CHAPTER 15.docx

CHAPTER 15 Traditional Theories of International Relations Liberalism and the Rise of International Relations World War I, with its unprecedented scale and introduction of total war, was a key catalyst for the development of International Relations (IR) as a formal academic discipline. The concept o...

CHAPTER 15 Traditional Theories of International Relations Liberalism and the Rise of International Relations World War I, with its unprecedented scale and introduction of total war, was a key catalyst for the development of International Relations (IR) as a formal academic discipline. The concept of total war, which involves the mobilization of a state’s entire resources to annihilate the enemy, led to an urgent quest for a new international order that could ensure lasting peace and security. Liberal international theorists, drawing on pre-existing philosophical ideas, constructed their concept of international order. Ancient philosophers emphasized the role of individual human reason in determining the “good life,” while modern liberal thinkers advocated for political action to achieve reform when the existing order was inadequate. Significant contributors to liberal ideas in international politics included Hugo Grotius and Samuel von Pufendorf, both of whom experienced the Thirty Years War. Grotius, a foundational figure in liberal international thought, posited that peace, not conflict, is the natural state of humanity. He also introduced early ideas about the sociability of the international sphere. Pufendorf, another key figure, incorporated a basic natural law of self-preservation into his work on universal jurisprudence and the law of nations, arguing against Hobbes that humans are inherently sociable and not excessively self-interested. Immanuel Kant, in his seminal work "Perpetual Peace" published in 1795, proposed principles for a law of nations based on a federation of free states to ensure lasting peace. These ideas continue to significantly influence peace theory. Kant proposed that under republican governments, individuals’ rational self-preservation instincts would deter warmongering. US President Woodrow Wilson echoed this sentiment, asserting that democracies are inherently peaceful, and that global democratization could virtually eliminate warfare. He believed that if all European countries had been democracies in 1914, war could have been avoided. However, it’s crucial to note that Wilson, a known racist, did not extend his views of democracy and sovereignty to non-white people. In recognition of this, Princeton University removed his name from their policy school in mid-2020. A unifying theme among European liberal thinkers, from Grotius onwards, is their optimistic view of the potential for peaceful relations. This optimism is rooted in a positive view of human nature and the belief that people can learn from their mistakes. Liberals believe that rational, self-regarding actions by individuals can lead to better outcomes for all or most people. They argue that humans can progress towards a better state of existence within their political communities and in their inter-community relations. However, this progress requires human rationality and agency, both in building a satisfactory social and political order within a state and in constructing international institutions to mitigate the negative effects of anarchy. This line of thinking was instrumental in the peacemaking efforts following World War I. Post-war, world leaders proposed an association of nation-states pledging to respect each other’s economic and political independence and territorial integrity. This was realized through the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. The treaty was progressive in establishing the Covenant of the League of Nations. However, by imposing severe reparations on Germany for war damages, it inadvertently set the stage for a future war. The League of Nations serves as a case study illustrating the interplay between theory and practice in international relations. CASE STUDY BOX 15.1 Liberal Theory and the League of Nations The League of Nations is often deemed a failure for not preventing World War II. Critics, particularly realists, viewed the liberal internationalism that underpinned the League as wishful thinking. However, the League's institutional design was workable and partly influenced the structure of the United Nations. Despite its shortcomings, the League was a significant achievement as the first major attempt to establish a mechanism for collective security on an extensive international scale. Its failure to prevent aggression by Germany, Italy, and Japan was more due to external factors, such as the United States' refusal to join and the League's refusal to admit communist Russia. A second key factor in the failure of the League of Nations was the aggression displayed by France and Belgium when they invaded a German industrial area to enforce reparation payments. Britain's failure to condemn this violation of League rules highlighted the potentially vengeful nature of the Treaty of Versailles' reparations provisions. This humiliation set the stage for the rise of extreme nationalism in Germany, as promoted by Hitler. Racism against non-white countries was a significant issue, with leaders like Wilson actively promoting it. The League of Nations’ legitimacy was undermined by its failure to prevent Italy’s aggression against Ethiopia, an original member of the League. In 1935, Italy invaded Ethiopia, and the League did nothing as Ethiopia was subjected to conventional bombing and chemical weapons. In 1936, Ethiopia’s leader, Haile Selassie, appealed to the League for help, stating that his people were threatened with extermination. The League’s inaction contradicted