Introduction To International Relations PDF

INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS When we talk about international relations, we are talking about the interactions between nations, it usually deals with conflict, foreign policy and international organisations, but also with revolutions, political economy, and environmental politics which are closely linked to comparative politics. If we were to represent it graphically, we would do it so: International relations is one of the most recent academic disciplines. The first chair in international relations was established in 1919 at the University of Galles in Aberystwyth and it E was held by professor Alfred Zimmern who was a strong supporter of the idealist liberalism embodied by the US president Woodrow Winston. Moreover, the first university dealing only with International Aﬀairs was founded in 1927 in Geneva, the Institut de Haute Etudes Internationales et du Developpement (IHEID). The birth of international relations was a clear consequences of the tragedy of the first world war. Although Europe had almost constantly been at war throughout its history, the first word war, due to its scale, was a completely new phenomenon that changed everything. Only the battle of La Somme in 1916 caused 1 million casualties over 141 days meaning 300 dead per hour.1On the 7 first day alone, Britain lost 57’000 men and the territory gained was 12 sqkm, every km costed more than 80’000 lives. This one battle eradicated substantial part of the youth from towns like Accrington and Grimsby. Here following, we can see some terms that might come to our minds when thinking about international relations. 1 International rations can be, without any doubt, described as messy since every collective decision process has always some degree of diﬃculty. The American political scientist and professor of international relations Joshua Goldstein said: “How can a group, such as two countries, serve its collective interests when doing so requires its members to forgo their individual E interests?” All of this would be equal to enforcing a cooperative equilibrium in a prisoner dilemma game. Collective action problems can be solved by entities in the international stage through three main strategies which are dominance, reciprocity and identity. I. DOMINANCE —> dominance is the establishment of a hierarchy where does above control does below. Conflict gets generally resolved through a decision made by the higher ranking actor. The presence of a higher ranking actor may be due to their cornerstone importance to the establishment and the maintenance to alliance, not necessarily because of military power. The higher ranking actor, exactly like a government, forces its members to contribute to the common good and minimises conflict within. Dominance is not always established through force, in fact, it can be a much more complex phenomenon. A real life example of dominance can be seen in the UN security council and the veto power. II. RECIPROCITY —> reciprocity is a system of incentives that rewards those part of a group and punishes those who deviated from the collective optimum of the group, it is sometimes enforced without external authority and can be based on the principal of «do ut des» or «an eye for an eye». When reciprocity is enforced without an external authority, it can lead to a downward spiral of punishments and comebacks. Generally, in this type of system actors overestimate their own good intentions and underestimate the value of the actions of the opponents. A real life example of reciprocity can be seen in the reciprocal arms control agreements. o III. IDENTITY —> identity is based on the values structure of a group, actors may give so much importance to conforming to the values of a community that they may be willing to sacrifice some immediate benefit. This concept of identity can arise from self-defined identities of the actors and can lead to a dangerous in-group/out-group dynamic and to the demonisation of the counterpart through propaganda. A Real life example of identity can be seen in the support that Arab and non-Arab middle Eastern states have given to Palestine since the 50s. Here is a little summary and graphical representation: Most of the time institutional and interpersonal exchanges between actors are formed by a mix of all of these three strategies, these strategies highlight elements of the causes of international event, but they do not help us much in analysing the causes of major international events. After understanding the roots of international conflict and divergence of interests we can devise strategies and solutions that are mindful of dominance, reciprocity and identity. In order to understand major international events we have to use a three step level of analysis. The first step is the INDIVIDUAL LEVEL which focuses on perceptions, choices, and actions of individual human beings. The second step is the DOMESTIC LEVEL which concerns the aggregation of individual within states that influence state actions in the international arena. The third and last step is the SYSTEMIC LEVEL, which pays attention to states’ relative power positions in the international system and the interactions among them. It has been traditionally considered the most important of the levels of analysis. Here is the framework of the levels of analysis: 2 3 THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS In order to understand the contemporary composition of the international system and the ways political units interact, we need to study the development of nation state as we know it today. We can basically identify two main stages throughout European history, the first stage goes from 1500 to 1659 and is centred around the Spanish hegemony. The second stage goes from 1660 to 1815 and is centred around the French hegemony. FIRST STAGE —> we consider Charles the V as the first real modern Emperor, his reign started in 1500. Let's not forget that during this period of time the Italian wars were fought from 1494 to 1559, Ii_ Spain was the one to conquer much of the peninsula. Also, the Ottoman-Hasburg wars took place and the Ottoman Empire managed to siege Vienna for the first time in 1529, but the advance of the Ottomans in Europe found its limit, Vienna will be sieged again in 1693. 00 Moreover, there was the Eighty years’ war from 1568 to 1648 which saw the eastern Flemish provinces launch a rebellion against Spain for independence and the Anglo Spanish war from 1585 to 1604 when Spain tried to invade England and suﬀered the defeat of the Incredible Armada in the 1588. Finally, the Thirty years war was fought from 1618 to 1648 and saw the Hapsburg territories and Ieremia the Catholic principates of Germany against France, England and the protestant principates. The Thirty years war ended with the treaty of Westfalia of 1648 which has been considered the birth of the modern state system. Spain and France finally made separate peace in 1659. We remember the year 1659 due to the treaty of the Pyrenees between Spain and France which marked an end to the European wars of religion, in fact, empires and other political units after this year, will stop fighting amongst each other for religious supremacy over Europe and start fighting for reasons of state and power politics. What is interesting is that a few elements that characterised this period will keep coming back in European history: first of all, great powers will take turns at trying to gain hegemonic power in the continent and they will all fail just like Spain did, plus the UK will always be active against that continental power trying to rule over the continent. After 1659 fighting will be justified by raison d’etat and Europe will have already seen the apex of absolute monarchies. If we think about the systemic level of analysis, we have to obviously keep into account, the scientific enquiry that emerged during those years as a primary method of understanding the world and challenging religious doctrines and also the Baroque movement in the Catholic countries, which was a reaction to the separation of the church. Also, intellectuals began to lay the philosophical foundations of enlightenment, and in the economic field mercantilism, the development of colonial empires and modern finance begun to spread. After this first stage, Spain will cease to be the challenger for dominance, and pass the lead to France. SECOND STAGE —> France is now the new challenger for dominance in Europe, we could go as far as saying that this period was characterised by many wars that saw France against anybody else. First of all, there was the nine years war from 1688 to 1697 or war of the grand alliance when Louis XIV of France, fought against England, Spain, Dutch Republic, Prussia and the Holy Roman Empire, and even though he lost the status quo did not change considerably. From 1701 to 1714 there was the war of Spanish succession which started due to the death without heirs of Charles the II of Spain and saw Britain, Austria, and the Dutch Republic, fighting against France to prevent the union of France and Spain. Moreover, there was the seven years war from 1756 to 1763 that was considered the original first world war, England and Prussia fought against France, Austria, and Russia, and won with little gains in Americas and India, making England the largest colonial power. The seven years war was extremely expensive and forced England to increase taxation in the American colonies causing the American war of independence. This second stage was a period of revolutions, from the English revolution of 1649 to the glorious revolution of 1689 that saw the bloodless overthrow of king James II by a coalition of parliamentarians and the Dutch prince William of Orange. It was exactly after the glorious revolution that the new monarch accepted the English bill of rights in 1689 according to the bill of rights, the king could not suspend law without Parliament, the royal prerogative was subordinate to common law, and it was the end of the divine right of the king to subordinate to common law. All of this straightened anti-French foreign policies, and resulted in England having stronger 4 connections with the Dutch, but also in making more pro-trade policies across the Americas and Asia. Let's not forget the American revolution which took place from 1775 to 1785 and was inspired by enlightenment ideals. In 1787 the US Constitution was drafted establishing a federal republic with checks and balances and in 1791 the bill of rights was amended and insured protection of individual liberties. All of this influenced the French revolution of 1789 and future independence movements, but also weakened the ability of England to be involved seriously in the continental wars against revolutionary France and Napoleon for a while. Perhaps the most important revolution in this period is the French revolution