International Relations Synthèse PDF

International relations Class 1 - introduction The unhate campaign Question 1: who? The actors of international relations are unclear. State leaders? Governments? Regional organizations? Only men? Transnational firms? The answer to this question is different dependin...

International relations Class 1 - introduction The unhate campaign Question 1: who? The actors of international relations are unclear. State leaders? Governments? Regional organizations? Only men? Transnational firms? The answer to this question is different depending on the theory. Question 2: what? What are international relations about? Conflicts? Peace? Economy? Values? Question 3: how, why? How do international relations work? Why do they work in that way? Explaining Question 4: so, what? Understanding or explaining. No need to ask the question: to understand or explain is already enough. Doing predictions. Ex: there are going to be more conflicts in the world Giving advise (normative aspect). Ex: we need strong international organizations There must be a purpose of international relations. In the beginning there was a consensus among searchers. Later on, new questions were asked such as question 2,3 & 4. There is no agreement. a. The great debates: ð Idealists vs realists (1930-1950): about thinking whether the state act for their own sake or ð Traditionalists vs behavioralists (1940-1960): the way research was conducted before was too philosophic. ð Classical theories vs Marxist theories and transnationalism (1970-1990): added new perspectives to international relations. 1  ð Positivists vs post-positivists (1990-2000) b. Overview and definition of IR ð Small IR: concerns a lot of different domains (transnational security, issues that cannot be delt w/ by only one state (migration, climate change…)) ð It covers several topics such as war and peace, transnational security, collective action, international institutions and organizations, transnational social movements. Contemporary definition of international relations: “the set of relations that unfold beyond the space controlled by individual states whatever the actor – state or non-state actor – concerned by these relations is, and whatever the nature – political or other – of these relations.” ð International relation is about the interactions between units of the international system. o “international” => proposed in early 19th by Jeremy Nethman in relation to international law => rules for relations, so different jursdictions that have relations between them ð The phenomenon of IR: o The emergence of the State and the classical definition of inter-national relations o The phenomenon of globalization ð The academic discipline of IR: o Anarchy as a common criterion for definition o History and developments of the discipline => help us analyse/structure our understanding o The academic discipline of International Relations => A set of rules that help us structure, produce and validate knowledge. c. How did international relations emerge? The modern state emerged at the end of the medieval age. Power eventually started to be concentrated in the hands of a central authority. Transition from a decentralized form of power to a centralized one. Political centralization of power within a geographical 2 space with clear boundaries. The state: one territory, one population, one system of government, one legal personality, sovereignty (key element in the UN charter) The constitutive elements of the State Reminder: to exist, the State needs a territory, a population, and a government ð Territory o No state without territory o Protection of its territory => military o Most international conflicts are motivated by territorial issues. o Spatial location of the State as an important element in strategic decisions (access to sea, natural resources, trade route, etc.) o The notion of territory was central to colonization à “terra nullius.” Today, States territory is considered as inviolable, delimited by fixed borders. It is the outcome of the development of a corpus of legal norms (from the Westphalia Treaties to the UN Charter). However, territories are still objects of conflicts over the delimitation of borders (often contestation of borders that are the outcome of colonization). ð Population = group of people living in a particular territory and under the authority of the State. o Some have the nationality of the State, others are immigrants or refugees. o Population as an element of power for the State => can be instrumentalized in problematic political discourses ð Government o The government is object of intense political struggles => Political legitimacy of the government o Today (UN Charter) no political legitimacy criteria, in principle § However, some criteria are debated in the academic and political spheres (genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleaning, and crimes against humanity) The state as a political actor If the state is considered as the unit/an actor in international relations. The necessary elements to this are authority, autonomy, and equality. 3  ð Authority = the right of the state to take decision that are binding on its citizens and enforce obedience. o Formal and material capacities => military, law (constitution) o Political authority in different areas of social life through different modalities (production of legal rule, monopoly of legitimate violence) ð Autonomy = the State is supposed to have the capacity to function without interference from other political entities. o The international system based on the existence of sovereign political entities (States) only emerged after UN Charter (1945) and decolonization waves. Before, only European states were recognized as autonomous entities. ð Equality = Each state is equal from a legal perspective to another state. o Legal equality comes from the acknowledgement of sovereignty as the structuring principle of international relations. The claims that characterize the State ð States claim to have the exclusive role as intermediate between the population and the international system. o Exclusive interface between internal and international arenas o Integrity of the territory o Collective interests of a given population o Monopoly of the legitimate use of violence on its territory Governments are supposed to be representing collective interests (>< authoritarian regimes.) ð In practice… o Authority: not all states (e.g., failed and collapsed states) o Autonomy: various degrees (USA vs Somalia) o Equality: strongly hierarchized international system (e.g., UNSC veto power) d. Sovereignty, a paradoxical concept (One of the structuring principles) Essentially contested (no universal definition) and essentially uncontested (taken for granted). Indivisible and unitary, but also shared and fragmented. Formal status 4 (protected by international treaties) yet under constant attack. It has an appearance of permanency but also claimed to be obsolete. DEFINITION: Sovereignty “expresses the idea that there is a final and absolute authority in the political community and that no final and absolute authority exists elsewhere than in the community.” ð Supreme authority Independence Indivisible quality => it does not exist in degrees, either it is sovereign, or it is not a state Dimensions of sovereignty: two dimensions that make sovereignty a defining principle in IR = the sovereign State is the default unit of analysis in IR, the interface between the domestic and the international ð Internal sovereignty o Supreme authority over the community o Decides the competences that it exercises on its territory, on the laws. o Decides the structuration of intermediary levels (sub-states, regions, etc.) o Monopoly of legitimate violence ð External sovereignty o No overarching authority in the international arena: anarchy, independence, equality among States o Competences and laws do not depend on the approval by other States o Competences and laws can be influenced by international institutions, but the State can withdraw from these institutions Sovereignty in political practice ð Popular idea: State sovereignty is in decline (due to globalization, regional integration processes) VS States still are key actors of international relations. Sovereignty is a key concept used in diplomatic and political discourse. States can still be states even though they delegate some sovereignty to international organization. ð Sovereignty today (still a debated concept) o Sovereignty not just as a property of the State: § Sovereignty is increasingly presented as “pooled”, “shared”, or “delegated”: to IOs or sub-states units (multi-level governance) = different “sites” of sovereignty both below and above the state (individuals, regions, supranational organizations, etc.) 5  ð Different types of sovereign statehood today: o The modern Westphalian state: fully exercises its sovereignty in the traditional sense. o The postcolonial or quasi-state contested sovereignty because it does not exercise it efficiently enough (ex: does not have good control of territory) o The postmodern States of the EU: have accepted to pool their sovereignty in certain policy areas. BUT: How much sovereignty can be compromised before a State ceases to be sovereign? => The number of states has increased. Anarchy ð Anarchy of the international system => there is an authority but formally there is no higher power then the States => interstate system established by dystopian Dickinson => useful criterion to distinguish the internal political realm form the external one. ð Principle of anarchy of the international system as much as there is hierarchy within the state, there is anarchy within the international system. ð Focuses of the anarchy of the interstate system Globalization as interdependence = “Interdependence in world politics refers to situations characterized by reciprocal effects among countries or among actors in different countries” Keohane & Nye = “Globalization refers to an intensification of what we described as interdependence in 1977” Keohane & Nye = “Globalization can usefully be conceived as a process which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions, generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction and power” Held 6 States are not the only units of analysis. IR shares characteristics with other disciplines which are combined to analyze the international system. Theorists were skeptical as to using only one discipline (history, law, or philosophy) A defining criterion of international relations’ field is anarchy, meaning the absence of authority. In fact, the international scene is developing itself in an anarchical context, there is no central authority above the State. Geographically this discipline is unequally distributed. It was born in the UK in 1919 then it developed very much in the US and came back to Europe. The countries have developed specific tradition, each country is specialized in some parts of international relations (France in sociology for, Scandinavian countries in peace, Germany is influenced by the American way of studying international relations). It has thus been spreading across countries over the years. 