its claim of promoting collective security. This raises the question: Did the League of Nations fail, or did state leaders fail the League of Nations? The principle of self-determination is a key aspect of liberal theory with several interpretations. It can refer to the right of states to determine their own policies, the right of citizens to choose their government and policy preferences, and the pursuit of political autonomy by nationalist movements, potentially through secession. Secession is the formal withdrawal of a group from a political entity. This principle bolsters the legitimacy of the nation-state concept. Historically, the right to self-determination was initially applied only within Europe, extended to South America in the 19th century, and to the rest of the colonized world post-1945. However, it has not yet been applied to Indigenous peoples in Western settler states. Liberal International Relations (IR) theory peaked during the interwar years, but its belief in possible world peace was challenged when the League of Nations collapsed and Germany, Italy, and Japan pursued imperial expansion. This led to a rise in realism and made liberalism seem naive. However, liberalism regained influence in the latter part of the 20th century and remains a key component of IR theory. It underpins a vast system of international law and the main political institutions of global governance, such as the United Nations. It also plays a central role in international political economy. The Realist Turn The Treaty of Versailles failed to address several of Europe’s political issues and exacerbated others, notably by imposing hefty reparations on Germany, leading to its economic downturn in the 1920s and 1930s. In line with the principle of national self-determination, new states like Poland and Czechoslovakia were established in Eastern Europe, serving as “buffers” between Western Europe and the USSR, which was committed to overthrowing the liberal, capitalist order through a global communist revolution. Despite a period of relative peace in the 1920s and Germany’s membership in the League of Nations, these developments did not prevent the rise of Adolf Hitler, who built the Third Reich on an ultranationalist foundation. Significant developments also occurred in Asia, particularly in Japan, which achieved remarkable industrial growth by modernizing its economy over the previous half-century. Japan began to establish its own empire, winning a war against Russia in 1905 and annexing Korea in 1910. Despite being a member of the League of Nations and having leaders committed to internationalism, Japan saw a rise in militarism and imperialism in the 1930s. After occupying the Chinese province of Manchuria in 1931, Japan launched a full-scale invasion of China in 1937. It wasn’t until 1940 that Japan joined the “Axis Alliance” with Italy and Germany against Britain and its allies. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand entered the war in 1939, while the United States joined in 1941 following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. World War II resulted in the deaths of over 50 million people, more than five times the casualties of the previous world war. This included at least 6 million Jews who were victims of the Holocaust, along with many Europe’s Roma and Sinti (Gypsy) people, killed in death camps due to extreme racialist nationalism. These atrocities marked a significant setback for the discipline of International Relations (IR), which was founded with the aim of preventing war. This led to the rise of realism in IR, focusing on explaining the world as it is, rather than as it should be. Realism, while not a single theory, is a school of thought in International Relations that emphasizes the struggle for power and security by sovereign states in an anarchic international political landscape. Realists, claiming to be part of an ancient tradition, cite Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War as evidence. They argue that power politics dominate state relations, and that morality is irrelevant in this sphere, making it amoral rather than immoral. However, this interpretation of Thucydides can be seen as partial. His observations could also be read as moral lessons on the destructive outcomes of dogmatism and hubris at the state level, and as a warning that failure to engage in dialogue and seek shared interests with other communities can lead to conflict. Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian theorist and political advisor, is known for his pragmatic approach to politics, where he dismissed idealism and moralizing as detrimental. His writings on statecraft have been compared to the ancient Indian text, the Arthashastra by Kautilya. A key concept often attributed to Machiavelli is “raison d’état” or “reason of state,” a contemporary equivalent of which is “national interest.” Machiavelli advocated that a ruler’s decisions, when the country’s safety is at stake, should prioritize the country’s survival and liberty over personal notions of justice, mercy, or cruelty. Thomas Hobbes, a key figure in the realist tradition, posits a universal state of nature and human nature, constant across time and place. In Hobbes’s state of nature, elements necessary for a good life, such as security, justice, and morality, are absent due to the lack of a sovereign power to enforce them. This anarchic state, driven by fear and insecurity, compels individuals to prioritize self-preservation, leading to a war of each against all. Hobbes famously described life in this state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes proposed that to escape the harsh state of nature and achieve peace and security, individuals must agree to live under a single, undisputed political