which took place from 1789 to 1794, the causes were the financial crisis due to the seven years war and support for the American war of independence, but also the tax burden on the shoulders of the third estate, the extravagant spending of the monarchy, and the influence of the enlightenment ideas. The consequences of the French revolution where the evolution of the monarchy and feudalism, the declaration of rights of men and of the citizen and the reduction of the power of the Catholic Church. We can individuate important phases of the French revolution and Napoleonic Empire, such as the fall of the Bastille in 1789, the terror and dictatorship of Robespierre from 1793 to 1794 and the Termidorian reaction and directory from 1794 to 1799 after the fall of Robespierre. After the French revolution, there was the rise of Napoleon, which distinguished himself as a commander in the revolutionary wars, he led a successful campaign in Italy from 1796 to 1797 and campaign in Egypt from 1798 to 1799 that was unsuccessful but cemented Napoleon’s reputation. Amid corruption, ineﬃciency and a large amount of external threats Napoleon seized the power on the 18 Brumaire 1799. The peak of Napoleon’s power is reached in 1812 after winning against five coalitions of the other European states together. However, not even Napoleon managed to become the hegemon of the continent, the fall of Napoleon started with the campaign of Russia of 1812 and continued with the peninsular war or Spanish independence from 1807 to 1814, the war of the sixth from 1813 to 1814 which saw coalition of Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Britain defeat Napoleon's forces at the battle of Leipzig in 1814 and ended with the hundred days and Waterloo in 1815. What Europe learned from these last 50 years was that monarchies that were thought immutable could be toppled in the blink of an eye, that the fate of kings and nobles if they lose is certain death, that without constant eﬀort to thwart the ambitions of the states with hegemonic ambitions the continent risks becoming hostage of its ambitions and finally that you cannot underestimate the strength of revolutionary states. This great importance that France has will come to an end in 1815 with the Congress of Vienna and the restoration of European equilibrium after Napoleon. In fact, after the fall of the Napoleonic Empire the remaining powers decided to fix Europe, the main protagonists of the Congress were: where: I. Klemens von Metternich for Austria —> he was the key architect of the Congress of Vienna, the chief advocate of restoring the balance of power in Europe, and he aimed at establishing the Hapsburg dominance in central Europe and stopping national revolutions II. Charles Maurice de Talleyrand for France III. Viscount Castlereagh for Great Britain —> he aimed at formalising an alliance to curb the hegemonic tendencies within the continent and to assure that no power could idly threaten the safety of commerces and access to ports, according to him no nation could become too strong IV. Tzar Alexander I for Russia —> he wanted to turn Russia into the dominant land power in the continent, he was deeply religious and had an almost ascetic personality, he was adamant to uphold conservative and Christian values against rationalist, democratic and nationalistic ideologies and did not want to return home without acquiring half of Poland. If we think about the domestic level, the aim was to reestablish the monarchical lines that were toppled by Napoleon, if we think about the international level, the purpose was to maintain the balance of power, and prevent the rise of another dominant power. It is important to remark that during those years we saw the rise of romantic movement, which was a threat to empires like Russia. After the Congress of Vienna, Prussia, Austria and Russia established the holy alliance, which had the purpose to intervene against national liberation movements, all over Europe. The holy alliance was partially successful in its scope, it interrupted the Republican insurrection in Spain in 1823, in Italy in 1820-26 and in Poland in 1830, but couldn't entirely contain the July revolution in France in 1830 and the Paris commune in 1848, but also the springtime of peoples of 1848 5 that marked the definitive decline of the holy alliance. It was triggered by industrialisation and economic hardship - since more people than ever were now exploited in factories -, the lack of political representation of the ever-growing middle class and the influence of revolution ideas developed by the rise of romanticism. Also, during this period of time we witness diﬀerent national unifications, such as the Italian unification that was achieved largely through diplomacy and alliances, like the one with France in 1859 against Austria, but also the one with Germany against Austria in 1866 for Veneto. A very important event for the Italian unification was the spedizione dei mille of 1860 when Garibaldi secured the unification of southern Italy. Another very important unification that happened during this period of time is the German unification achieved largely through military power and authoritarian militarism. In the context of the German unification, we remember the War against Denmark for the Sleshwig-Holstein and Hannover in 1864, the War against Austria for the Northern German Confederation in 1867 and the War against France for Alsace, Lorraine in 1871. The access to Bavaria was negotiated in 1871. Germany will now be the main challenger to the status quo in the continent thanks to the diplomatic abilities of Otto von Bismarck. The UK will then become the first modern great power. In this context, the most important elements of this period are: I. IMPERIALISM —> the West colonises the world and this created an insurmountable tension that led to WWI. The consequences of imperialism has let to structural disadvantages across the world that persist today. II. THE SCRUBLE FOR AFRICA —> the race that European states run to take possession of the largest possible territories in Africa for economic, political reasons other than prestige. All of this was made morally acceptable by widely accepted racism. At the beginning of the 19th century, Europeans had very little institutionalised dominions in Africa. The Suez Canal was completed in 1869 and England started controlling it in 1875. Moreover Egypt was occupied by British forces in 1882. A key moment in the international scenario was the Berlin Congress in 1884, in fact the European Powers divide Africa amongst themselves. Let's not forget the Fashoda incident of 1896 which represented the inevitable clash between north-south British and east-west French expansion. The Scramble for Africa was possible through a long series of atrocities from all sides, starting from the British with the Mau Mau Uprising - brutal suppression with torture and detention camps in Kenya - and the Hut Tax Rebellion - scorched-earth tactics in Sierra Leone -, the French with the forced Labor in French Congo - exploitation and abuse by concession companies -, the Voulet-Chanoine Mission - widespread massacres, torture and rapes in Niger and Chad - and the Madagascar Uprising - brutal suppression of nationalist revolt with mass killing to Germany with the Herero and Nama genocide in Namibia. III. IMPERIALISM IN ASIA —> by 1857 the British had total direct control over India and Burma, today’s Myanmar, was annexed in 1886. The Opium wars were fought from 1839 to 1842 and from 1856 to 1860 de-facto they subjugated China to the will of Britain - who took Hong-Kong - and Japan. By 1887 France consolidated its control over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, forming French Indochina. Indonesia was under the control of the Dutch, who ruled the trade of spices. The Philippines have been controlled first by the Spanish, then by the US. Russia and Britain strived to expand their own spheres of influence in Asia Minor in what became to be called “The Great Game”: while Russia had an initial advantage with the Persian Shah to protect its possession in todays Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, England was ultimately successful in gaining control of Oil Rights in Persia and the control of Afghanistan. As Germany will be in Europe, Asia has now a new power with hegemonic aspiration that is Japan. Japan had suﬀered millennia of fragmentation and conflict between rival warlords with short periods of unity and was definitely unified by Ieyasu Togugawa who started the Edo period and closed Japan oﬀ from the world from 1603 to 1868. Japan was forced to open-up the borders in the 1850s by the cannons of Admiral Perry - US Navy. A strong reaction to modernise the state led to the Meji Restoration in 1868 and basically consisted in a deep westernisation, nationalistic and racist governments, massive army build-up, the conquest of all of the Korean Peninsula and the invasion of China multiple times committing atrocious crimes. Japan won against Russia already in 1905 and became the main force to be reckoned with in Asia. 6 The Rise of powers is as essential as the Fall of Empires to understand global equilibria and there is no better example than the crisis of the Ottoman Empire, the “Sick man of Europe”, this crisis was caused by the lack of industrial revolution, an ineﬃcient and old fiscal and state system, late and unsuccessful reform attempts - Tanzimat -, severe autonomous tendencies in the provinces like the Greek independence in 1830, then Romanian, Bulgarian and others and the great extension and often impracticable terrain. All of this made the Ottoman empire fall back in comparison with the European powers and Japan. The European Powers took great advantage of the opportunity. and take a bite of the whale. Austria and Russia aimed to expand in the Balkans and the Black Sea, France in Algeria, Italy in Lybia and Britain in Egypt wanted to expand on the Southern Mediterranean, Russia and Britain clashed in their Great Game in Asia Minor, France and Russia clashed for the supremacy over the special status of the holy sites in Palestine which lead to the Crimean War from 1853 to 1856. Eventually the Ottoman Empire became hostage of the capitals of the very states who ate part of its territories - France and UK -, in order to break free from this situation, the ottoman empire entered WWI on the side of the Alliance. During WWI the future settlement of the Middle East was drawn, with the consequences persisting today. The Arab Uprising was sustained by coalition of the British together with the Hashemite Family, Hussein bin Ali al-Hashimi, the sons of Hussein bin Ali became kings of Jordan - Abdullah - and Iraq - Faisal. They did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles in protest against the Balfour Declaration of 1917. France and Britain secretly negotiated the Sykes-Picot Agreements