7  Class 2 – idealism/liberalism INTRODUCTION ð What is a theory? “A system of constructs (concepts) and propositions (relationships between those constructs) that collectively presents a logical, systematic, and coherent explanation of a phenomenon of interest within some assumptions and boundary conditions.” o Theory is important as it selects certain factors that are the most important or relevant if one is interested in providing an explanation of an event. o Theories structure our perception of reality. ð Idealism is the first approach introduced in the discipline. It dominated the discipline during the interwar period. ð Historical background: o 19th century: relative stability (except for some wars) § Pax Brittania => Main European powers withheld conversation instead of conglict o End of 19th century : New rising powers § US is a rising power (industrialisation) => but not a particular threat to Europe because of the distance § Germany wanted to become a naval power => threat to UK o Creation of dividing European alliances => european dialogue comes to a end § The UK would then form an alliance with France and Russia (Triple Entente) and Germany with the Austro-Hungarian empire and Italy (Triple Alliance). Alliances would get rivals against each other and in fine lead to war. o After the 19th century => Europe is more prone to wat => nothing compares to the destructiveness of the 1st WW. Von Clausautz, John hobson, Zimmern 1. Idealism (after WWI => existed before but takes an international aspect in IR) ð People believed that there needed to be new relations between states to avoid another war, relations between states had to change in order to avoid war at all costs. 8  o Mostly the wealthy => Welsh industrialists decided to finance the study of international relations (Davies’) o The purpose was to study sub disciplines that would allow policy makers to avoid war. o Woodrow Wilson: the idea of a League of Nations => establish dialogues instead of alliances (creates ennemies) Idealism in the foreign policy context holds that a nation-state should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its conduct and rhetoric in international affairs. ð They used the work done by former philosophers to develop their ideas and conceptions of international relations. o With an institutional focus, Hugo Grotius, On the Laws of War and Peace (1625), points out that all individuals need a peaceful social life that has to be protected by the people's law. John Locke, Treaty of Government (1690) proposes to establish a political authority to warrantee the interests of all individuals. o With a Republican interpretation, Kant Perpetual Peace (1795), considers that wars are less costly for Kings and Emperors as they do not directly feel the negative externalities of wartime (they usually stay protected, at home, and continue their everyday-lives). To the contrary, the decision to go to war is more difficult to take for citizens of Republican States, as they directly feel the impacts of wars. Each State should promote its own security by adopting a Republican constitution, and by informing its citizens. o From an economic perspective, Montesquieu, with many others (Jeremy Bentham for instance) has developed the idea of “doux commerce”, stating that trade progressively brings peace, as it enhances the costs of a potential war. 9  ð Idealists have trust in human nature and in human reason. They believe in perfectibility and progress. They are optimistic. 1.1. Wilsonism Close to the ideas of W. Wilson => his 14-point speech (1918): listed different ideas to bring international peace. 1. General association of Nations cooperation based on an international law that would be further developed o No single alliances but collective Security o Basis for institutional liberalism 2. Disarmament: in favor of the US being the first one to disarm rather than support more and more artillery leading to war o Stopping arms race 3. Public diplomacy : Secret diplomacy can only lead to war. Diplomacy should thus be public. Governments should take their public opinion into account when negotiating with other states ð republican liberalism: dismantle secret diplomacy to allow public opinion to be taken into account in negotiations with other states 4. Free trade will refrain states from going to war. Necessary to bring peace among Nations o à related to economic liberalism. 5. Self-determination of people in colonized countries. Collective right of each people to determine their own political faith. o pro independence of colonies and dismantlement of colonial empires IDEALISM/UTOPISM - Who? Individuals in the framework of States - What? International relations are about war and peace. Focus on peace. - How/Why? We need international institutions. Analysts inspired by philosophers. - So what? International institutions will stop wars (advice, normative dimension and prediction). 10 2. Liberalism - Who? States. Civil societies in the framework of States - What? International relations are about war and peace. Focus on peace. - How/Why? Anarchy is what civil societies want States to do about it. Three trends of liberalism - So what? Advice, normative dimension. The first professorship in International Relations (the W. Wilson’s Chair) was given to Alfred Zimmern who wrote The League of Nations and the Rule of Law. 1918- 1935 (1936). 2.1. Institutional liberalism Strand of liberalism that picks up on earlier liberal thought about the potential and beneficial effects of international institutions. The earlier liberal vision was one of transforming international relations from a ‘jungle’ of chaotic power to a ‘zoo’ of regulated and peaceful relations. This transformation was to be achieved through the building of international organizations. ð Stems from contractionalist philosophers : men were living in a state of nature and it was possible for violence => contract for the state monopoly of justified use of force o Law of nations Core idea: Peace is possible through institutionalized dialogue and agreements among nation states. ð International cooperation between states is feasible and sustainable, and such cooperation can reduce conflict and competition. Law can contribute to peace and avoid war. o Commonwealth ð Focuses on the idea that it is possible to reform the international system. 11  2.2. Republican liberalism Core ideas: democracy and education Strand of liberalism built on the claim that liberal democracies are more peaceful and law-abiding than other political systems. The argument is not that democracies never go to war; but democracies do not fight each other. This observation was first articulated by Immanuel Kant in the late eighteenth century in reference to republican states rather than democracies. ð Democracy leads to peace (less prone to war with another country) = The country is less incline to go to war because if the government truly is democratic, the interest of the people is taken into account (keeping in mind the people are the ones going to war). o Governments are elected by the people o Those people will tend to be rational/risk averse => less likely to want to go to war, prone to peace o In theory a pure democracy wouldn’t allow itself to go to war o >< autocracies o Link between liberal democracy and peace ð Emotions can lead to war o Education : Zimmern had a naïve idea of wanting to create an international library that everyone would read and through this education the people wouldn’t vote for violence 2.3. Economic liberalism Core idea: peace through economic relations, organized free trade. The idea is that if we have economic exchanges, we will not go to war. ð Trade increases the wealth of all countries which encourages them to keep good international relations o Going to war is against their own interest o Trade as a force for peace ð Need for international financial institutions => idea wasn’t present with idealists 12 3. The league of Nations in the 1920s (creation 1919) DEFINITION: The League of Nations is an international organization that aims at ensuring collective security. ð Collective security = A security arrangement by which states attempt to prevent or stop wars. Under a collective security arrangement, an aggressor against any one state is considered an aggressor against all other states, which act together to repel the aggressor. Peace was the most important objective for theorists at the time. If states make an agreement and participate, they won’t break it. Institutionalized dialogue, states will have to implement international law. ð Permit cooperation to eliminate interstate war o NOT : for example a country fighting against a terrorist group in their land ð States can then collectively punish one state that attacks another Video: Paris conference The nations united in a world organization for the first time in history. Four political leaders (France, UK, Italy). 