authority or sovereign power that can enforce law and order. Individuals retain only the basic right to self-preservation, which initially led them to submit to the sovereign authority. Thus, political communities are artificial constructs designed to help humans escape the insecure conditions of the state of nature. In international relations, the same conditions apply as there is no overarching sovereign authority, leading to a state of perpetual anarchy. Survival, achievable only through domination and the rational pursuit of self-interest, becomes the primary goal. In such an environment, justice and morality have no place. Post World War II, with the onset of the Cold War in 1947, International Relations (IR) in the United States developed rapidly with a distinct realist tone. The key figure was Hans Morgenthau, a German-Jewish theorist, whose 1948 book "Politics among Nations" became a seminal text for political scientists and diplomats. Morgenthau, deeply affected by the Nazi regime's lawlessness and brutality, held a pessimistic view of human nature, and believed that power often supersedes morality in the international system. Other influential thinkers of the era, such as Hannah Arendt and George Kennan, shared similar views. Realism, as a political theory, views both domestic and international politics through a similar lens, but with a key distinction. In the domestic sphere, a state has sovereign authority, which allows it to enforce order through institutions like police forces, courts, and legislatures. In contrast, the international sphere is often described as anarchic, as there is no overarching authority to enforce order. However, there are mechanisms in place to establish a semblance of order, albeit fragile. The primary mechanism is the balance of power among states. This balance acts as a deterrent, as states, acting rationally, weigh the advantages and disadvantages of going to war. Often, they find it in their best interest to maintain peace to ensure their survival. This is a fundamental principle in realist thought. Advanced versions of realism acknowledge that sociability in an international system can deter conflict. If states share a “community of interests” or are bound by common cultural elements or personal ties, power competition is moderated and less likely to lead to war. For instance, no English-speaking countries have engaged in war with each other since the War of 1812. Despite the potential for peaceful diplomacy, some states and rulers will aggressively pursue their perceived interests, regardless of the consequences. This perspective suggests that certain states, like Athens during the Peloponnesian War, or rulers like Napoleon or Hitler, are undeterred. Therefore, even in times of peace, wise leaders must always prepare for the worst-case scenario, as it only takes one aggressive international actor to destabilize the system. Behaviouralism versus Normative Analysis The study of politics employs various types of analysis and methodologies. Post-World War II, particularly in the United States, behaviouralism had a significant impact on international relations (IR). This approach favors quantifiable data and the scientific method over legal, historical, and comparative studies, aiming to produce supposedly objective, positive knowledge. Positivism, a concept closely related to behaviouralism, is based on the belief that there exists a neutral, universally valid body of knowledge about subjects like politics and IR. Positivists argue that social sciences can employ the same methodologies as natural sciences, such as formulating and testing hypotheses, collecting empirical facts, identifying relevant variables, and determining cause and effect, to make predictions in international politics. As normative considerations are deemed “unscientific,” positivist approaches are inherently concerned with what is, rather than what ought to be. Normative analysis focuses on norms, values, and ethics, dealing with questions of right and wrong, justice and injustice. Unlike scientific theories, normative international theory doesn’t claim to be neutral or objective. It’s impossible to empirically test the truth or falsity of moral claims, and the concept of “cause and effect” differs from that in natural sciences. Despite not involving hypothesis testing or fact accumulation, normative theorists conduct systematic investigations and construct theories based on reasoning and intuition. Normative theorists argue against positivist critiques, stating that knowledge produced by positivist methodologies is never entirely objective and reflects the biases of the scientists involved. This is evident in cases where scientific studies, often funded by vested interests, produce biased results. For example, studies funded by coal or oil producers denying climate change, or political scientists funded by the US Department of Defense promoting specific foreign policies during the 1950s and 1960s. These theorists assert that it’s challenging to find any study in any field that is entirely free of biases, leading some to claim that all knowledge is a matter of interpretation. Positivism’s focus on reality, rather than ideals, aligns with some principles of classical realism. From Thucydides onwards, key figures have emphasized the need to accept political realities over unattainable ideals. While realism (a political theory) and positivism (a methodology) are distinct, they share certain assumptions. Morgenthau’s classical realism wasn’t very scientific and many of his observations couldn’t be scientifically tested. However, realist theory moved towards a more scientific approach in the late 1970s, evolving into neorealism. The English School and the Idea of International Society In contrast to the behavioralist