in 1916 and informed the eventually Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 according to which France would get Syria and Lebanon- Syria had been already promised to Faisal since his forces liberated Damascus during the war- and Britain would get Palestine, Jordan and Iraq. The agreement was obviously irrespective of the ethnic and religious subdivisions of the area and it’s the very root of today’s instability in the Middle-East. We can summarise by saying that European powers will fight for hegemonic control over the continent, Britain will always be against the candidate for continental hegemony, the central unit of power are empires grounded on the nation state core, European states need to rely on a fragile balance of power, continental powers strive for hegemony by claiming lands for themselves everywhere in the world, the 18th and 19th centuries established western supremacy, European powers draft the borders of much of the rest of the world leading to conflicts persisting today and once the continental balance of power is settled, clashed over colonies and over the fall of the Ottoman Empire will re-ignite the continental wars. 7 AUTOCRACIES The largest part of the state in the world are autocracies and their survival rate can be surprisingly high. Let's look at some datas that will show us how they are spread and how long they tend to last: Autocracies Autocracies tocracies 8 ocracies – Duration of regimes DURATION —> Autocracies – Political prisoners POLITICAL PRISONERS —> Autocracies – Political killings POLITICAL KILLINGS —> Paradoxically, autocracies are the oldest and most common form of political governance, but the least studied with the tools of modern social science. It is still a field traditionally heavy in theory since it is more diﬃcult to study autocracies from an empirical point of view. In fact, empirical and field work are not as straightforward. Sometimes it is even diﬃcult to identify them, there can be diﬀerent types of autocracies. For example with Hungary we talk about electoral autocracy, with Mexico, Japan and Italy (DC) the situation is a bit diﬀerent since they were formally considered democracy, but for long time there 9 was only one party ruling without ever losing power. In some cases autocrats even delegate power to the parliament. While in democracies it is easier to characterise agents, their objectives and information, in autocracies authoritarian rulers are motivated by similar desires as democratic leaders but it is harder to identify important coalitions of notables. The crucial diﬀerence between authoritarian and democratic rulers is that dictators are much less constrained in how they can pursue their goals, implying a broader range of means to their ends from censorship to propaganda and coercion. The key issues for autocrats in the literature can be divided into two big categories: the COMPLIANCE OF CLOSE ALLIES, the «oligarchs» - How much power to share with them? How much information? How do oligarchs coordinate their behaviour? - and the COMPLIANCE OF THE BROADER POPULATION - How to get information about their preferences and how to transmit information? How to control their behavior/ prevent them from rebelling? -. In case no an individual is overwhelmingly strong, so we have to take a look into how coalitions form to rule a country as an autocracy. According to Gehlbach, Sonin and Svolik in Formal Models of Nondemocratic Politics, Annual Review of Political Science of 2016, the number of members can aﬀect the stability of the coalition: a coalition of 2 people can never be stable, a coalition of 3 people can be stable in a configuration where ya < yb < yc < ya + yb but we have to be careful about the Condorcet circularities, a coalition of 4 people can sometimes be stable depending on the power configurations. Generally, institutions in autocracies are a coordination device for dictator’s allies and they help solving dictator’s credible commitment while also monitoring eﬀectiveness. Politics is about getting and keeping political power and leaders do what they do to come to power, to stay in power and, to the extent that they can, to keep control over money. According to De Mesquita, B. B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., Morrow, J. D. in The logic of political survival, MIT press of 2005 political survival is best assured by depending on few people to attain and retain oﬃce, in fact, co-opt a few is easiermmm and cheaper than large amountmmmof individuals. When mm group of cronies knows that there is a large pool of people waiting on the sidelines, top the small leadership has great discretion over how revenue is spent and how much to tax, in fact, understanding the outside option is key. Also, allies have to be easily replaceable. Now, let's look at the SELECTORATE THEOREM. Any political system can be characterised by the following sets of actors: I. THE LEADER or INCUMBENT —> dictator of the place, they decide the tax rate of the economy, the provision of public goods and the private rents to give to the members of the winning coalition. II. A winning coalition of size W —> the essential subset of the selectorate whose support the current leader needs to stay in power, the members of the winning coalition W, earn from the public goods distributed in the economy, pay the tax rate chosen by the incumbent and receive private rents - benefits, palaces, concessions etc…. III. The selectorate of size S ≥ W —> the subset of the population whose members may become part of the leader’s support base, the members of the selectorate each has its own private political opinion and gain from public goods only and pay the taxes. IV. THE CHALLENGER —> wants to replace the incumbent, is randomly selected by the selectorate, in order to replace the incumbent needs to convince at least 1 member of W to switch and has to make an oﬀer S(x, g, t) greater than the one W currently receives from the incumbent. The incumbent leader survives in power as long as he is supported by a winning coalition of size W, upon seizing power from the incumbent, the challenger may prefer to replace some members of the winning coalition that brought him to power with others from the selectorate, the chance a member ends up in the final coalition is W/S. What happens is that: I. The incumbent leader picks a coalition, WL, of size W from the members of the selectorate. II. A challenger is randomly chosen, and then simultaneously both the incumbent and the challenger propose tax rates and policy provision. The proposal of the challenger: V(x, g, t) + δZL III. The incumbent makes a proposal to W that matches the one of the challenger. Both proposals need to be feasible, so they cannot use more resources than the ones produced by the economy 10 IV. When a winner is selected, the leader chooses W based on the revealed aﬃnities The maximum the challenger can propose is: R/W where R is the total amount of resources gained from taxation. If a member of the selectorate is part of the winning coalition is only revealed after the election though. Each member of the selectorate knows they have a probability W/S to be chosen in the end. Their expected value is: W/S R/W = R/S Basically, the probability of being in the winning coalition multiplied by the maximum that the challenger can propose. Knowing this, the incumbent will propose exactly this: R/S While keeping for theirselves: R −W(R/S) = R(1 −W/S) So the challenger can never win, in fact, while the members of the selectorate would be open to chose for the incumbent, no member of the winning coalition will switch since they already receive R/S with certainty, but only probabilistically with the challenger. What we can immediately notice is that in contrast with the theories of democratisation, the destabilisation of the regime comes from within not from outsiders and that the masses have no de facto power in non-democracies. We have to underline some important implications of the selectorate theorem. I. SIZE OF WINNING COALITION AND TAXATION —> private rents are what buys the loyalty of the coalition members, which also gain from the income they produce and public good provision. When W is small, the dictator can raise taxes. This depresses economic activity, but it can repay the members of the coalition with lavish private rents. As W increases, the cost of private rents multiplies. Rewarding the coalition with public goods and income by decreasing taxes becomes more advantageous. Taxes decrease as the coalition size increases. II. SIZE OF WINNING COALITION AND REGIME mmet STABILITY —> loyalty is bought through the diﬀerence in privileges between those inside the winning coalition and those outside. When W is small, coalition members receive greater private rents, creating the conditions for strong loyalty. Leaving the coalition would damage the utility by a large margin, so members of W support the leader. As W increases, coalition members are compensated relatively more through public goods and lower taxation, decreasing the fall in utility caused by supporting another candidate so loyalty is weaker. III. SIZE OF WINNING COALITION AND WELFARE —> the connection between the size of the winning coalition and welfare relies on two competing mechanisms. The relationship is non- monotonic. As W increases, the lavish private rents decrease. As economic activity and public goods cannot immediately compensate for the loss of benefits for the inner circle, welfare decreases. As W increases, taxes decreases and public good increases, delivering more welfare for the larger population. Once this second eﬀect overcomes the first, the relationship between coalition size and welfare becomes positive. Selectorate theory made a series of assumptions regarding the power structure, the most important are: members of the selectorate are relatively interchangeable and the leader decides everything. Now, let's look at the GUARDIANSHIP DILEMMA. According to the guardianship dilemma theorised by Meng, A., Paine, J. (2022) in Power sharing and authoritarian stability: How rebel regimes solve the guardianship dilemma, American Political Science Review regimes need a strong military to consolidate power and repress up-springs from competing insurgents and dictators need to enjoy the cooperation or the allegiance of the military forces and to gain the cooperation of military forces, dictators need to share power with high-rank militaries. By relinquishing some control over the military, dictators create the opportunity for generals to take over. To understand how dictators secure survival, Meng and Paine look at which kind of regime lasts FIN longer. Civilian regimes, born out of partisan struggles without necessarily the full intervention of the a army, are more vulnerable to the guardianship dilemma as the military is not devoted to the party. 