3.1. Composition ð Predecessor of the UN => Set up after the Versailles treaty and met for the first time in Geneva in 1920 o Key structure: council, assembly, secretariat o There were also agencies and commissions. Some of these commissions remain to this day in the UN system (health,…) ð Initially, it was composed of 41 Member States. Main council composed of 4 permanent members (France, UK, Italy, Japan). o The US proposed the idea of a league of Nations (W. Wilson). However, they never became a member of it (the US senate did not agree with it joining). o Russia had become communist => not part of it either o Germany joined later ð The league was incapable and discredited 13  o The league had no army to enforce decisions o Unanimous vote to make decision => incapacity to act o Example: when Japan (member of the council) attacked China, the league of nations was incapable to propose a viable solution § Same for when Hitler decided to attack other nations Lots of idealist’s ideas are behind the league of nation. ð Idealism//reformism => Idea of a global government => working towards only having one government for the whole world o It is possible to change the world into a viable peaceful system through institutions, organised free trade, democracy, optimism education, … o Responsibility among countries o Purpose: replace power politics by the principle of …politics ð Utopian liberalism = optimist outlook, utopic thoughts >< realism 4. Revisiting institutional liberalism Present-day institutional liberals are less optimistic than their more idealist predecessors. They do agree that international institutions can make cooperation easier and far more likely, but they do not claim that such institutions can by themselves guarantee a qualitative transformation of international relations, as powerful states will not easily be completely constrained. ð The presence of international institutions is useful to support cooperation but, its presence by itself is not enough. They don’t believe that institutions don’t necessarily lead to cooperation => some powerful nations won’t agree International regimes (thematically based (environement, …) KEY DEFINITIONS ð International institutions: set of rules meant to govern international behavior. Can be divided into international organization and international regimes. 14 A set of rules in the international system. It is a broad definition. Differentiate it from international organizations. What differentiate international organization from international regime is the capacity of international organizations to function as an actor in international politics and to transcend the boundaries of issue areas, in contrast to international regimes which always relate to specific issue areas and do not function as actors. ð International organizations = A stable set of norms and rules meant to govern the behavior of states and other actors in the international system. o Oran Young: material entities possessing physical location, offices, personnel, equipment, and budgets à physical entities ð International regimes = sets of implicit/explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in each area of international relations Charter of the UN, art. 1 "To maintain international peace and security and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international 15 law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace." ð National Security Council o Based on the powers that were present after the second world war => doesn’t represent the world population at that time and even now o discussion of reforms to make it more democratic and equally representative 5. Revisiting republican liberalism Two types of republican liberalism => Democratic peace theory and new liberalism a. Democratic peace theory ð Comes from the analysis of comparative politics. o First wave started with the French and American revolutions. o Second wave started after the second WW. o we are in a Third Wave of democratisation (since the 70’s) => dictatorships becoming democracies (Latin America, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, …) ð Idealistic idea => democracy leads to peace => but refuted by reality (Second WW, …) o Silenced during the Cold War § When the CW ended peacefully => idea of democratic peace comes back to life (Doyle/Russett) 16 Michael DOYLE (1948-…) => historical explanation ð Doyle takes Kant’s point of view (+- the same starting point). ð The number of democracies is expanding + the number of democracies increases, and the number of interstate wars decreases. o This increase leads to a decrease of interstate wars => inverted relation. ð The more democracies the fewer interstate wars + among those wars happening, there is no example of a democracy against another one o Democracies do not go to war or go against non-democratic countries. Bruce RUSSET (1935-…) => cultural normative/structural explanation ð Democracies can trust one another so they won’t go to war against one another ð The structure of democracies leads to more thought/reflection in decisions such as engaging in war o Democracies tend not to go to war against one another. “Enlargement doctrine”: It was instrumentalized by western government. Democracies do not go to war against one another. Transforming dictatorships into democracies, there will be peace all over the world. ð Instrumentalisation by liberal democratic governments: o More democracies = more peace => let’s export democracy o So if there are no more dictatorships there will be world peace => motivates democracies to fight against other regimes b. New liberalism MORAVCSIK =>Taking domestic dynamics into account in IR ð In IR the state should be the result of the interest of the multiple groups within a country and not seen as a single unit with a single national interest. o When talking about the unit of analysis we tend to talk about the state, but it cannot be considered as an actor. The state is the addition of multiple groups interest. o Goes back to the theory that in states that are democratic these interest groups are risk averse => no war 17 ð The interest of a state is the result of different groups struggling to compete towards the federal government for their interest to be brought forward internationally. o Governments bring the interest of powerful national groups to the international scene. There is an internal struggle for groups to be represented nationally. § BUT he adds that not the majority is not represented in these democracies and that there are powerful minorities that can influence the decisions of the government (war prone interest of arms producers,…) § Moravcisk signals that more than democracies, it is the political game of national pressure groups that determine political action. Private interest groups are key elements to understand international relations. 18  Class 4 – Realism INTRODUCTION : The survival game ð According to Classical realism, human/States are greedy and offensive ð Survival depends on material ressources (military expeditures,…) 1. Realism: basic ideas and assumptions a. Idealism vs realism - Failure of idealism/utopian liberalism - Emphasis on conflictual side of international relations - Emergence of a new theory to explain “reality” and war across time. - Pessimism/optimism - Interdependence should be avoided/pursued. - Peace in the world cannot be achieved/peace can be achieved. - Promoting democracy elsewhere does not work/it is possible to promote democratic values. ð Idealism (positive approach about IR and human behaviour) o Idealism was a way to take a stance on what the best school of thought to interpret reality => an ideal world ð Realists => scepticism o liberals are pro IR for democracy, but realists don’t think in that way => IR is about conflict so you have to focus on domestic politics o The international arena is a place where there is a power struggle and conflict between means of waging war. ð Realists believe that international relations are necessarily conflictual and international conflicts are ultimately resolved by war. They focus on the values of national security and state survival. o Skeptical position about the possibility of making progress in international politics, focus on domestic politics instead. b. How are individuals depicted in realism? Individuals act according to their self-interest. Humans strive to have the “edge” in relations with other people – including international relations with other countries. In 19 that sense, humans are the same everywhere. The desire to enjoy an advantage over others and to avoid domination by others is universal. c. How is the international arena depicted? - Arena of struggle over power, conflict and war between states - Core assumption of realists: world politics exists and operates in a permanent condition of international anarchy. o International anarchy = The idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereign that regulates states’ behavior. In an anarchic system, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes. - The State is the pre-eminent actor in world politics: individuals and international organizations are far less important or irrelevant. d. How are states depicted? - In foreign policy, states are not equal: hierarchy of power. - The most important states in world politics are great powers. International relations as a struggle between the great powers - Main normative values: national security and state survival - The state is essential for the good life of its citizens: without a state to guarantee the means and conditions of security, human life is bound to be in the famous words of Thomas Hobbes ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. The state is seen as a protector of its territory, of the population and of their distinctive and values way of life. - The national interest is the final arbiter in judging foreign policy. e. How are international relations approached in the realist theory? ð International agreements are provisional and conditional on the willingness of states to observe them. ð States must be prepared to sacrifice their international obligations for the sake of their own self-interest if the two come into conflict. ð There are no international obligations. The only fundamental responsibility of states is to advance and defend the national interest. There cannot be progressive change in world politics comparable to the development that characterizes domestic political life. f. What is the balance of power in Realist theory? 20  - Key analytical tool used by realist theory. - It indicates the constant pursuit of power by multiple states to dominate others. - States secure their survival by preventing any one state from gaining enough military power to dominate all others. à leads to a balance. - Efforts of states to create an equilibrium through the use of forces such as alliances. - Balance of power is desirable as it creates an inability to be dominated by another state and therefore provides security. Realism in a nutshell: Ontological (branch of science that studies what reality is) assumption : pessimistic about IR because powers want conflict for their own benefit - Pessimistic view of the world - Focus on power and security - States seek autonomy - You cannot trust anyone/interdependence must be avoided - States can never have enough power - Rejection of idea of perpetual peace based on harmony of interests because there is no natural harmony of interests - The only just war is the one that promotes the national interest - The danger of war is always present 2. Realist theory: authors and evolution Classical realism: a normative approach that focuses on the core political values of national security and state survival. Inspiration from ancient thinkers. Classical realists (Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes...) share the same view to a greater or lesser extent: acquisition and possession and use of power a central preoccupation of political activity. ð International conflicts are portrayed above all else as “power politics”. a. Thucydides (5th c. BCE) : Athenian historian and general, The History of the Peloponnesian War ð Inequality in the distribution of power o “International relations” as the inevitable competitions between ancient Greek city-states (Hellas) and between Hellas and neighboring non-Greek empires. 