approach of social scientists in the United States, scholars in Europe developed a different approach to international relations (IR). These scholars, who first met in London in 1959 to discuss international theory, became known as the English School. Martin Wight, a key figure in this school, argued that IR was theoretically underdeveloped compared to domestic politics. He suggested that international theory should ask fundamental questions about the international sphere, viewing it as a “society of states”, like how political theory examines the state. The English School of international relations theory centers on the idea of an international society, which is seen as a group of sovereign states formed in an anarchic environment. Despite acknowledging the instability of international conditions compared to domestic ones, these theorists were interested in exploring the possibility of a stable order. Hedley Bull, a key figure in the school, agreed with the fundamental tenets of realism but suggested that state behavior could be significantly altered by establishing rules and institutions. These would “socialize” the international environment, allowing norms, values, and common interests to have a greater influence. Essentially, the experience of cooperation in international institutions would foster relationships between states. KEY QUOTE BOX 15.2 Hedley Bull on the Society of States A society of states, or international society, is formed when a group of states, aware of their common interests and values, perceive themselves as bound by a shared set of rules in their relations with each other and participate in the operation of common institutions. English School theorists agreed on the fundamental principles of international society but had differing views on the possibility of creating a universally accepted set of norms. English-speaking states, having fought together in two world wars, demonstrated that close cooperation was possible despite geographical and national differences. However, it remains uncertain whether states without shared language, culture, religion, or traditions could achieve similar levels of cooperation. Bull, Wight, and their contemporaries were developing theories during a time of global decolonization, which saw the rise of states that differed significantly from those in Europe. This raised questions about the universal applicability of their largely Eurocentric theories. Critics questioned whether the norms of European societies could be exported globally, highlighting the ethnocentric assumptions prevalent in much of the discipline’s theorizing. This sparked a debate about the role of cultural differences in international relations theory. Opinions vary on whether norms should be exported. Some, like Bull, adopt a pluralist stance, acknowledging that different cultures have unique norms, values, and justice standards. While some states might opt for Western democracy, others might prefer consensus politics or leadership by a hereditary chief or elders. This diversity means there’s no universal standard to evaluate behavior, leading to a form of ethical relativism. This suggests the international system lacks a sovereign power and overarching moral authority. The lack of a universal conduct standard doesn’t necessarily hinder the formation of an international society, but it does imply that such a society will be minimalist. There’s no universal morality applicable everywhere. European states, having promoted colonial empires and been involved in exploitation, need to exercise caution when judging others to avoid hypocrisy. The solidarist approach in international relations acknowledges the diversity of values among states but advocates for a stronger commitment to shared norms of behavior, both domestically and internationally. This approach implies a broader commitment to global human solidarity. While the principle of non-intervention (i.e., states should not interfere in the internal affairs of other states) is generally accepted in international society, solidarists argue that there can be exceptions to this rule. For instance, in extraordinary circumstances such as genocide, where a population group within a state is targeted, solidarists believe that the norm of non-intervention can be overridden. This suggests that the international community has a responsibility to intervene in such cases to prevent mass atrocities. This perspective reflects a more proactive approach to maintaining international peace and security, emphasizing collective responsibility and action. The English School theory, which has gained popularity recently, focuses on the relationship between international order and human justice. This is central to current debates about state sovereignty, global human rights culture, and humanitarian intervention. Nick Wheeler, in his 2002 review of gross human rights abuses and genocide, argues that Western countries’ interventions in humanitarian crises are not solely driven by self-interest. Instead, he suggests that domestic public opinion often compels political leaders to intervene for moral reasons, indicating a normative shift in expectations of government actions. The English School theory also provides insights into global cooperation during crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The English School theory also addresses the issue of legitimacy, questioning under what circumstances a state or a group of states can rightfully intervene in another country to halt human rights abuses. Institutions like the United Nations are deemed crucial as they have the legitimacy to intervene for humanitarian or other reasons. Furthermore, key elements of English School theorizing align with social constructivism theories, a topic to be explored in the