Analysing International Relations PDF

Analysing International Relations 2 – International Anarchy (and aliens) Prof. dr. Daniel Thomas  Highlights from lecture 1 Read the syllabus. Attend lectures. Complete assigned readings before lecture. Don’t save your learning until just before...

Analysing International Relations 2 – International Anarchy (and aliens) Prof. dr. Daniel Thomas  Highlights from lecture 1 Read the syllabus. Attend lectures. Complete assigned readings before lecture. Don’t save your learning until just before the exam! This course focuses on theoretical concepts. Don’t believe them… learn to use them!  Today International System Anarchy 3 interpretations of international anarchy Aliens and cooperation under anarchy  International system. ?  Many types of ‘actors’ in world politics… Individual leaders of states… each with their own personalities, ambitions States… of various types (more or less democratic, more or less centralized, etc.) – Sub-state bureaucracies (ministries, agencies, etc.) – Sub-national units (regions, cities, etc.) Inter-governmental organizations (IGOs, both regional and functional) Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) Multi-national corporations/businesses/firms Social movements Transnational networks (advocacy networks, terrorist networks, other) … but they interact within a larger system that shapes them and their interactions in particular ways.  International system A set of incentives and expectations that shape the identities and the behaviours of actors in international politics. Why study the international system? It has effects that cannot be explained simply by examining the actors and organizations themselves! But there are multiple concepts (understandings) of the international system, each with its own implications for the dynamics of world politics!  4 concepts (faces) of the international system Anarchy (5 Nov) Step 1: Think about each face separately. Hierarchy (7 Nov) Step 2: Compare Interdependence (12 Nov) various conceptions of each face. Capitalism (14 Nov) Step 3: Think about how the various faces connect and interact.  Anarchy.  Anarchy Anarchy: The absence of effective central authority. International anarchy: The absence of effective central authority above states and other actors. Mearsheimer 2001: “There is no government above governments.” Nota bene: Anarchy is not the same as Chaos… so anarchy and order may co-exist!  International anarchy: The absence of effective central authority above states. Supranational Effective int’l authority norms & rules Stat e State State State State State State  The ‘billiard ball’ model of IR.  The implications of international anarchy: 3 interpretations of the same concept.  Interpretation 1 – Anarchy makes cooperation difficult Kenneth Waltz (1979). Theory of International Politics Anarchy  states are insecure  all rely on self-help to survive. – States cannot rely on int’l rules & institutions. – Two options: build arms and/or form alliances Because of self-help pressures, all states seek security… so domestic politics and ‘regime type’ don’t matter in international politics. Fear and mistrust  security dilemma  cooperation & institution-building are difficult. Key variable: the distribution of power among states – States focus on their relative power (power compared to others). – The number of great powers (polarity) determines int’l alliances & risk  Security dilemma Robert Jervis (1978). Cooperation under the Security Dilemma. World Politics 30:2, 167-214 Cooperation is difficult even when states have defensive intentions (no plans to attack others)! Anarchy  insecurity  defensive actions  more fear & mistrust  difficulty of cooperation.  Relative gains problem Robert Powell (1991). Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory. American Political Science Review 85(4), 1303–20 When facing possible cooperation, states may focus on… absolute gains -- how much do I gain? relative gains -- how does my gain compare to other’s gain? Under anarchy, “relative gain is more important than absolute gain” – K.Waltz (1959). Man, the State and War. Anarchy  focus on relative gains  cooperation is unlikely. Question: Will State A & State B favour cooperation? State A State B Answer: Before 2 4 If absolute gains: A yes, cooperation B yes After possible 4 6 If relative gains: A yes,  Polarity (the distribution of power among states) and its implications Unipolar system: 1 great power  global domination, clear expectation of global leadership, maximum certainty about the future… but very rare because states often build arms and alliances to balance a great power Bipolar system: 2 great powers, each has alliances with smaller powers  domination within alliances, competition for global leadership, high certainty about the future Multipolar system: 3-5 great powers, shifting alliances with each other and small powers  less risk of domination, possible global leadership vacuum, low certainty about the future Critical Q: What happens to int’l cooperation and the risk of war as great powers rise & fall?  Interpretation 2 – Anarchy invites aggression by great powers John Mearsheimer (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics Anarchy  opportunities for aggression by ‘predator’ states. Therefore, all states seek to maximize their relative power. International politics is dominated by great powers pursuing regional hegemony. Rise & fall of great powers  instability, likelihood of major war. Two films: Bambi (US, 1942), Godzilla (Japan, 1954) “In the anarchic world of international politics, it is better to be Godzilla than Bambi.” -- John Mearsheimer (2006)  “Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.” -- Porfirio Díaz, President of Mexico, 1876-1880, 1884-1911 Pre-1848 Today That’s 2 of 3 interpretations of anarchy. Questions? Break time Interpretation 3 – Effect of anarchy depends on identities Alexander Wendt (1992). Anarchy is What States Make of It. International Organization 46(2), 391-425 Int’l anarchy does not automatically produce self-help & insecurity -- both competitive and cooperative relations are possible. Relations under anarchy depend upon how states identify vis-à-vis each other: o Negative identities (Other is unlike Us)  competitive relations & conflict. o Positive identities (Other is like Us)  cooperative relations & community.  