21  § Great powers (Athens, Sparta, and the Persian Empire) vs smaller powers (e.g., the tiny islands states of the Aegean Sea) § à Inequality is the inevitable and natural character of realism. ð Men as “political animals” unequal in their powers and capabilities to dominate others and to defend themselves. ð The standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept. o Standard of justice doesn’t depend on your morals but your place in the arena ð This is the safe rule: to stand up to one’s equal, to behave with deference to one’s superiors, and to threat one’s inferior with moderation. During the Peloponnesian War (Athens vs Sparta), Athens laid siege over Melos (neutral position, even if Melians had historically cooperated with Spartans). Athenian’s ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute or be destroyed. The Melian dialogue: a dramatization of the negotiations between the Athenian emissaries and the rulers of Melos. The Melians appeal to the principle of justice (Melos is neutral and not a threat, Melians have the favor of the gods because they have the moral high ground). But Athenians replied that justice is not about equal treatment for all, it is about knowing your proper place and adapting to the natural reality of unequal power. ð Ultimatum => surrender or be destroyed ð Basically, one of his main arguments is that the strong should rule the weak, as they have the power to do so. Moral of the story: IR as a system of separate states that have no real choice except to operate according to the principles and practices of power politics. b. Niccolò Machiavelli (16-17th c) Diplomat, historian and theorist, one of the founding fathers of realist theory, The Prince. Machiavelli => normative dimension is explicit in his approach of IR The prince: maybe in the private domain there are more ethical values (private morality) but when it is between different it doesn’t apply 22 He regularly expressed a negative opinion of human nature in his work ð How rulers should be according to The prince: o The two essential means for the conduct of foreign policy are power (Lion) and deception (Fox) o The main responsibility of rulers is to seek the advantage and defend the interests of their state and ensure its survival. o This requires strength (the ruler must be a lion) but also cleverness (the ruler must also be a fox) in the pursuit of self-interest. o If rulers are not astute, they might miss an opportunity that could bring great advantages or benefit to them and their state. o The state leader must not act in accordance with the principles of Christian ethics because political responsibility is different from private morality (“a prince should know how to enter into evil when necessity commands”) ð Theory of survival according to The prince: o Human nature as “insatiable, arrogant, crafty, and shifting and above all, malignant, iniquitous, violent and savage” o The world is a dangerous place, but also a place of opportunities. o To prosper, state leaders need to recognize and exploit the opportunities that present themselves. The conduct of foreign policy is thus an instrumental activity based on the intelligent calculation of one’s power and interests as against the power and interests of rivals and competitors. o The realist leader is alert to opportunities in any political situation and is prepared and equipped to exploit them. o If state leaders operate in accordance with these Christian virtues and not according to the maxims of power politics, the state will fail and with it the security and welfare of its citizens. Political responsibility flows in a different way from private morality. The fundamental overriding values are the security and the survival of the state, and these values must guide foreign policy. o There is also a civic-virtue aspect to Machiavelli’s thinking. Rulers must be both lions and foxes because their people depend upon them for their survival and prosperity. c. Thomas Hobbes (16-17th c.) => English political philosopher, Leviathan 23  ð Leviathan Men/women will choose a leviathan to protect them of the anarchy of some states o War is a legitimate way to solve problems between sovereign states => realist § BUT international treaties are also a possibility but only if it serves the national interest of these nations. Men and women can be imagined as living in a “natural" condition prior to the invention and institution of the sovereign state: the “state of nature”. The state of nature is an extremely adverse human circumstance in which there is a permanent state of war of every man against every man: “During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war is often every man against every man” A way out from the state of nature is possible through the creation and maintenance of a sovereign state. ð Men and women collaborate to create a state with a sovereign government that possesses absolute authority and credible power to protect them. ð The very act of instituting a sovereign state creates another state of nature between states. That creates a “security dilemma”: the achievement of personal security and domestic security through the creation of a state is necessarily accompanied by the condition of national and international insecurity that is rooted in the anarchy of the state system. ð There is no escape from the security dilemma because there is no possibility of forming a global state or world government. o Security dilemma = An important paradox inherent in the state system. A fundamental reason for the existence of states is to provide their citizens with security from internal and external threats; however, the existence of these armed states threatens the very security they are expected to maintain. 24  ð The international state of nature is not as threatening as the original state of nature: it is easier for states to provide security than it is for individuals to do it on their own. o State of nature = Hobbes’ famous description of the original, pre-civil existence of humankind, a state in which life is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’. In their natural condition, all people are endangered by everyone else, and nobody is able to ensure his or her security or survival. This mutual fear and insecurity is, according to Hobbes, the driving force behind the creation of the sovereign state. ð No permanent or guaranteed peace between sovereign states. War necessary for resolving disputes between states that cannot agree. ð States can arrange treaties with each other to provide a legal basis for their relations. But international law is created by states, and it will only be observed if it is in the security and survival interests of states to do that; otherwise, it will be ignored. o Machiavelli provides a handbook for rulers to how they can gain power o we can find treaties that foster international peace, but they are not permanent => a state could be likely to ignore the international legislation if the situation does not serve its national interest à To sum up, Classical realism considers that: - Humans are conflictual individuals => condition of insecurity and conflict. - There is a body of political knowledge or wisdom to deal with the problem of security. - No final escape from this human condition, which is a permanent feature of human life. - No permanent solutions to the problems of politics – including international politics. - No enduring peace between states d. Hans Morgenthau (20th c.) => American scholar, “father” of realism, Politics Among Nations àContemporary (neo-)realism is a more recent IR doctrine. It is a more scientific approach and focuses on the international system or ‘structure’ and it is largely American in origin 25 ð Aftermath of WW2, Morgenthau sought to develop a comprehensive theory of international relations. ð Politics is governed by objective laws that have roots in human nature. ð Main concern: to better understand the relationship between interests, power and morality in international politics. ð We can assume that there are objective laws that apply to IR because human nature is universal o lust for power => trying to gain the edge in a political a. Morgenthau’s view of individuals: - Humans are by nature political animals: they are born to pursue power. Animus dominandi - human “lust” for power o We can assume that there are objective laws that apply to IR because human nature is universal o lust for power => trying to gain the edge in a political - Search for a secure political space within which to maintain oneself free - The ultimate political space within which security can be achieved I the independent sovereign state - Security beyond the state is impossible b. Morgenthau’s approach to IR - The animus dominandi inevitably brings men and women into conflict with each other. The anarchical system of states invites international conflict which ultimately takes the form of war. - The struggle between states leads to the problem of justifying the threat or use of force in human relations. - There is a difference between the public sphere of politics and the private sphere of domestic life: political ethics and private ethics are not the same. c. Power over morality ð Every political action is directed towards keeping, increasing, or demonstrating power. ð Policies based on morality or idealism can lead to weakness – and possibly the destruction or domination of a state. ð Political goals must sometimes justify morally questionable means: “situational ethics”. 26  ð Pursuing the national interest is “amoral” – meaning that it is not subject to calculations of morality. d. Morgenthau’s “Six principles of political realism” 1. Politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature. 