11 Coup regimes are usually established in very little time. The precondition for a successful coup is 9 the quick mobilisation against the incumbent, often by the military. There might be little experience of cooperation with coconspirators. Rebel regimes, which survived years of struggle and finally managed to take over, proved to be the most durable. What makes rebel regimes more durable is the fact that delegating power to subordinates during armed struggles improves battlefield performance, rebel leaders have already delegated military power to allies during the struggle for liberation, once acquired power, delegation occurs through the appointment of a Minister of Defence -it may sound weird, but not all dictators have a minister of defence. Not only rebel regimes are more likely to appoint a defence minister, but they are also less likely to replace it very often, singling their credible commitment to power sharing (Ethiopia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe... ). The average war to launch a rebel regime lasts 8.7 years. As with many cases of national liberation for colonial rule, this is much longer than other types of regime, also, lengthy fighting gives the opportunity to rebel leaders to test each other’s allegiance and for the grounds for credible power sharing. In most cases, rebel regimes completely transformed the pre-existing military structure, substituting the old ranks with loyal rebel fighters. Boix, C. and Svolik, M. W. (2013) in The foundations of limited authoritarian government: Institutions, commitment, and power-sharing in dictatorships, The Journal of Politics elaborate on why some dictatorships create power-sharing institutions constraining their leaders’ ability to rule autonomously and extract the greatest possible rent from the economy. Autocracies where leaders share power via institutional arrangements are more likely to be o durable and to have more peaceful transitions of power, institutions will positively aﬀect stability and leadership survival only when they alleviate commitment and monitoring problems between the leader and his allies. To alleviate such problems and the threat of rebellion by the allies must be credible in case the leader reneges on his promises. Also, if the leader alone gathers too much power, institutions Autocracies – limitedare less eﬀective and authoritarian more prone to collapse. government Let’s look at empirical evidence. Empirical evidence Dictators that own the whole resources don’t need legislatures and more likely to dismiss them if they don’t please them 12 Autocracies – limited authoritarian government Empirical evidence Autocracies – limited authoritarian government More coups and revolts when there are no legislatures. More elections when legislatures are present Empirical evidence To summarise autocracy survives by enforcing the loyalty of a small coalition of notables and supporters, the size of such coalition has severe consequences for welfare, economic growth and regime stability. The crucial dilemma autocrats must resolve is the guardianship dilemma, to ensure the loyalty of the defence apparatus, leaders must credibly delegate power to a minister of defence and rebel regimes appear to be able to do that better. Dictators sometimes constrain themselves with legislatures, parliaments, politburos etc.. and this allows the winning coalition to monitor the agreement on the division of resources. Also, while dependent on some conditions being met, legislatures increase the tenure of autocrats, increase the likelihood of peaceful transition and decrease the chances of civil wars. Always remember that strong autocracies aren’t those with strong dictators, but those with mechanisms to ensure peaceful transition of power, a good example of this would be China up to now. 13 NON-STATE ACTORS States, democratic or otherwise, aren’t the only actors in International Relations, we remember: INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS, IGOs, are organisations composed of states such as United Nations, European Union. II NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS, NGOs, are private entities aiming to achieve social, economic, or humanitarian goals such as Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières. __ MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS, MNCs, are large companies operating in multiple countries such as Apple, Amazon. I VIOLENT NON-STATE ACTORS are groups using violence to achieve political ends such as I terrorist organisations. terroristi TRANSNATIONAL ADVOCACY NETWORKS are coalitions of NGOs, activists, and advocacy groups promoting a particular cause. EPISTEMIC COMMUNITIES are networks of professionals with expertise in particular areas such as climate scientists. Some non-state actors are quite old for example the Order of Malta is considered the oldest humanitarian association, funded in the 10th century during the crusades, the Anti-Slavery Society, formed in 1839, is probably the first international NGO and the Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine is maybe the first Intergovernmental organisation. Other institutions have been devised early on to deal with international standards of communications and exchange like the International Telegraph Union in 1865 and the Universal Postal Union in 1874. The League of Nations (1919-1946) was founded in 1919 to maintain peace and prevent future una wars through collective security and failed astonishingly due to weak commitment and institutional fragility. United Nations (UN, 1945) was created in 1945 to replace the League of Nations. The three pillars are: international peace, to promote development to andand to uphold human rights. It has universalist scope-mmm mmmbut is still flawed by institutional constraints and limited budget. from environment to security-, mal We also have Bretton Woods Institutions, 1944-1945: D GUDALIZATION D I. The INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, IMF —> with the aim to maintain global financial stability and provide short-term loans to countries. II. The WORLD BANK —> long-term financial assistance for development projects and reconstruction. mm We also have the Specialised Agencies: I. The WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION (WHO, 1948). II. The UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION (UNESCO, 1945). Plus, we have the New International Organisations and Global Issues: I. The WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION (WTO, 1995). II. The INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC, 1988) —> to provide platform on environmental negotiations. III. The INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC, 2002) —> to prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Among fundamental IGOs are the regional actors of institutional integration: I. The EUROPEAN UNION. II. The MERCOSUR —> custom union and political cooperation between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela (now suspended), other four members are “associated”. III. The ASEAN —> for economic integration in Southeast Asia, founded in 1967 has 10 members and an active free-trade area. IV. The AFRICAN UNION —> 55 member states, has active military personnel African standby force. 00 Now, we turn our attention to the UN. would The UN is divided into general assembly, security council and the word court. The general assembly of the UN has 193 member states represented, except for Palestine, it: functions as a deliberative body, acts as a forum for discussion, passes non-binding resolutions, se coordinates development programs and various agencies through the ECOSOC, which has 54 members elected by the general assembly every 3 years. 14 The general assembly convenes on special sessions every few years and in emergency sessions to deal with immediate treats to global security. Its main power lies in the financial control over UN programs and operations, including peacekeeping. The security council of the UN has 15 members, 5 are permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US), who have veto power and 10 are non-permanent members elected for two-year terms. Currently we have: Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Switzerland. The non-permanent members are chosen from the proposal of regional caucuses, but need to receive qualified approval from the General Assembly, it is a biased method of selection that overcompensates regional pivotal actors. The security council is responsible for maintaining international peace and can impose sanctions or authorise military intervention. It votes at simple majority but the exercise of veto power cuts initiatives short and this can leave states in a state of uncertainty, for example Kosovo. The security council meets irregularly, usually upon request from a UN member, most of the times when someone has suﬀered an invasion. Let's look at the strengths and weaknesses of the security council: I. Veto power —> during the Cold-War, the Security council could only have very few successes due to the US-USSR rivalry. With the exceptions of the Korean War and the Lebanese Civil War. From the late 80s, the UN saw some successes like the independence of Namibia and the UN eﬀort for the end of the Apartheid regime in South Africa. From 1995 the use of vetoes diminished substantially we count 34 total vetoes (as of 2020): 18 from Russia, 14 from US, 10 from China. After the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, serious divisions crippled the Security Council again, there were severe split regarding the intervention in Iraq, Kofi Annan declared it illegal. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the war in Gaza-Lebanon has brought the Security Council to its worst impasse. II. Every proposal to change the structure or add permanent members would water-down the current member’s power. E III. The diplomats standing in the council depend entirely on the will of their own governments and rarely have independent power of compromise even if are in the best position to do so. IV. Even when powers agree on a decision, members try to soften the practical application. However, the decisions of the Security Council can still be of great impact even if they are not approved by the 5 permanent states. Take, for example, resolution 242 and 338 about Israel-Palestinian conflict. It was drafted after the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and 1973, it Includes the return by Israel of the territories captured in 1967 and it states the right of all states in the Area to live within well-delimited territories and 1 jurisdictions. They laid down the basis for the Camp David agreement. It is likely that any future agreement will incorporate the outlines of those resolutions even though right now, we are very far from a resolution of the conflict. Active peacekeeping missions take up the greatest part of the UN budget, around 6 billion. We can have observers, peacekeepers and peace enforcement forces. Observers are unarmed military oﬃcers sent in small numbers to watch and report to the UN. Peacekeepers are lightly armoured soldiers with automatic rifles but no artillery and tanks, they can interpose themselves physically between the parts, they negotiate with military oﬃcers and usually get caught in the middle and shoot at when ceasefires are broken. Peace enforcement forces are fully armoured with tanks and artillery, they are meant to enforce a ceasefire if broken, they are mainly deployed in highly volatile environments such as the democratic republic of Congo, but they pose severe budget constrain limitations. All over the world, direct intervention of UN forces have likely saved thousands of lives. They also allowed for an easier distribution of humanitarian aid, changing the fate of millions of people However, some cases have been a great failure to learn from. Let’s look at some of them. In Yugoslavia from 1991 to 1995, after the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, ethnic conflicts broke out in the region, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UNPROFOR, United Nations Protection Force, deployed in 1992 to ensure the safety of humanitarian aid and protect “safe areas”. During the Srebrenica Massacre of 1995 the UN peacekeepers failed to protect the "safe area" of Srebrenica, around 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were killed by Bosnian Serb forces. The Dutch UN peacekeepers were unable to intervene, and the UN’s lack of a mandate to use force eﬀectively led to a massive failure in preventing genocide. 15 In the Siege of Sarajevo there were 2 million displaced, ethnic cleansing and mass rapes perpetrated by Serbian nationalist against Bosnians. Non-nationalist Serbians were also killed when refused to commit atrocities. The UN managed to lift the siege but too late. In Somalia from 1992 to 1995 the civil war erupted in 1991, leading to a humanitarian crisis marked by famine and violence, the UNOSOM I & II distributed humanitarian aid, helped with nation-building and the disarmament of warring factions. However, during the Battle of Mogadishu of 1993, known as the "Black Hawk Down" incident, a failed US-led raid resulted in 18 American soldiers being killed, leading to the withdrawal of US troops and eventually the collapse of the mission. The lack of cooperation among clan leaders, hostile environment, and limited resources made it impossible for the UN to achieve its goals. Also, the move from humanitarian relief to nation-building without clear authority and resources led to failure. In the end, the death of peacekeepers and high-profile casualties forced an early withdrawal without achieving any political stability. Now, we turn our attention to the WTO. After the WWII, protectionism was recognised as one of the causes of global conflict. The Bretton-Woods institutions aimed to solve this problem, one of the solutions was the GATT, now WTO. The WTO, World Trade Organisation, was established in 1995 to replace the General Agreement on Tariﬀs and Trade (GATT). The GATT was more of a negotiating framework than a stable institution, while the WTO became that stable institution with more structured bureaucracy and a dispute-settlement mechanism. The WTO objectives are to ensure trade flows as smoothly, predictably, and freely as possible and to promote multilateral trade agreements and resolve trade disputes. WTO trade negotiations are based on two important principles: I. MOST-FAVOURED NATION (MFN) —> trade restrictions imposed by a WTO member on its most favoured trading partner must be applied to all other partners. E II. GENERALISED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES (GSP) —> richer states can concede favourable trading deals to developing countries in an eﬀort to sustain their economic development without having to apply the same favourable treatment to another rich country. The WTO is kind of frozen at the moment. Globalised trade has caused massive adjustment costs in the world with dire political consequences. States are not as willing as they once was to foster free trade. Multilateral trade rounds have liberalised a lot of sectors but developed states and the EU in particular does not want to concede further openings regarding agricultural output, this has blocked the advancement of the recent rounds (Doha and Hong Kong). Also, rising international tensions and sanctions against other states have lowered the willingness to negotiate with other states belonging to diﬀerent blocks so, as a result, bilateral trades have emerged again. However, the WTO managed to have a strong advantage, in fact, it has an eﬃcient procedure to settle trade disputes. Let’s look at it. 1. A state opens a legal process with the WTO because it beliefs a partner has wrongly increases tariﬀs. 2. The WTO opens consultations to resolve the issue more amicably and allow the partners to bargain their way out of the impasse within 60 days. 3. If this doesn’t work. The WTO opens a dispute panel. This dispute panel has to investigate the possible violation and submit its findings. 4. Each of the parts can reject the findings of this panel. If this is the case, the WTO requests the intervention of an Appellative body who submits a new report, which is now binding. 5. The member who has been found violating the trade agreement must comply to the recommendations of the report. 6. If the guilty state does not comply, the member who is getting penalised can retaliate negotiating an increase of tariﬀs against that country in some industry. Besides the most important organisations, many other have contributed to shape the international stage. Many NGOs have substantially improved the lives of people all around the world like Amnesty International, Emergency and NGOs currently saving lives in the Mediterranean sea. Some actors are more problematic though, think of Multinational Corporations, they have the power to negotiate directly with the executives around the world, their strategic interests can upset or create strong dependency for some countries while extracting resources from others 16 through tax evasion, they often employ individuals at ridiculous salaries with degrading labor conditions and are responsible for unlawful extraction of resources. Moreover, we can have violent non-state actors like terrorist groups and paramilitaries which are major security challenges. Think of Private Military Companies (PMCs) like Blackwater, now Academi, and their role in Iraq. PMCs operate as armed contractors for states, raising questions about accountability. To sum up, these are the major sources of uncertainty about non-state actors: I. LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY —> unlike states, many non-state actors are not democratically accountable. This is particularly problematic with MNCs and PMCs. E II. SECURITY THREATS —> violent non-state actors create instability and humanitarian crises. III. FRAGMENTED AUTHORITY —> the influence of multiple non-state actors can complicate international governance and lead to conflicting interests. 17 THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Theories are tools that people employ even if they do not realise it, because they are simply inevitable. The complexity of the world requires simplification to give sense to what happens. A good theory needs: I. COHERENCE —> Watch out for internal inconsistencies II. CLARITY —> Formulated in a clear and linear form, when it’s too complicated it’s usually bad III. IMPARTIALITY —> Cannot be based purely on subjective values. No theory is devoid of values, nor it should be, but it is important to state them openly and to subject them to objective evaluation IV. BREATH —> Needs to be relevant to a large number of important cases V. DEPTH —> Needs to be relevant to a large number of aspects within one single case Here are the theories that are to be considered classical in international relations: - realism, CLASSICA STRATEGIC NEOREANN Y - liberalism, - international Society, or “English School”, u - the classical Political-Economic Theories. While, here are the contemporary approaches: - constructivism, - post-modernism, - critical Theory, - post-colonial - feminist theories. 18 REALISM CLASSICAL Classical Realism is the most traditional approach to the understanding of the relations between political units and it largely pre-dates the nation-state. The main historical proponents are 0 0 Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes. THUCYDIDES —> The Peloponnesian war, he contributed largely to two basic tenants of realism: the structure of the international system has influences on the relations between states, moral arguments have very little importance. Caution and logic are the best allies of a leader who wants I O its state to survive as we can see from this extract of the “Melian Dialogue” which says: “The powerful does whatever it can, the weak suﬀers what it must”. MACHIAVELLI —> The Prince, “The prince cannot observe all those practices that are deemed good and virtuous by men; for he often needs, for the sake of the State, to operate against faith, humanity, religion …”. The world is a dangerous place, but is also filled with opportunity, and the Prince needs to be aware of the danger, be cautious but also strong and brutal if necessary. The o_ lion (strength) and the fox (cunningness) are the best allies of the Prince. Some describe Machiavelli’s writings as: “a manual on how to get by in a world absolutely chaotic and immoral” (Ford, 1992) HOBBES —> The Leviathan, the state of nature is a place where life is “miserable, repugnant and brief..”, for this reason, people group together to accept the absolute rule of a prince which lassical Realism ensures safety. This is not the case for the international arena, where no state can rule over all others. States are therefore people in the state of nature. Hobbes is the theoriser of one of the ore values most important of classic tenants of realism: the anarchy of the international system, also called the realists: “international state of nature”. Here is a little graphical summary of the core values of classical realists: Thucydides Machiavelli Hobbes Security Political Acumen Security Inevitability State survival Compromise Power drive Amorality Peace These three authors build the foundations of modern days’ realism by sharing a few core tenants, they agree with each other on the fact that: I. world is hostile environment where the stronger tries to prevail over the weaker II. states must realise what their place is meaning that if you’re small you’ll have to concede more often and that’s just the natural order of things III. in international aﬀairs there will never be a peace that resembles the domestic realm in fact moments of peace are transitory and never last, conflict is sooner