subsequent chapter. Neoliberalism and Neorealism The United Nations (UN) was created in 1945 with the aim of making the world a better place, inspired by classic liberal ideals. The founders of the UN saw value in the structures of the old League of Nations and incorporated features such as the General Assembly, Secretariat, Court of Justice, and the executive council into the new organization. Specialized agencies were also established to help build an international system with a robust economic and social framework. As decolonization advanced in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific, the UN’s membership expanded, embodying the liberal principle of self-determination on a global scale. By the mid-1950s, the UN had become a truly global organization. In the 1970s, both liberal and realist schools of thought evolved into “neo” forms—neorealism and neoliberalism—that advocated for more scientific methods in theory development. Both neorealism and neoliberalism shared the belief that theories should be simple, falsifiable, and testable. Neorealism, or structural realism, is a theory that focuses on the structure of the international system and largely disregards domestic politics. It posits that the international system’s logic dictates the actions of state-based decision-makers. As such, neorealism asserts that leaders should resist domestic pressures and personal moralities, focusing solely on the international system to make rational decisions based on its dynamics. Kenneth Waltz, a key theorist in this field, contributed significantly to this perspective with his 1979 work “Theory of International Politics,” which was recognized for its more scientifically rigorous approach to understanding global politics. According to Waltz, the causes of war can be found in three levels of analysis: the individual, the state, and the international system of states. Post World War II, liberal international relations (IR) theorists accepted the realist view of international relations as essentially anarchic. However, neoliberals like Robert Keohane (1984) critiqued neorealism’s oversimplified approach to this anarchy. They argued that international institutions, such as the UN, played a vital role in mitigating the adverse effects of anarchy and power politics. Neoliberals also advocated for the recognition of non-state actors, including transnational corporations and NGOs like the Red Cross/Red Crescent or the International Monetary Fund, as significant contributors to IR (Keohane & Nye, 1977, p. 23). These entities are now seen as part of an international civil society that operates alongside the state system and its regional and international institutions, even though states remain the primary actors. Another innovation by neoliberals was a more detailed analysis of sovereign states at the domestic level. Unlike neorealists who viewed states as unitary actors in international relations, neoliberals recognized that many state characteristics and behaviors were influenced by domestic political constraints. Neoliberals expanded the concept of security in international political economy to include not just military factors, but also various economic resources and other elements utilized by states and non-state actors like multinational corporations. They argued that relations of interdependence are more complex than those formed by military alliances alone, due to the multifaceted dynamics brought about by industrialization, modernization, and globalization. This led neoliberals to describe the modern international system as a system of complex interdependence, with multiple actors, agencies, and forces. Nye (2005) proposed a different worldview from realists, where states aren’t the only significant actors, economic strategies can replace military force, and the primary goal shifts from security to welfare. Nye (2009) likened world politics to a “three-dimensional chess game”. The top board represents military power, which is largely unipolar with the U.S. as the likely sole superpower for some time. The middle board represents economic power, which has been multipolar for over a decade with major players like the U.S., Europe, Japan, and China, and others gaining significance. The bottom board represents cross-border transactions that occur outside government control. In response to neoliberalism’s alternative interpretation of the international system, neorealism reemphasized the crucial role of power in an anarchic international environment. Neorealists, adopting a more scientific method, sought a simplified, “parsimonious” theory of international relations (IR) that could generate testable hypotheses. Waltz (1979) suggested that the behavior of individual states is determined by the structure of the entire international state system. While states are the main actors, Waltz argued that IR theorists do not need to understand the intricacies of their domestic politics, as these details have minimal impact on the broader constraints and opportunities present in the international system. Later neorealists continue to view the international system as inherently dangerous. John Mearsheimer argues that the anarchic nature of this system, with no assurance against attacks between states, necessitates that each state amasses enough power for self-protection. This leads to a situation where great powers are compelled to compete for power to ensure their survival. However, this competition has its drawbacks. Actions taken by a state to enhance its security (such as military build-up) invariably provoke other states to boost their military capabilities, making all states more dangerous than before. This creates a security dilemma where the more a state arms itself against a rival, the more insecure it feels. This