2. National interest defined in terms of national power. 3. Interest is always dynamic. 4. Moral principles cannot be applied to State’s action. 5. No identification between moral aspirations of a nation and universal moral laws 6. Political sphere is autonomous. Some criticisms: ð Realists perpetuate the violent and confrontational world that they describe. ð By assuming the egoistic nature of humankind and the absence of hierarchy, realists encourage leaders to act in ways based on suspicion, power and force (self-fulfilling prophecy) ð Excessively pessimistic (confrontational nature of the international system as inevitable) o => too negative about IR and human beings (characterisation of the state of nature as violent and that applies to states too) ð Realism was not able to predict or explain the end of the Cold War. reading Geopoli7cal realism => an a=empt to balance power Ecosystem based management of the ar7c => approach of young 27  Class 5 – the Neo-Neo debate INTRODUCTION ð The great debates o Idealists vs realists (1930-1950) o Traditionalists vs behavioralists (1940-1950) o Classical theories vs Marxist theories and transnationalism (1970-1990) o Positivists vs post-positivists (1990-2012) ð Starter: the behaviouralist turn o As behaviouralists they propose a new way to conduct research. Collect data, measure, analyse them, think about hypothesis and test them in the real life. o Behaviouralist: because it was the only way to analyse the behaviour of people. Shift in the mindset of conducting research. Methodological difference. 28  a. The prisoner’s dilemma 2 options: confess or stay silent but cannot talk to each other. So, 3 possibilities of their action combined: 1. If each one confesses both will get 5 years of prison. 2. If one confesses and the other stays silent, the one that confesses gets free the other gets 20 years of prison. 3. If they both decide to stay silent, they get one year of prison each. What was the best strategy? To both stay silent. When it comes to states, they have to bear in mind their own interests. Choose to look at the individual interest. Left column if we sum up the possibilities, the max that can happen if he confesses, he gets 5 years. While if he remains silent, he might get 20 years. The best solution is to confess. Look at the dilemma by looking at the individual interest of the state: neorealist perspective. Best collective solution is the one where both states get 1 year of prison: neoliberalist perspective. ð Neo-realists: o Individual, relative gains o Conflict not cooperation o States resort to cooperation § IF it is in their (security) interests § OR because of POWER DIFFERENCES o Cooperation as a zero-sum game 1. Neo-realism Focuses on the structure of the international system. a. The cold war Neo-realism is deeply connected with the CW. The neo-realist approach develops a response to this historical situation. DEFINITION of CW = “Political, strategic, military as well as ideological and cultural opposition that took place between two antagonistic blocks structured around two superpowers that never entered into direct conflict.” - Quétel 29  ð The different stages of the cold war o 1945-1953: setting up of the Cold War – “containment.” : the US and allies created a NATO military alliance in 1949 in fear of a Soviet attack and called their global policy against Soviet influence (communism) CONTAINMENT. o 1956-1961: phase of relative peaceful coexistence. § Warsaw Pact (1955) => in response to NATO o 1961-1962: the acute crises: Cuban missile crisis in 1962 o 1962-1975: the ‘détente’: policy of relaxing tensions between the SU and the West => Nixon and Brezhnev o 1979-1985: the tense observation: US increases military/economic pressures on SU, at a time where they were suffering from economic stagnation. In the mid-80s, new SU leader Gorbachev introduced the liberalising reforms of glasnost (openness) and perestroika reorganisation). o 1985-1991: the end of the Cold War Note: the number of stages is not ‘set in stone’ and can differ depending on the specialists... b. Neo-realist theory: K. Waltz (1924-2013) “Man, the State and War” (1959) & Theory of International Politics (1979) Presented a categorization of the main causes of war. MAIN CAUSES OF WAR – Waltz ð First-image theories à human nature is the main cause of wars. ð Second image theories à internal causes within States. o The type of regime tends to lead to war or not. § Democratic regimes do not lead to war. § Marxism considers that capitalism is the cause of war (internal cause of war) therefore, it can be considered as a second image theory. ð Third-image theories à features of the international system (ex: structure). o The causes of war are inherent to the structure of the international system. 30  o Because states live in an anarchical system, they cannot predict each other’s behaviours => Anarchy among states will lead distrust among states => war. o The lack of hierarchy and central authority makes it possible for States to attack each other at any moment Waltz: third-image theory: “A war occurs because there’s nothing to prevent it” = ANARCHY (=absence of government) ð All states share one goal => Survival ð Anarchy results in a power balancing determined solely by relative military power BILLIARD BALL MODEL => how to understand states’ behaviours in a condition of anarchy International system // billiard table Ball // State => size determined by military power ð In a multi-polar system o Each ball = individual state o When a player takes a shot, each ball is affected equally by its contacts with others o Everyone has influence ð Bipolar system (CW) o Equally sized balls and two huge ones o Each ball is one state, and the big balls are the two superpowers (during the CW). o The bigger balls will influence the international situation => dominate the system o Mere existence of bigger balls affects what’s possible for all the other ones ð Ordering principle: o anarchy – each state wants to survive and protect itself from other States leading to an attempt to balance of power o There is no hierarchy in IR => all states operat in a system of international anarchy o Balance of power = situation in which states are continuously making choices to increase their own capabilities while undermining those of others => no state is permitted to get too powerful in the international scene 31 STATES AND POWER DIFFERENTIAL ð The difference among states is the differentiation principle. o Despite all differences, all states will try to perform the same tasks for their own population. o States differ from one another for their capabilities in performing the same tasks. Differentiation Principle: States differ significantly only regarding their greatly varying capabilities in performing similar tasks. “To say that a state is sovereign means that it decides for itself how it will cope with its internal and external problems”. ð BUT states that have greater capabilities – the great powers – are the ones that determine changes in the structure of the international system. o The power differentials between states explains international relations. o International change occurs when great powers rise and fall and the balance of power shifts accordingly. o Distribution principle=States differ for the different distribution of power among them => equal only in a formal sense => unequal in material sense “If there is any distinctively political theory of international politics, balance-of-power theory it is.” “(Cold war) is firmly rooted in the structure of post-war international politics and will last as long as that structure endures.” Neo-realism: central analytical focus is on the structure of the system (external to the actors) and the relative distribution of power. ð Thus, it is the power differentials between states that explain international relations. International change occurs when great powers rise and fall and the balance of power shifts accordingly. ð A typical means of such change is great-power war. A balance of power between states can be achieved, but war is always a possibility in an anarchical system. MULTIPOLAR/BIPOLAR SYSTEM Bipolar systems – e.g., Cold War with the US and the Soviet Union 32 Multipolar systems – e.g., those existed both before and after the Cold War For many reasons, bipolar systems are more stable and peaceful than multipolar systems. 1. Fewer great-power conflicts => less war 2. Deterrence is possible => easier to operate 3. Lower chances of miscalculation. o The two rival superpowers can keep their eye steadily fixed on each other without the distraction and confusion that would occur if there were a larger ð Wars explains how a bipolar system is better than a multipolar one. By having two superpowers, the world is more stable. In fact, during the CW, there was a relative stability. ð It is easier for two superpowers to retain themselves from attacking. In a multipolar system, there are many more risks for instability. Defensive realism = Defensive realism argues that the anarchical structure of the international system encourages states to maintain moderate policies to attain power and national security. Defensive realism asserts that aggressive expansion as promoted by offensive realists endangers the tendency of states to conform to the balance of power theory, thereby decreasing the primary objective of the state, which they argue is ensuring its security. ð The purpose is power to survive which needs to stay stable to ensure their survival ð The purpose is not to get to an excessive amount of power. ð Never a situation of peace but a situation where states should refrain from exaggerating. ð Ultimately, Waltz wants to show how a structural analysis could shed light on the ‘long peace’ that was produced by the rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. ð Waltz’ neo-realist approach has been defined as ‘defensive’. In his approach, he recognizes that states must and do seek power to be secure and to survive, but believes that excessive power is counter-productive, because it provokes hostile alliances by other states. ð It does not make sense to strive for excessive power beyond that which is necessary for security and survival. 