or later inevitable o IV. being cunning, resolute and at-times brutal is the only choice leaders have to ensure 0 80 national survival V. knowledge and wisdom can be your ally o_0 VI. history keeps repeating itself so watch out for the patterns. The first modern realists (Morgenthau, Gelpin and others) gathered these notions and gave shape to the classical realist paradigm. It’s called classical because it relies on “classical” authors and contributions. Morgenthau is a classic realist in the modern world, he claims that all humans share a distinctive common trait: the animus dominandi, or the “thirst for power”. There are two dimensions of this concept: each human desires to be in a position of superiority towards another, each human wants to create a political space free from the impositions of others. In particular, he says that: “Politics is a fight for the exercise of power over other people; whatever its ultimate goal, the immediate objective is power, the means to achieve it, keep it and display it determine the techniques of political action.” (Morgenthau, 1965). This way of conceptualising politics creates the issue on how to justify it. This is where he relies the most on classical realism. Saying that politicians should hold the same behaviour and virtues 19 of normal people is not only pointless but irresponsible. As Machiavelli, he is convinced that those who act according to a pre-defined set of virtues- such as Christian virtues- are condemned to hurt the state, which requires pragmatism. Also, sometimes in extreme circumstances like in international emergencies, it might be necessary for decision-makers to take decisions that would be immoral in everyday life such as to spy, to conspire, to lie etc.. In war, it may come the time that human rights are violated but it can be necessary for survival according to this view of politics. The six tenants of political realism according to Morgenthau are: I. politics is created by the immutable character of human nature, which is egotistic II. politics is an autonomous sphere of actions, which cannot be reduced to economics such as Marx did III. international politics is the place where the interests of state crash against each other, but interests change, circumstances change and realism acknowledges continuous change IV. private ethical concerns must not get in the way of political conduct V. nations cannot impose their ideological convictions to others, these eﬀorts are pointless and dangerous VI. governing requires a deep understanding of the flaws of human nature, power needs to be managed prosaically. STRATEGIC In the strategic paradigm, realism loses its moral connotation. It is descriptive, not normative. States are actors who carry their interests forward, no matter which they are, and they do it f strategically according to logic and rationality. To understand it, we need rational choice theory and, in particular, game theory which was introduced thanks to Schelling. The main contributions of Schelling are: I. use of GAME THEORY to explain the behaviour of actors II. CREDIBLE COMMITMENT and DETERRENCE: actors want to compel others, this means that their threat need to be credible and capable given a realistic assessment of costs and benefits III. PSYCHOLOGICAL ELEMENT in a rational framework: the international arena is uncertain and perception can be mistaken and Schelling analyses rationally how this can influence the Strategiclikelihood Realismof conflict IV. DIPLOMACY as BARGAINING: conflict is not inevitable, it just occurs when there is no space Strategicfor eﬃcient realism bargaining. offers a depiction of the ways IR works and the behaviors of actors. Strategic realism oﬀers a depiction of the ways international relation works and the behaviours of Offering a scheme actors, of behavior while also thata isscheme giving us profit-maximizing connects of behaviour that is itprofit-maximising somehow to Machiavelli and that connects somehow to Machiavelli. If we were to represent this connection graphically, we would do it so: NEOREALISM Like structural realism, neorealism is an attempt to give more scientific foundations to the doctrine. It does not do it through its methodology (game theory and microeconomics for Schelling), but by removing some of the most antiquate elements of classic realism: I. No discussion about the human nature and its immutable character II. Ignores the whole discussion about what state-leaders should be like III. The whole debate about private/public ethic is uninteresting IV. The national interest is taken for granted, no need to specify that states want to ensure survival 20 Even if it wants to make classical realism more «scientific» it is not as cold and minimal as structuralism was. Neorealism clearly establishes itself in the normative debate and aims to give an answer to the long peace between powers in the Cold War. These are the the main tenants of neorealism: I. ANARCHIC STRUCTURE —> Like classical realism, neorealism assumes an international system without a central governing authority. States exist in anarchy and must rely on self- help mechanisms. II. DISTRIBUTION OF CAPABILITIES —> The primary concern for states is not the intentions of other actors but rather the distribution of capabilities across the system. This distribution dictates the behaviour of states. III. BALANCE OF POWER —> To ensure their security, states seek to balance against more powerful states either by increasing their own power or by forming alliances. IV. CONSTRAINED STATE BEHAVIOR —> The structure of the international system constrains Neorealism – Kenneth state behaviour.WaltzThe nature of the system itself, more than the character or ideology of states, influences how states act. V. SURVIVAL AND SECURITY —> The primary goal for states remains survival and securing Kenneth Waltz is the one's main state is founder the mainofnational this school of thought thanks to his book: “Theory of International Politics” interest. (1979) VI. PREDICTABILITY —> Neorealism posits that because the international system constrains state behaviour, it is possible to make general predictions about state actions. Kenneth Waltz is the main founder of this school of thought thanks to his book: “Theory of The configuration International of Politics” the international of 1979, system accordingalsoto dictates Waltz theitsconfiguration stability (Bipolar vs international of the Multipolar) system There are three levels of analysis to take into account (the ones we’ve seen in the first class)to take into also dictates its stability (Bipolar vs Multipolar) and there are three levels of analysis account so, neorealism explores the connection between structures and outcomes in international Explores the connection relations. If we werebetween structures to represent and outcomes this concept graphicallyinwe international would do itrelations so: Diﬀerences with classical realism are: I. HUMAN NATURE vs. STRUCTURE —> Classical realism attributes state behaviour to immutable aspects of human nature, whereas neorealism focuses on the structural constraints imposed by the international system. II. COMPLEXITY OF POWER —> Classical realism considers various elements of power, including military, economic, and soft power. Neorealism often simplifies power to capabilities that influence the balance of power. III. FLEXIBILITY —> Classical realism allows for more flexibility in state behaviour based on leadership, morality, or domestic issues. Neorealism sees states as fairly uniform actors constrained by the international system. IV. SCIENTIFIC APPROACH —> Neorealism aims for a more scientific and systemic approach, allowing for general predictions, whereas classical realism is often more descriptive and case- specific. Many criticisms were moved against neorealism such as the inability to explain and predict systemic change, in particular, it was highly criticised for the inability to explain the bloodless collapse of the USSR. The end of the Cold War appeared to trigger an epistemic problem to realism in particular, due to a transition that they could not foresee. Classical realism aimed to explain why wars and attempts at hegemony will always happen. Schelling established a framework to make sense of state conflict during the nuclear age. Waltz introduced the important of systemic attributes to explain why the Cold War led to such stable peace between great powers. 21 Mearsheimer argues that neorealism is still relevant after 1989 and will be useful to explain and foresee global changes in the future as it has done in the past. Mearsheimer asks himself, what would have happened if the Cold War was replaced by a multipolar system, his answer is global systemic instability. Mearsheimer defines Waltz as the proponent of a defensive realism. Security Dilemma According to Mearsheimer, states do not look for security only, but they enjoy conquest, and they strive for hegemony. This also occurs because states are safe only when they are the hegemon, Anarchy he compelsthe is considered you proponent to invest in military power for realism. of the oﬀensive your protection. What if Iin Mearsheimer cannot tell whether today's politicalyou are buying scenario these can beweapons to defend considered yourself limitative and or quite to attack me? dated. Now, let's look at the SECURITY DILEMMA. Anarchy compels you to invest in military power for your protection. What if I cannot tell whether By making myself more secure, I decrease the security of everybody else you are buying these weapons to defend yourself or to attack me? Basically by making ourselves more secure, we decrease the security of everybody else. Example: Iran is surrounded by several hostile states (Israel, Saudi Arabia, USA). It builds a nuclear weapon and declares that it is for defense. Can Saudis or Israels be certain that Iran will not use its nuclear weapon to blackmail its enemies? What if Saudis also get a nuclear weapon as insurance against Iranian blackmail? Now Iran is less secure again. The cycle starts anew. Security Dilemma If we were to represent the security dilemma spiral graphically, we would do it so: See this for better understanding the concept of balance of powers according to Walz: Kenneth Waltz argues in "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb" that the potential for Iran to develop nuclear weapons would likely bring stability to the Middle East rather than escalate tensions. He critiques the widespread fear of a nuclear-armed Iran as exaggerated and rooted in misconceptions about Iranian rationality. Waltz contends that history demonstrates nuclear-armed states, including adversaries like India and Pakistan, tend to adopt cautious behavior to avoid mutual destruction. He proposes three possible outcomes for Iran's nuclear ambitions: abandonment under sanctions (which he deems unlikely), developing a breakout capability, or