situation exemplifies the key realist concept of the balance of power, where each state strives to increase its capabilities to counterbalance any rise in the capabilities of other relevant states. The structural school of thought differentiates between defensive and offensive realism, relating these concepts to hegemony, a situation where there’s a dominant power center. Offensive realists like Mearsheimer argue that states constantly strive to maximize their power relative to others in the system, a rational strategy for ensuring survival. A state that achieves hegemonic status enjoys the highest level of security due to its superior power. Defensive realists like Waltz, however, argue that seeking excessive power can provoke reactions from other states, creating a security dilemma. Waltz suggests that states should aim for sufficient power, but not so much as to alarm or antagonize their rivals. Despite the potential for the combined power of other states to surpass and ultimately defeat an aspiring hegemon, realists of all types recognize the risks of expansionism and other ill-advised foreign ventures. Mearsheimer notes that almost all realists opposed the 2003 Iraq War, which turned out to be a strategic blunder for the United States and its allies. Concepts such as absolute and relative gains, offensive realism, and defensive realism are variations within neorealist theory. However, these ideas have been critiqued for oversimplifying international relations (IR) theory and limiting its capacity to probe deeper into the state of global politics and prospects. Feminist critique of neorealism is particularly significant. Critics generally argue that neorealists fail to address urgent issues beyond military security, including global environmental challenges and imbalances in resource allocation and consumption worldwide. Realism is traditionally less favored in Canada compared to the US. However, some Canadian international relations (IR) theorists, like David Haglund, suggest that foreign policymakers have adopted a form of realism, viewing Canada as a “middle power.” This term refers to a country that is smaller and less influential than a superpower but can still make a significant impact if it understands its role in global affairs. Being a middle power is seen positively, as such a country is a reliable ally for more powerful Western nations, a neutral peacekeeper, and does not seek to overstate its international presence. Recent surveys indicate that only about 12% of Canadian IR scholars identify as realists, which is less than half of the 25% who identify as constructivists. The COVID-19 crisis has reshaped expectations of government roles globally, reflecting ideological beliefs, political culture, institutional strength, and economic status. Countries with centre-left democratic leadership, like New Zealand under Jacinda Ardern and Canada under Justin Trudeau, have generally fared better. In contrast, countries under right-wing populist leadership, such as the United States under Donald Trump and Brazil under Jair Bolsonaro, struggled to respond effectively, possibly due to their leaders’ open criticism of state bureaucracies responsible for health and social services. These two countries alone have seen hundreds of thousands of deaths due to the virus. CASE STUDY BOX 15.3 Debating the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the State: Realists versus Liberals In a debate organized by Foreign Policy in March 2020, realist IR theorists predicted that the COVID-19 pandemic would strengthen some states while weakening others. Stephen Walt argued that the crisis would bolster nationalism and state power, with governments hesitant to give up emergency powers. He foresaw Asian countries asserting global dominance as Western nations showed disorganization and weakness. Walt suggested that, like past pandemics, COVID-19 wouldn’t end great-power rivalry or usher in global cooperation. Instead, he predicted a decline in globalization support and increased reliance on the state for protection. In summary, Walt believed COVID-19 would result in a world less open, prosperous, and free. Liberals like G. John Ikenberry predict that democracies and globalization will eventually prevail. They believe that Western democracies, despite initial nationalist reactions, will ultimately adopt a pragmatic and protective form of internationalism, like the transition seen in the 1930s-1940s. Joseph Nye shares this viewpoint, arguing that the US needs a new global engagement strategy and that its current unilateral power politics approach is temporary. He emphasizes the importance of shared power and the need to define national interests broadly. He also points out that the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the failure to adjust strategies to new global realities. In summary, while both liberal and realist theorists acknowledge the same domestic and global challenges, liberals are more optimistic about the potential for cooperation and change. In contrast, realists believe that state governments will exploit these situations to enhance their own power. Internationally, the US appears to have retreated from its role as a global leader. As noted by Ikenberry, the short-term impact of the new coronavirus and its economic and social fallout is expected to speed up the disintegration of the global order, leading to increased nationalism, rivalry between major powers, and strategic decoupling. This makes the future of international relations and the nature of the global order increasingly uncertain. LIST OF KEY TERMS balance of power-A system of relations between states in which the goal is to maintain an equilibrium of power (usually military and economic), thus preventing the dominance of any one