33 To explain the “absence of war” during the Cold War, Waltz proposed the “balance of power” model. ð The structure of the international system often leads to the development of several great powers (hegemonic powers), because States look for allies and gather as blocs. ð Because these powers are equal, they maintain a relationship of peaceful observation. This is not peace, but the “absence of war”. International peace is just a short break; when it lasts, this is not thanks to collective efforts (treaties, international organisations), but to a fragile balance of power that shapes the international scene. Balance of power = It is essentially about the idea that hegemonic power will always be counter balanced by a strategic alliance of rivals to secure their own survival and sovereignty. Balance of power theory explains the effects of the anarchical self-help system on the behaviour of states, operating when- ever a single state seeks preponderance over the others. States can pursue a policy of balance of power in two ways: by increasing their own power, as when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; or by adding to their own power that of other states, as when embarking upon a policy of formal alliances. c. John J. Mearsheimer (1947-) The False Promise of International Institutions (1994) & The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001) Offensive realism (counter theory to Waltz) = Offensive realism seeks power and influence to achieve security through domination and hegemony. For offensive realists, security is scarce. The anarchic nature of the international system compels states to maximize their share of world power and to seek superiority to make themselves more secure and thereby increase their odds of survival. The goal of every major power is to become the hegemon. ð Anarchy means power competition at its maximum level o States seek hegemony (in a much more aggressive way than Waltz) o Idea of “regional hegemons”: states can only become the hegemon in their own region of the world. § The goal of a country such as the US after the Cold War is to dominate the entire system, because only in that way could it make sure that no other state or combination of states would ever think about attacking it. 34 “Great powers are always searching for opportunities to gain power over their rivals, with hegemony as their final goal.” THE TRAGEDY OF GREAT POWER POLITICS - Mearsheimer Key ideas: 1. Cooperation among states does exist but it is difficult to achieve and to sustain. 2. Institutions are essentially “arenas for acting out power relationships”. Organizations have been created by the most important powers defending their own interests. 3. Because states are concerned about the balance of power, they will be primarily motivated by relative gains. à States are always motivated by their own interests. “While each state wants to maximize its absolute gains, it is more important to make sure that it does better, or at least not worse that the other state in any agreement.” 4. Rivals, as well as allies, cooperate. “Balance-of-power logic often causes states to form alliances and cooperate against common enemies.” d. 4 key questions: Neo-realism New perception/analysis of IR. Different way of conducting research in IR. 35  - Who? States - What? War and peace / distribution of power/stability / institutions - How/why? War can be explained by anarchy; only bipolarity can bring the ‘absence of war’; Institutions are created because of the relative gains they provide to powerful states. 2. Classical realism vs neo-realism ð International politics is power politics, due to: o CR: human nature o N-R: ANARCHY ð States look internationally for: o CR and OFFENSIVE REALISM: power o N-R: security and survival (DEFENSIVE REALISM) ð Stability within the international system (not peace) is possible due to: o CR: Multipolar balance (Morgenthau -> 19th century stability) o N-R: bipolar balance (Waltz -> Cold War) Both approaches: BALANCE OF POWER (2 or more powers) => UNIPOLAR system possible? => no one ever thought that one of the two actors of the CW would win 3. Neo-liberal institutionalism - collective, absolute gains - cooperation is useful for all states - Information sharing through IOs - BUT states must be INDUCED to cooperate (through IOs) - Cooperation is a positive-sum game ð How do you explain that international organizations have developed after war with more and more members? o According to neoliberalists, it shows that cooperation is much more rational than non-cooperation. The best decisions are taken collectively. o Neo-realists look at individual gains while neo-liberals look at collective gains. à Relative gains vs absolute gains ð International institutions (HASENCLEVER) = set of rules meant to govern international behavior. International institutions can be divided into international organization and international regimes. 36  o What differentiate international organization from international regime is the capacity of international organizations to function as an actor in international politics and to transcend the boundaries of issue areas, in contrast to international regimes which always relate to specific issue areas and do not function as actors. o Example international regime : Nuclear Weapon Regime => non- proliferation treaty + regional agreements AXELROD and KEOHANE => Information exchange = cooperation. According to neo-liberals, including Robert Keohane (After Hegemony, 1984) and Robert Axelrod ("Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy. Strategies and Institutions" 1985), the prisoner’s dilemma illustrates two important points: ð it is often in the interest of States to cooperate because a free rider behaviour is counter- productive (see for instance the climate change issue). => not cooperating is irrational. ð Yet, according to neo-liberals, States do not cooperate instinctively but have to be invited to cooperate (guided towards cooperation). o This is what international regimes and international organisations are useful for => essential for international cooperation, created to support it o According to neo-liberals, States are reluctant to cooperate when they are suspicious and lack information § Although the system is anarchical, the presence of int organizations & law reduces the anarchy of the international system. ð Cooperation also increases the predictability. You can have clues about the behaviour of the other state. Reduces the potential of miscalculation. ð Cooperation thus reduces insecurity. Cooperation increases security. ð Another important mechanism is reputation. As States must cooperate several times on a wide range of international issues, the repetition of the game creates positive expectations. For neo-liberals, regimes are efficient and robust. They create absolute gains. a. International institutions create absolute gains ð Absolute gains: “as long as we do well, it doesn’t matter if others do even better.” o Example: the US’s economy grows by 25% over the next decade; China’s grows by 75%. 37  ð Relative gains: we will do our best, but number one priority is that the others don’t get ahead of us. o Example: The US’s economy grows by 10% over the next decade; China’s grows by 10,3%. à The American that chooses latter scenario over the first is concerned with relative gains. b. International institutions for information sharing – Robert KEOHANE “Barriers to information and communication in world politics can impede co-operation and create discord even when common interests exist.” ð States that have relations with each other end up knowing each other. ð States are reluctant to cooperate in a situation in which they lack information, they cannot predict the behaviour of the other. ð Cooperation is only possible because states look for absolute gains. c. International institutions for reputation ð The repetition of the game creates expectations. e. Imitation is also at work ð States imitate, influence one another. Absolute gains: Charter of the UN art.1 38  4. Illustration with the Non-Proliferation treaty: a neo-liberal interpretation The non-proliferation treaty (NPT) has 191 members in Sept 2024. It is one of the most consensual multilateral agreements to control armaments. Signed in July 1968, it entered into force in 1970. The United-States, Russia, France, Great Britain and China have been for a long time the sole States to possess nuclear weapons. The NPT deals with horizontal proliferation: it aims at: ð (i) banning the diffusion of nuclear weapons to the States that do not already own some ð (ii) promoting disarmament processes for States which own nuclear weapons ð (iii) ensuring that all Parties have access to peaceful nuclear technology ( The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervises the implementation of the treaty.The treaty establishes principles (to renounce to nuclear weapons in exchange for civiliantechnology), rules (ban of any transfer of nuclear weapons) and procedures (the Council of theAIEA takes decisions). In May 1995, a conference that aimed at revising the treaty, decided upon an unlimited extension of the agreement. ð The treaty prevented several States from acquiring nuclear weapons. The NPT ensures international security. No State benefits from the rise of a new nuclear power in its neighbourhood. Several States, including South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Sweden, Ukraine, Byelorussia or Kazakhstan have renounced to the atomic bomb. ð The NPT helps building trust among Parties. The treaty has enabled the adoption of otherregional agreements in the field of nuclear weapons such as the Rarotonga treaties in 1986 inthe Pacific region (Australia, New-Zealand, etc.) or the Tlatelolco agreements adopted in 1967for Latin America. ð The NPT contributes to stigmatising certain behaviours of States that do not respect the Treaty. o It is currently the case of North Korea or Iran. ð The NPT serves as the basis for international exchanges in the field of peaceful nuclear energy. ð The NPT warranties the access of Parties to civilian nuclear energy.NPT – signed: 1968; entry into force: 1970; member states: 191 (Sept. 2024) SUMMARY: The NPT ð The non-proliferation treaty deals with horizontal proliferation. It creates: o Norms (nuclear weapons are dangerous but needed for peace = deterrence hypothesis) o Principles (states owning nuclear weapons are not allowed to practice horizontal proliferation) o Procedures (IAEA sends experts if needed) 39  ð Thanks to the NPT: o Very few states have nuclear weapons. o States renounced to nuclear weapons (South Africa, Brazil, etc.) o The treaty was extended in 1995 o No conflicts with nuclear weapons since 1945 o Reputation is at play o States can have access to civilian uses of nuclear technology à States have understood that it was a collective gain. ð Neo-liberalism - Who? States - What? International regimes/cooperation - How/why? International regimes are robust and last because of the absolute gains they provide to states. - So what? Do not ask the question. 