openly testing a weapon. Of these, Waltz advocates for the last, asserting it would balance the military power monopolised by Israel, which has contributed to regional instability. He dismisses fears of nuclear proliferation or terrorism, highlighting the historical lack of uncontrolled proliferation and the strategic impracticality of transferring nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. Waltz concludes that a nuclear-armed Iran would deter aggression and foster a stable balance of power, as it would compel mutual restraint between Israel and Iran. He urges policymakers to reconsider sanctions and adopt a pragmatic view of a nuclear Middle East. 22 LIBERALISM Liberalism entails a completely diﬀerent conception of human nature and social life compared to realists. According to liberalism humans surely are competitive and self-interested, but they are also capable of reason and when individuals share common interests, they can engage in collaborative and cooperative social action, this is true both domestically and internationally. Conflicts and wars are not inevitable even if the international system can, at times, be anarchical. When guided by reason, mutually beneficial cooperation between states will be the norm. All of this is based on one core belief: progress. Progress was made possible by scientific revolution, industrial revolution and modernisation, but to be sustained in the long run it requires basic freedoms, democracy and economic development. The fathers of liberalism are: I. Locke —> property and the rule of law, II. Bentham —> utilitarianism and the idea that liberal states respect the rule of law, III. Kant —> an international union of republics to establish perpetual peace. Liberalists also share a completely diﬀerent view of the state compared to realists, Machtstaat views it as a concentration of power (remember Hobbes), while Rechtsstaat as a constitutional entity (focus on rules and rights). Realism criticises liberalism fiercely. These are the most important points of rupture: I. Human nature, this is an old critique, both realist and liberals really fail to understand the complex nature of humans, social context is more important II. Institutions are just other platforms where states bring forward their egotistical interests. III. History is not progress, history repeats itself IV. States use interdependence and institutions to force their hegemony. V. Institutional cooperation still relies on a power system where one hegemon was able to enforce cooperation, in a multipolar system, cooperation will inevitably break up. UTOPIAN Utopian liberalism developed at the end of World War I with the objective of avoiding history to repeat itself. Liberalist observed that the world ended at war due to the cynical calculus of non- democratic powers states that became increasingly more militarised, without true elections the people could not have information about the risk, nor try to remove the people in power. Even democratic countries were dragged into the conflict because they where not able to establish structures of corporation to prevent them. Also, the alliance system created the inevitable clash of the Entente and the Alliance. Liberalist thought that a way to prevent all of this from happening again were free trade agreements, the Society of Nations and international treaties about the orderly conduct of hostilities. These strategies didn't really work in the end due to the states’ refusal to keep up with the obligations, the absence of an eﬀective mechanism to curb individual states’ military backup, widespread hypocrisy and a general distrust in democracy. MODERN Modern liberalism is tightly connected to the industrial revolution, the emergence of constitutional democracies, advancement in mobility and communication that create connections that are independent from states. States aren't anymore independent and separate atoms like realists argued. There are four main schools of thought, two of them focus on the nation-state level- sociological i liberalism and republican liberalism- and the other two focus on the systemic level- interdependence liberalism and institutional liberalism. SOCIOLOGICAL LIBERALISM —> sociological liberalism focuses not just on international relations, but also on transnational relations. It is based on the assumption that if relations between people are more peaceful than the ones between states, we should make state E interaction more human, we should have less government interaction and more national interactions. This type of liberalism focuses on norms and on the need to have an “international community” that transcends nations and if this does not happen, then people will become enemies to each other. Sociological liberalism also look at cooperation, non-state actors, national networks, and all the important players in the international arena. International structure of governance need to enforce the respect of human rights. Soft power, negotiation and persuasions are powerful tool that realists did not take into account. Sociological liberalism relies on the advances in mobility that allow people to travel across borders. 23 RISPETTOSO DEILA LEGGE REPUBLICAN LIBERALISM —> republican liberalism is based on one strong core assumption: “Liberal democracies are more peaceful and law abiding than other political systems”. According to republican liberalism democracy is grounded on a culture than supports peaceful conflict II.IE resolution and since citizens are the ones who ultimately fight and die in wars if they can vote, they will choose not to fight. Democracies hold common values that Kant thought could ensure a “universal pacific union of republics”. PACE Three conditions are necessary for liberal peace: I. Democratic norms of peaceful resolution of conflicts II. Peaceful relations between states III. Economic cooperation and interdependence Hegre, Bernhard and Teorell in 2020 showed that between 1900 and 2010, two elements have contributed to peace: I. SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY —> healthy horizontal connections between sectors of the population that diﬀuses economic wealth but also cooperative social contacts II. VERTICAL ACCOUNTABILITY —> eﬀective electoral accountability that secures democratic power The end of the Cold War has sparked optimism about future international relations given that many states transitioned to democracy. The connection between democracy and peace has E shades too due to widespread democratic backsliding, in fact, democracies are getting weakened by globalised pressures and more aggressive narratives take hold, also, the process of democratisation can lead to intermediate regimes who prove to be particularly aggressive (the reverse U curve). INTERDEPENDENCE LIBERALISM —> interdependence liberalism is based on the assumption that the International system is not made of states only, but also of complex institutional layers that create repeated interaction (think about the EU). In the post-war decades, the most e successful states aren’t those with large natural resources and great power, but those who can E provide wealth, in fact, trade and international cooperation are the foundation of wealth, war occurs only if countries do not gain from exchange. Also, some issues are not being dealt at the national level anymore: WTO, functional evolution of the European Union etc.. and that's why international relations is not so anarchic as it once was. Now there is structure, organisation and cooperation. Complete anarchy in the international system is nonsense now. There are structures that allow for constant and peaceful engagements. INSTITUTIONAL LIBERALISM —> institutional liberalism strongly takes into account: I. ITERATED INTERACTIONS: The concept of iterated interactions suggests that states are more likely to cooperate if they expect to interact repeatedly over time, a situation that institutions often facilitate. II. COLLECTIVE SECURITY: The theory often involves the idea of collective security arrangements, where an attack on one is considered an attack on all, thereby deterring aggression. III. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: Institutions provide mechanisms for resolving disputes peacefully through legal and diplomatic channels, reducing the likelihood of war. IV. INTERDEPENDENCE: Like other forms of liberalism, institutional liberalism recognises the growing interdependence among states, particularly in economic matters, and sees institutions as a way to manage and benefit from this interdependence. V. LONG-TERM BENEFITS: The approach suggests that, while states may incur short-term costs for participating in international institutions, the long-term benefits of cooperation outweigh these costs These elements are possible through the establishment of stronger international institutions International institutions can be more or less “institutionalised”, their scope concerns the number of issues the institution is concerned with, their depth is based on three elements: I. COMMONALITY: How much behaviours and norms are shared by the members of the institution, this creates predictable and compliant behaviour mammina II. SPECIFICITY: The decree to which expectations about behaviours are specified in the form of rules III. AUTONOMY: The extent to which institutions can alter their rules to fit external constraint Institutions won’t solve the problem of anarchy alone, but they are not just paper scraps, they deliver tangible improvements. 