state. Behaviouralism-An approach to the study of social phenomena based on the methods used in the natural sciences. Objective measurement of the social world was the goal, and values were considered to have no place in social inquiry. Deterrence-The theory that the possession of powerful weapons will deter aggression by other countries. During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was a widely accepted military strategy. English School-a theory of international relations that views the international sphere as a “society of states,” exploring the possibility of a stable order through rules and institutions. It focuses on issues such as state sovereignty, global human rights, humanitarian intervention, and the role of institutions like the United Nations, suggesting that moral reasons and domestic public opinion often drive interventions in humanitarian crises. Ethnocentric-The tendency to see and interpret the world primarily from the perspective of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or national group; often entails a tendency to regard one’s own culture as superior, or at least preferable, to others. global governance-An extension of the concept of governance, referring loosely to the “architecture” constituted by various authoritative political, social, and economic structures and actors that interconnect and interact in the absence of actual “government” in the global sphere. international civil society-Broadly, the realm of non-state actors, including interest groups and voluntary associations, in the international sphere. Internationalism-The belief in the benefits of international political and economic cooperation; may also refer to a movement that advocates practical action in support of such cooperation. International liberalism-a theory in international relations that emphasizes the role of individual reason, political action for reform, and the inherent sociability of humans in shaping international order. It advocates for peace as the natural state of humanity, the importance of international institutions in mitigating anarchy and power politics and underpins a vast system of international law and global governance institutions, playing a central role in international political economy. international society-A society of states characterized by peaceful working relations; a concept associated with the English School of international relations, which proposed that the anarchic nature of the international sphere did not preclude cooperation. national interest-The concept (closely associated with raison d’état and power politics) that the interests of the state (or at least of one’s own state) take precedence over any other consideration in the international sphere. Although it is a foundational concept in realist approaches, national interest is just as easily used to justify idealist approaches; this suggests that what is in the national interest may be highly contested. Neoliberalism-a school of thought that posits international cooperation between states is feasible, sustainable, and can reduce conflict and competition. Neoliberals highlight the role of international institutions in facilitating cooperation between states, arguing that these institutions provide information, reduce collective action problems, and enforce compliance. positivism-A school of thought that believes it is possible to generate empirical statements without any evaluative or normative connotations. At the extreme, so-called logical positivists argue that only empirical statements and tautologies (statements that are true by definition) are meaningful. Pluralism-Originated as a normative argument against monism or sameness. In political theory, it is usually associated with a theory of the state according to which political power is diffuse, all organized groups having some influence on state outputs. In international relations, it is associated both with the English School and with neoliberal theory, highlighting the multiplicity, or plurality, of forces at work in the international system. security dilemma-A concept in international relations, developed principally in realist thought, in which the anarchy of the system forces states to engage in self-regarding behaviour to survive. The dilemma arises when efforts by one state to enhance its own security (such as by acquiring superior weaponry) provokes insecurity in another state, which may then respond by building up its own military capacity. Self-determination-a principle in liberal theory that encompasses the right of states to determine their own policies, the right of citizens to choose their government and policy preferences, and the pursuit of political autonomy by nationalist movements, potentially through secession. It bolsters the legitimacy of the nation-state concept and has been applied historically in various regions, although not yet fully extended to Indigenous peoples in Western settler states. Solidarism-A branch of thought in English School international relations theory that promotes solidarity among humans and argues that the obligation to protect human rights can override the right of states to non-intervention in domestic politics. Structural realism-also known as neorealism, is a theory in international relations that emphasizes the structure of the international system over domestic politics. It posits that the logic of the international system dictates state actions, asserting that leaders should resist domestic pressures and personal moralities to make rational decisions based on international dynamics. This perspective, significantly contributed to by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 work “Theory of International Politics,” advocates a scientifically rigorous approach to understanding global politics.