5. To sum up the neo-neo debate Joseph GRIECO => Neo-realist, will respond to Keohane ð Robert Grieco will take an example of an international regime which was ended although it seemed to work well. o Grieco asks: WHY did Nixon decide to put an end to the Bretton Wood system which had worked quite well for roughly 25 years? ð Grieco: Anarchy means the absence of security (and not the absence of cooperation), states will look for their own security first and foremost. They will always be. When they see that their participation decreases their own gains, they will decide to withdraw from cooperation. Cooperation is a zero-sum game. Robert Gireco asked Keohane: if Nixon decided to end a system which was working quite well, doesn’t this prove that cooperation can come to an end even when it can be rationally effective? How can we explain it? ð Grieco proposed the following analysis: anarchy does not entail the absence of information: it entails the absence of security (it comes back to Waltz, to some extent). ð States must look for their situation in the domain of cooperation => this means that, since they have to look for their security, they have to look whether the cooperation with other states profits more to them or more to the partners in the cooperation. 40 è cooperation is not a positive game, where all the players profit: cooperation is a zero-sum game: one state is likely to benefit more from than the other one. ð Your security can only be achieved thanks to your resources = a state guarantees its security thanks to a number of military resources at least as important as the other states. o when a state commits itself in a cooperation, it must make sure that this cooperation will not profit the other state more: if the gains of the other states are superior to the first state's ones, then the first state has relative losses, because the other one has superior gains. o a state will not engage in cooperation if the other state wins more. States cannot afford to take this risk, because their security will on the long run be endangered. o cooperation is only possible when the state either wins or when it equals, at max. o =/ when it expects to lose, the cooperation will not start or it will come to an end = state will disengage. Neo-realists: - Individual, relative gains - Conflict, not cooperation - States resort to cooperation IF it is in their (security) interests OR because of POWER DIFFERENTIALS à Cooperation is a zero-sum game. Neo-liberal institutionalists: - Collective, absolute gains - Cooperation is useful for all states. - Information sharing through IOs. - BUT states have to be INDUCED to cooperate (through IOs) à Cooperation is a positive sum game. NEO – Liberal/realist compromise In the end, Keohane and Grieco found a compromise ð They differentiated between: - The economic domain of cooperation à States look for absolute gains, cooperation is easier (ex: International Trade) 41  o Neoliberals are right when saying that cooperation is possible and easy to achieve and likely to endure in the economic domain, because it profits the welfare of all the states: o absolute gains, even lesser absolute gains, for all the states and their population will profit from them in terms of welfare. - The strategic domain of cooperation à States look for relative gains, as security is at stake, thus cooperation is harder (ex: Military domain) o Realists are right when saying that cooperation is more difficult, and likely to come to an end, in the domain of security, because in security, when your resources end up becoming lower than the other ones’, your security is no longer guaranteed: the other ones gradually become more and more powerful, so it is rational to adopt a self-help, unilateral policy. ð ABSOLUTE gains/RELATIVE gains Gains are benefits that accrue to participants that cooperate. Relative gain is related to zero- sum game, which indicates that wealth cannot be expanded and the only way a state can become richer is to take wealth from another state (neo-realist approach). Relative gains differ from absolute gain, which is the total effect of a decision on the state or organization, regardless of gains made by others (neo-liberal approach). Referring to a non-zero-sum game, neo-liberals suggest that all states can benefit peacefully and simultaneously by virtue of comparative advantages. In contrast, the neorealist “relative gain” theory is single-minded in weighing the effects of an action towards power balances. Since it is a zero-sum game, states have to compete with each other to increase their own benefits. 42  Class 6 – Transnationalist approaches THE GREAT DEBATES ð Content based debate highlighting the fact that classical theories were state centric theories. ð The only actors of IR were States as a unitary actor. The group of scholars that started to question the state centric theories were transnationalists. ð They considered that there is plenty of non-state actors (3rd debate). ð Classical theories versus marxist theories and transnationalism (1970-90) => before it was state central => only the state is involved as a unitary actor in IR o Transnationalists => those who challenge this notion that a state is the only unit worth studying o Transnationalism developed in parallel to the multiplication of non-state actors on the international scene. ð 1st video: o Who is talking/ the actor? Amnesty international o What is it about? Death penalty o What are the aims of these short videos? trying to abolish the death penalty by raising awareness in the population so they will put pressure on the politicians of their countries that still practice the death penalty ð 2nd video o Who is talking? WWF o What is it about? Soy plantations o What are the aims of these short videos? Raising awareness so change can happen through firms. Raising awarenness in the population to write to their supermarkets to ask them to stop using products that contain soy from Cerrado (a place in Brazil) => throigh the population, shifting firms/state priorities 43  ð 3rd video o Who is talking? o What is it about? Online child abuse o What are the aims of these short videos? a service to track down transnational pedophiles ð 4th video o Who is talking? Care international. => NGO (supporting communities in emergency humanitarian states and bypassing the governments) o What is it about? Supporting communities in humanitarian situations. o What are the aims of these short videos? Raising awareness of their own work internationally. 1. The transnational vision of international relations International actors = “Whoever is active in trans-boundary relations.” - Devin = “An actor who exercises an intentional action in the international system.” – Macleod Transnational relations = Relations between or beyond national boundaries (i.e., transboundary relations) that include non-state actors or interactions between non-state actors and states/governments. Thus, in transnational relations non-state actors play a significant role. a. Non-state actors ð DEFINITION: (Controversial notion, there are many ≠ definitions. Contreversy with law experts => “the state is the only legal entity”) ð Actors = whoever/whatever has agency on the international scene o Someone who is capable of changing something = has agency in the international system ð Non-state actors = actors who are not exclusively governmental. Anything but the State. o Controversial name o Non states actors can be firms, terrorist groups etc. à everything but the state that has agency to make change internationally. o NGO’s aren’t happy with being put in this category which suits the states 44 = All those actors in international relations that are not states but have an influence on states’ behavior. Actors (groups, organizations) that are involved in political relationships across state boundaries and pursue their goals largely independently from governments/states. Examples include Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), Trans-national Corporations (TNCs), epistemic communities, transnational terrorist groups, religious movements. ð Non-state actors: categorization: Non-state actors = private actors + hybrid actors (private entities but with a public purpose, works for public good => EX: NGOs) Who are non-state actors? ð Major groups: women, children & youth, farmers, indigenous, NGOs, trade unions, local authorities, science & technology, business & industry => sub-state actors? ð To the official categories we can add less formal groups such as: individuals, migrants, terrorist groups, religious groups, activists etc. è NGO as a sub-category of non-state actors: comparing definitions ð UN definition “Any such organization that is not established by a governmental entity or intergovernmental agreement shall be considered a non-governmental organization.” o firms can be considered NGOs. o UN definition : for the UN the NGO don’t work for profit => importance of defining ð Usual definition o Not governmental o Not for profit o the way you define an actor changes the perimeter of those who are or not entitled to participate in the international scene. ð NGOs = legitimacy? “Non-governmental organizations are a basic form of popular representation in the present-day world. Their participation in international relations is, in a way, a guarantee of the political legitimacy of those international organizations. It is therefore not surprising that in a short space of time we have witnessed the emergence of many new NGOs.” 45  o Difference between NGO’s and International Organisations : the actors of IO’s are states o NGO’s are important to the UN => considered as proxies of citizens however they do not represent the people!! o By allowing more NGO’s to engage, governments will be able to understand what the people really want => legitimacy problem : the State represents the people and their will b. Conceptualizing transnational relations Trans nationalists’ study: - The interdependence among societies. - How non-state actors participate in international policy processes. - Reintroduce a notion of interdependance => amongst societies (transNation. Peerspective) ð Introduced by some idealists: o Leonard Wolf => telephone connection/communication => it is false to consider that all states are isolated from eachother) “The world is closely knit together: we are linked to our neighbor by the golden silver wires of commerce and finance not to mention the telephone wires, steel rays – that the inadequacy of the ordinary conception of the isolated independent states is manifest” (Leonard Woolf, 1916) o Ramsey Muir => says the same thinbg and names it interdependance “We have entered a new era: the era of interdependence. The world now takes the form of one single marketplace” (Ramsey Muir, 1933) o Vietnam war, the US had to stop fighting for 2 reasons: § Military power was not considered so relevant anymore (cold war context) § Anti-war protests in the US à The power of people as non state actors => capable of international impact just through manifestations No clear separation between what happens internally and abroad. Even individually, you can change the course of action internationally. 