Identities are shaped by processes of interaction (how governments talk & act, values they express).  Significance: peaceful & cooperative relations do not require replacing anarchy with world government.  Identities in international politics Identities are understandings of the Self in relation to an Other – how we are similar, how we are different. – They can change over time. – Based on human action and interpretation. International institutions can promote the development of positive identities. Example: After WW2, joint construction of European community enabled France and Germany to replace negative identification with positive identification.  No more fear of attack, deepening of European cooperation.  Reassurance may overcome fear Janice Gross Stein (1991). Reassurance in International Conflict Management. Political Science Quarterly 106:3, 431-451 Logic: If fear feeds the security dilemma, which makes cooperation difficult, then reassuring words and actions can promote positive identification and cooperation. Strategy: Use words and actions (including self-restraint and de- escalation) to make Other less fearful & allow focus on shared interests. - Works best if reciprocated. Example: Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev used actions (policy reforms) and language (‘Common European home’) to convince US  Identities depend (in part) on domestic regime – democracies cooperate differently with each other Thomas Risse-Kappen(1995). Cooperation among Democracies: The European Influence on U.S. Foreign Policy Simple interpretations of anarchy suggest that powerful states will dominate int’l cooperation, push around smaller states. Historical cases show that among democracies, small allies have great influence. Explanation: A community of collective identity based on shared values Problem-solving through dialogue  Aliens, anarchy and cooperation "I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.” -- U.S. President Ronald Reagan, speech at the UN, 1987  Coronavirus as aliens? Like Reagan’s aliens, Coronavirus was an ‘outside, universal threat’ to humanity. Did humanity overcome its differences to cooperate against this threat? Or did the international response to Covid-19 resemble an every-state-for-itself, self-help system? Did this vary by region or relationship? Was the difficulty of cooperation due to anarchy (‘absence of effective central authority above states’) or to something else?  Film: Arrival (2016) Alien spacecraft with 7-legged ‘Heptapods’ arrive at 12 locations on Earth. Humans try to communicate with them. Central character: a university professor! Lots of mind-bending stuff happens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZsvUy1zqe0  2 intersecting ‘anarchies’ Relations between humans and aliens Relations between states  Discussion Which interpretation of anarchy best fits (explains) the film Arrival? What part(s) of this film fit Waltz or Mearsheimer’s interpretation? What part(s) of this film fit Wendt’s interpretation? Other comments?  Wendt on the inevitability of conflict “Consider two actors--ego and alter--encountering each other for the first time. Each wants to survive and has certain materials capabilities, but neither actor has biological or domestic imperative for power, glory, or conquest...., and there is no history of security or insecurity between the two. What should they do? Realists would probably argue that each should act on the basis of worst-case assumptions about the other's intentions, justifying such an attitude as prudent in view of the possibility of death from making a mistake. Such a possibility always exist, even in civil society; however, society would be impossible if people made decisions purely on the basis of worst-case possibilities. Instead, most decisions are and should be made on the basis of probabilities, and these are produced by interaction, by what actors do....” -- Wendt 1992: 404  Wendt on contact with aliens “Would we assume, a priori, that we were about to be attacked if we are ever contacted by members of an alien civilization? I think not. We would be highly alert, of course, but whether we placed our military forces on alert or launched an attack would depend on how we interpreted the import of their first gesture for our security--if only to avoid making an immediate enemy out of what may be a dangerous adversary. The possibility of error, in other words, does not force us to act on the assumption that the aliens are threatening: action depends on the probabilities we assign, and these are in key part a function of what the aliens do; prior to their gesture, we have no systemic basis for assigning probabilities. If their first gesture is to appear with a thousand spaceships and destroy New York, we will define the situation as threatening and respond accordingly. But if they appear with one spaceship, saying what seems to be "we come in peace," we will feel "reassured" and will probably respond with a gesture intended to reassure them, even if this gesture is not necessarily interpreted by them as such.” -- Wendt 1992: 405 ‘Agent Halpern’ on the inevitability of conflict Agent Halpern: We have to consider the idea that our visitors are prodding us to fight among ourselves until only one faction prevails. Dr. Louise Banks: There’s no evidence of that. Agent Halpern: Sure there is. Just grab a history book… We’re a world with no leader. Ian Donnelly: Look, they’re not our enemy. They’ve made no act of aggression towards us. Agent Halpern: Maybe this is their way of being aggressive.  Remember: ‘Anarchy’ is not the only way to understand the int’l system! Next session International system: Hierarchy