exist – states identify positively with one another, such that each’s security is the responsibility of all!

Foreign policy identities are exogenous to the state system -

It is i...