46  c. Karl KAISER (1969): transnationalism => first to talk about transnationalism as opposed to international poitics ð No longer only concerned by the States => He studies direct horizontal transactions among societal actors of different states => a transnational society and so relations o Different actors from different countries working together on different issues (humanitarian, religious, economis, … perspectives) ð These transactions are growing more and more in number and should be considered because they form a transnational society and transnational relations = set of interactions between societal actors of ≠ countries on a specific issue. ð Transnational relations: “regular interactions across national boundaries when at least one actor is a non-state agent or does not operate on behalf of a national government or an inter-governmental organization.” d. Robert KEOHANE and Joseph NYE “Transnational relations and world politics” => before the neo-neo debate, they theorised transnationalism ð Started to categories the different relations that were happening transnationally => made by individuals or collective not by states ð These interactions were growing in importance o No longer talking about international politics but world politics to take into account all ≠ actors of the international scene. o Analyze how the relations amongst national actors can impact international politics. ð Complex interdependence => not only focusing on states anymore because there are states, non-state and substate actors (administrative level). o Multiply the number of actors and no more separation of what is political and what is economical. ð They consider that military is going to be less relevant (= less power which will have less and less impact => context of ending of CW) 47  ð For them power was not to be understood as military power but the capacity to adapt to the transnational system. § but the capacity to adapt will lead to power => what they predicted but isn’t currently ð Complex also means vulnerable => everybody is interdependant, we can’t be autonomous because we depend on what others will decide and therefore cannot be autonomous. e. John BURTON ð World society: we change the hierarchy; we focus on the single individuals that have relations across borders o We don’t focus on the states/governments we focus on the single individuals that have relations across borders ð There’s a world society that is fractioned by artificial borders => Society exists before states (new perspective of cosmopolitan vision of IR) ð The most important element is communication and organising influence ð The Cobweb model : (opposite of the billiard ball model) o Different issue areas that exist in every society,accross societies o Every vertical thread is an issue and every circular thread is a country => what happens today in one place has an impact on the rest of the world § Change in one point impacts the whole system o No more disctinction between a domestic and external domain (the 2. Two different applications of transnationalism a. James Rosenau and the chaos of international relations => didn’t like the term transnational but uses the word post-international 48  ð Proposes a “turbulence model” focused on the actions by individuals // international actors. o Importance of individuals as direct actors in the post international scene. o Their impact is not necessarily positive à unpredictable, no theoretical predictions possible because anyone can have an impact o Turbulence: Metaphor: individuals participating in the post international scene as terrorists or tourists 3 parameters of the post-international system: 1. The micro political parameter (the individual one): relative to average people’s political skills 2. The macro-political parameter, also called the “systemic or structural level”, relative to the system-wide structure of the international system. 3. Relations between parameters: the micro-macro parameter, also called the relational parameter, relative to allegiance or loyalty or authority links between the individual and the collective group to which they belong (the state, but nor merely the state) o All the relations happening between the two parameters => the loyalties of individuals which aren’t anymore just to states but to any other ideology/group => creates a problem for states § They feel they belong to other communities => impact on states which they can’t really control all these individuals ð In the past decades => people have become more knowledgeable about what is happening in the world and have more interest in it=> >< realist o More and more willing to change what is happening in the international system o They can and want to engage directly/intervene o The rise of skilful individuals => biggest change in the micro parameters § Micro has an impact on the macro so we have to consider the relations between both o Due in part to shift in allegiances => not just to states but also to transnational/supranational causes "Put most directly, it is argued that people everywhere are increasingly more emotionally and analytically skillful-more clear-cut about their own values and more able to construct and assess scenarios that link distant global trends to their own 49 circumstances-and that the continuing force of this skill revolution is likely to have profound consequences for the course of events in and among societies everywhere.” ð Who?: Multi-centric world (more and more integrated and more and more fragmented into localized situations). The actors vary widely from culture to culture and in terms of their goals, orientations, capabilities, and modes of organization. o Multi centric world => more and more fragmented into local organisations whilst maintaining international relations o Named glocalisation later b. Peter Haas and the epistemic community concept ð Epistemic communities = Group of experts that come together to propose innovative solutions to governments on global problems o Very present in environnemental issues “A network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area.” ð Concrete example: Montria protocol: Vienna convention fighting against the deflation of the Ozone hole. o But states didn’t know how to deal with it => experts found a solution in two years o They also influenced corporations to change their behaviour Transnationalism - Who? All non-state actors that act on the international scene. - What? Compex, about all issue areas. - How/why? Many analytical frameworks (skillful individuals, epistemic communities etc.). concept of complex interdependance, cobweb model, micro/macro => skillful individuals, epistemic communities o Purpose of transnationalists was to explain how the world works and nto trying to predict like the Realists/idealists because the world was already becoming so complex - So what? To explain or understand, not to predict. 50 ARTICLE: The right to clean air in the EU ð Air quality directives => giving limits to what quantity of different pollutants the EU emits ð A major difference between the EU limits and the World health organisation limits which are stricter ð The sources for pollution: o Transportation § Diesel powered cars that don’t respond to the limits in real life situations o Agriculture § Responsible for 92% of the EU ammonium emissions ð When these limits are met, plans need to be put in place o But these measures take too much time to conceive and to put into action o This causes a delay between the current situation and when the measures are conceptualised Transnational Climate Governance Transnational governance is a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon. It indicates that the global politics of climate change depends more and more on both national climate policies and the actions of non-state actors, such as cities, businesses, NGOs, as well as the transnational governance networks that link them. Thus, transnational governance involves a variety of nonstate and state actors, contributing different capacities and sources of authority. 51  Class 7 – development and international relations: neo-Marxist approaches FOREWORD: development aid and development indexes - Before World War II, it was rather rare and always linked to strategic interests and political support. - After Word War II, it intensified with the programme launched by Harry S Truman and its “point IV” that marked the emergence of technical assistance as an essential objective of foreign policy. - In 1960 was created the OECD Comity for development aid. - In 1970, developed countries, within the United Nations framework, accepted to commit themselves to contribute to development aid proportionally to their gross domestic product (0,7%). But this objective was never reached. - The 1980s were marked by conditionality politics from the International Monetary Fund. After the Cold War, classical development aid (not linked to conditionality) decreased with the rise of liberal values. - In the 2000s, development aid evolved with the Declaration of the Millennium and the associated development goals, aiming at eradicating half of the world’s extreme poverty by 2015. ð The liberal economic development theory Traditional society ===========è modern society Modernization o Essential modernization factors: § A market economy, free of political interference § A growing rate of economic investment § Foreign direct investment GDP is not enough to clarify that a society is doing well, indicators for health and education on top of GDP. There have been several modifications to the human development index. Example: Gender In