24 Now we look at schools that challenge the realist and liberalist view of the world directly: I. Constructivism II. Political-Economic Theories And others that are more concerned with the challengers of modern societies: I. Post-modernism II. Post-structuralism III. Critical Theory IV. Post-colonial theories V. Feminist Theories of international relations VI. Neoconservatism CONSTRUCTIVISM According to constructivism, the political system is no fixed entity, in fact, ideas, culture, and human consciousness change and give new meaning to the interaction between states. Social interaction shapes and changes the identities of people, creating transnational agendas like NGOs and green policies. The international structure does not only constrain actors, like realists argue but is also shaped by the actors themselves who are able to give new meaning to phenomena. States act also knowing that they belong to a common logic of appropriateness, obviously they will continue to pursue their own interests, but their interests are not immutable and can reflect the needs and aspirations of a group, class, culture, nation, or other aggregations. While realism and liberalism are intrinsically materialistic, in fact, they seek to explain behaviour of international actors as a result of material, objective, and observable forces, such as military capacity, strategic and economic resources and argue that socially mediated forces and beliefs are inconsequential, constructivism insists on the fact that the meaning we attach to the so-called objective concepts and practices are socially contracted and, as such, they change overtime. The ideas that shape the word politics aren't just individual beliefs, but they are subjective (need to be shared among the actors) and institutionalised (repeated behaviour based on shared create expectations and mutual identities). Constructivism can agree with the fact that states are moved by national interest, and that we can observe and predict what national interest is at a given moment in history. Constructivism even contemplates that the objectives of state can be reached through a rational cost-benefit analysis. Constructivists only argue and remark that the forces shaping ideas and interests are social. o Actors acquire identities and role-specific expectations by participating in collective meetings and through repetitive interaction, therefore, actors with which a state interacts, social environment and procedures and rules of such interactions all contribute to form an historically and socially dependent national interest. Constructivists do not reject that the state system influences the actors, but they add that the interaction of actors influences the structure of the international system too and this is an approach of co-construction. By structure we mean institutions and shared meanings that make up the context of the international system, the essential units driving interactions are intergovernmental institutions. Basically “anarchy is what you make of it”. POLITICAL-ECONOMIC THEORY MERCANTILISM Mercantilism is intimately connected with the development of the state nation throughout the 16th and 17th century, mercantilists believe that economic policy must be one of the tools through which states increase their power since the international economic system is an arena where states compete aggressively in a zero sum game. According to mercantilism, there is no point in choosing between economic and military power, they should be viewed as complementary tools for the only goals that matter which are enlargement and survival. Enlargement and survival can In menu be achieved through accumulation of wealth and positive balance of payments, sometimes mercantilist theories don't take into account the concept of inflation because they were developed before inflation was even studied. MARXISM According to Marxism economic production is the only thing that matters to the dominant class because they need it to prolong their power, states make use of military strength to increase their consumption and production base at the detriment of others and wars are means to enlarge the capitalist production. 25 Lenin further develops this concept and claims that imperialism and slavery are nothing but the extreme consequences of the capitalist system, the search for raw materials, minerals and under compensated workforce demand conquest of other areas of the globe in a competitive strife. Wallerstein puts emphasis on the fact that in a capitalist system the core (privileged class) extracts resources to the semi periphery and periphery (lower classes) in order to produce goods classical Political-Economic Theories that they will sell both to the core and the periphery, whose workers and sources they exploited. erstein Graphically: Out of the neo-Marxist critique of society were developed a series of contemporary approaches that greatly influenced 20th century’s political thought, several innovations from Jurgen Habermas and the Frankfurt School were incorporated and also new attention to language and cultural expressions (Gramscian influence) The schools are: I. Post-structuralism II. Post-modernism III. Critical-theory All three share the common idea that ideas, behaviours and norms are inherently connected with underlying power structures, but what diﬀerentiates them is “what to do about it”. All three schools are wary of knowledge and objectivity. Knowledge is always biased because it reproduces the perspective of the analyst and they reject objective positivism to embrace “genealogical analysis” and linguistic analysis, in fact, the words and the narratives that people of power employ to define events and each other reflect their own interests. Power structures create narratives to ensure survival and diﬀusion. POST-STRUCTURALISM Post structuralism focuses on language and this discourse, according to post structuralists language makes reality and discourse is not merely a way to describe reality, it constructs reality. Power and knowledge are, also, deeply intertwined and what is considered true is often shaped by those in power. Post structuralism focuses on deconstructing dominant narratives. So, post- structuralists are primarily concerned with the language that construct international relations how power operates through language, and how dominant narratives shape global politics. They often O CO emphasise the fluidity and instability of identities, borders and other international relations. 00 POST-MODERNISM Post modernism greatly overlaps with post structuralism, and they are often considered the same school since they both shared the same focus on language and narratives and they research how grand narratives serve the reproduction of existing power structures. However, while post structuralist believe that it is possible to reach the truth of a matter when you are able to disentangle the power structures that produces and perpetuated a given narrative, postmodernist are more cynical. They believe that there is no stable truth behind any linguistic construct and reality itself is fragmented and individual so international relations cannot be based around stable, truth free from political agenda that is always repressive and reactionary. CRITICAL THEORY Critical theory is even more influenced by the Frankfurt school than the others and has an explicitly ethical purpose, it aims to expose and address the underlying social and political structures in international politics and the scope is to transform the system, liberating individuals 26 and societies from economic, political and social oppression. It is not enough to study the world, it needs to be transformed. Given its strong commitment to social progress and emancipation, it I is inherently more optimistic than postmodernism. Critical theory is a normative theory. They focus on language as well, but are more interested in knowledge itself and how can be employed for social emancipation. Language is not bound to replicate power dynamics, it can be used to subvert them. POST-COLONIALISM International relations is arguably the most Eurocentric of all political science-related disciplines. For example, the Cold War was called a period of “long peace”, the peace was only in Europe though. The developing world is considered uninteresting and uncivilised. Disrespectful of the plethora of cultural, political and social traditions found elsewhere. This axiom permeates language, science and ultimately policy. FEMINISM Feminism in international relations focuses on the basic inequalities between men and women and the consequences of such inequalities for world politics. When we talk about gender, we refer to socially learned behaviour and expectations that distinguish between masculinity and femininity, so the concept of gender changes throughout space and time. We have a problem of gender discrimination, if those qualities associated with femininity are considered of lower quality, utility and consequence, this leads to a hierarchy where a system of power privileging any gender specific values over others. The realist value system is very masculinist. The same value system that prescribes subjugation of other political units also underpins the material subjugation of women in the domestic jurisdiction. The gender component of conflict is always underrated. Women and children are the ones who suﬀer the greatest hardships in times of conflict as well, but they are not part of the narrative on costs and advantages of conflict. International indexes of development (GDP) hide the substantial employment gap, wage gap and segregation of women. The body of women is viewed as a land of conquest, look at the case of forced assimilation in the Armenian Genocide – tattooed women. NEOCONSERVATISM So far we’ve mostly seen schools that originated from Marxism and/or encourage a progressive view of international and domestic aﬀairs. However, one of the most influential recent International relations approaches is inherently conservative, especially during the Bush Junior administration. Neoconservatism is both culturally and socially conservative, it believes that society needs to be directed towards morality and new ways of life, meaning diﬀerent sexual orientation, gender culture, diﬀusion of violent and sexually explicit audiovisual material inspire morally deviant behaviours that endanger the core fabric of society and multiculturalism and diversity undermine the traditional culture of any country. The values of democracy, as understood by them, have to be actively promoted everywhere in the world. Multilateral diplomacy is ineﬃcient. American exceptionalism is grounded on the fact that the US is a beacon of democracy and liberal values and also hegemonically strong, so it must act freely from constraints for the sake of the world, American military intervention is a force for the good and presidents should not be afraid to use force and even act preemptively against perceived threats. This logic informed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. There have been many criticisms about neoconservatism: military interventions do not build nations, we need to strengthen critical institutional development. Neoconservatism has created more damage than good in Iraq and Afghanistan and left a tragic blow to American and western reputation around the world and also among traditional allies. Also, incalculable human and economic cost of neoconservative policies. 27 WHY WARS? The STRUCTURALIST EXPLANATION as to why states end up at war with each other is that states try to maximise their power to survive: when they see their rivals maximising power, they feel threatened, this creates a security dilemma and increases the chance of miscalculation because States try to conceal aims and misrepresent strength. All of this leads to war. There are also many theories about the BALANCE OF POWER, according to such theories the distribution of power among leading states in the international system determines war, it’s important to consider the number of leading states and how much power each leading state controls. We can either have bipolarity, balanced multipolarity and unbalanced multipolarity. The

Introduction To International Relations PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue