IR summary.docx

IR as an academic subject Introduction: Four major classical theoretical traditions in IR Realism Liberalism International society International political economy (IPE) Alternative approaches: Social constructivism Post-positivist approaches Development of IR thinking: Major debates: Utopian l...

IR as an academic subject Introduction: Four major classical theoretical traditions in IR Realism Liberalism International society International political economy (IPE) Alternative approaches: Social constructivism Post-positivist approaches Development of IR thinking: Major debates: Utopian liberalism v. classical realism Traditional approaches and behaviouralism Neorealism / Neoliberalism and Neo-Marxism Established traditions v. Post-Positivist ideas Utopian liberalism, The early study of IR: Rise after WWI: in order to never allow human suffering on such a scale again Wilson Woodrow, making the world safe for democracy: 14 points program Promotion for democracy and self-determination Democratic governments do not and will not go to war with each other Paris Conference 1919, League of Nations international institutions can promote peaceful cooperation among states under the League of Nations the beasts are put into cages reinforced by the restraints of international organization Other influential liberal thinkers I. Kant: Perpetual peace (1795) Noman Angell, The great Illusions Norman Angell: Territorial conquest is extremely expensive and politically divisive because it severely disrupts international commerce; war therefore no longer serves profitable purposes. States have a growing need of things ‘from “outside”—credit, or inventions, or markets or materials not contained in sufficient quantity in the country itself . Liber ideas of human being: Rational When rational thinking is used in IR, organisations can be set up for the benefit of all. Liberal democracy suffered hard blows with the growth of fascist dictatorship in Italy and Spain, and Nazism in Germany. Authoritarianism also increased in many of the new states of Central and Eastern Europe—for example, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia—that were brought into existence as a result of the First World War and the Paris Peace Conference and were supposed to become democracies. Thus, Wilson’s hopes for the spread of democratic civilization were shattered. Realism and the 20-year crisis: Important to note is that classical realist look at international politics with a normative view. They explain how state leaders and statesmen should act with regards to foreign policy in order to maintain security and national liberty. Main earlier realist thinkers: Thucydides Machiavelli Hobbes E.H. Carr: ‘Twenty-year crisis’ as main comprehnsive and penetrating critique to liberalism: Liberals profoundly misread the facts of history and misunderstood the nature of international relations. we should assume that there are profound conflicts of interest both between countries and between people Hans J. Morgenthau: Politics among nations: the struggle Power and Peace Brought realism to the US as immigrant Human nature at the base of IR Second major elements in realist IR International politics, like all politics is a struggle for power World politics is a system of sovereign and armed states in an anarchic structure Essential to maintain a balance of power to preserve peace and prevent war Third major element in realist IR History in a cyclical view Change is unlikely Each generation tends to make the same mistakes as their previous generations In sum, the classical realism of Carr and Morgenthau combines a pessimistic view of human nature with a notion of power politics between states which exist in an international anarchy. First major debate clearly won by Carr, Morgenthau and other realist thinkers! The voice of behaviouralism in IR Second major debate concern methodology First generations of IR scholars were trained as historians or academic lawyers, or were former diplomats or journalists. They often brought a humanistic and historical approach to the study of IR. Definition of classical or traditional approached to IR = Locating judgement at the heart of international theory serves to emphasize the normative character of the subject which at its core involves some profoundly difficult moral questions that neither politicians nor diplomats nor anyone else who is involved can escape, such as the deployment of nuclear weapons and their justified uses, military intervention in independent states, the upholding or not of empires, and so forth. Just as scholars of science are able to formulate objective and verifiable ‘laws’ to explain the physical world, the ambition of behaviouralists in IR is to do the same for the world of international relations. Facts are seperable from values Traditional approached try to view IR from inside Behaviouralism has no place for ethics or morals No clear winers in the second debate, but behaviouralist put the traditionalists on the defensive. It has paved a way for new formulations (Neo-liberalism and Neo-Realism), which resulted in a replay of the first major debate. Neoliberalism, interdependence and institutions: Second major debate was about methodology Neoliberalism as a new attempt to formulate an alternative to realism that would avoid utopion excesses by previous liberalist thinkers. Share old ideas about progress and possibility of change Now coloured in a post 1945 international setting and behaviouralist methodological persuasion A process of regional intergration in the ‘50s Cross-border activities had long-term advantages for cooperation Karl Deutsch interconnecting activities helped create common values and identities among people from different states Absence of hierarchy among issues Military and force do not longer dominate the agenda Military force in no longers used an instrument for foreign policy Side branches of neo-liberalism Sociological liberalism A strand of neoliberalism Emphasizes the impact of these expanding cross-border activities. Interdependence liberalism Main idea: posits global cooperation and mutual dependence among states, emphasizing economic interconnectedness and intergovernmental collaboration as key drivers for peace and stability. Institutional liberalism Main idea: international institutions and organizations play a crucial role in fostering cooperation, maintaining stability, and resolving conflicts among states, with a focus on the importance of creating and strengthening international norms, treaties, and institutions to facilitate peaceful relations and global governance. Republican liberalism Main idea: liberal democracies enhance peace because they do not go to war against each other. Neorealism: Bipolarity and confrontation Kenneth Waltz, Theory of international relations Main figure in neorealism Tried to apply law-like statements to IR, based solely on the systemetic relations in the state system Departs clearly from classical realism: no interest in ethics of statescraft (normative) Focuses on structure of the international system and the consequences of that system Basic premises International state system is anarchical International system is composed of like units: all states, small or big have to perform a similar set of governmental functions. Only differ in power Great powers will always tend to balance each other Smaller states will have the tendency to allign themselves wil powerful states in order to preserve maximum autonomy States are power-seeking and security-conscious not because of human nature but rather because the structure of the international system compels them to be that way. During the 1980s, some neorealists and neoliberals came close to sharing a common analytical starting point that is basically neorealist in character; i.e., states are the main actors in what is still an international anarchy and they constantly look after their own best interests. International society, the English school It rejected the behaviouralist challenge and emphasized the traditional approach based on human understanding, judgement, norms, and history. It also rejected any firm distinction between a strict realist and a strict liberal view of international relations Leading figure: Martin Wight and Hedley Bull State as a combination of Machtstaat en Rechtsstaat: Power and Law are both important features of IR Recognize the importance of individual in IR, some even argue that ind. are more important actors than states International Society builds on classical realist and liberal ideas, combining and expanding them in ways that provide an alternative for both. There is conflict and there is cooperation; there are states and there are individuals. These different elements cannot be simplified and abstracted into a single theory that emphasizes only one explanatory variable International political economy (IPE): IPE is about who gets what in the international and economic system Neo-Marxism Basic permise: the bourgeoisie or capitalist class used its economic power to exploit and oppress the proletariat, or working class. Neo-Marxists extend that analysis to developing countries by arguing that the global capitalist economy controlled by the wealthy capitalist states is used to impoverish the world’s poor countries. Andre Gunder Frank: unequal exchange and appropriation of economic surplus by the few at the expense of the many are inherent in capitalism Wallerstein allows for the possibility that some developing countries can ‘move upwards’ in the global capitalist hierarchy. Differs strongly from neo-marxists, who argue that not only does the Bourgeoisie keep the working class where it is, they argue that they push them even lower that they already were. Liberal IPE Basic premise (complete opposite of Neo-Marxist): human prosperity can be achieved by the free global expansion of capitalism beyond the boundaries of the sovereign state, and by the decline of the significance of these bound- aries. Realist IPE Basic premise: economic activity should be put into the service of building a strong state and supporting the national interest. Wealth should thus be controlled and managed by the state. In short, the third major debate further complicates the discipline of IR because it shifts the subject away from political and military issues and towards economic and social issues, and because it introduces the distinct socioeconomic problems of developing countries. Dissident voices: Alternative approaches to IR Various critiques of classical approaches also referred to as post-posisitivist approached Social Constructivism: Emphasizes the role of human agency and the significance of ideas in shaping international relations. Contrasts with neorealism and neoliberalism, which focus on material power such as military force and economic capabilities. Argues that the international system is constituted by ideas rather than purely by material power. Global South Perspectives: Highlights the diverse ways in which IR is practiced and developed in different parts of the Global South. Challenges the dominance of the United States in shaping the discipline of IR and calls for greater inclusiveness and diversity. Environmental Approaches (Green Theory): Focuses on the severe environmental crisis, including climate change, and challenges anthropocentrism (human-centered thought). Advocates for an ecocentric perspective, prioritizing the preservation of nature over human development. Feminist IR: Emerged in the 1980s, focusing on the subordination of women in international politics and economics. Documents and analyzes the gendered world, addressing issues of privilege and visibility. Critiques socially constructed gender norms that contribute to the subordination of women Realism in international relations Introduction to elements of IR Basic ideas and assumptions Pessimistic view on human nature Conviction that IR is necessarily conflictual and that international conflicts are ultimately resolved by force High regards for values of national security and survival Basic skepticism that there can be progress in IR as much as there can be on the domestic level State system in anarchial All other actors (IO’s, individual, NGO’s, etc.) are far less important or unimportant Main characters of Realism Thucydides Machiavelli Hobbes The fact that all states must pursue their own national interest means that other countries and governments can never be relied upon or completely trusted. That makes treaties and all other conventions, customs, rules, laws, and so on between states merely expedient arrangements which can and will be set aside if they conflict with the vital interests of states. Only when power faces power is there a possibility of worl order and peace If you want peace, prepare for war Classical realism Normative approach, how state leaders and statesmen should do foreign policy Social science realism (strategic and structural realism, neoclassical realism) Scientific approach Classical realism Thucydides: Two important realist claims The structure of the international systems affects the relations between states, resolving eventually in war. Moral reasoning has little bearing on relations between states Main ethics in conducting foreign policy Caution Prudence Judgement Foresight Machiavelli Supreme political values National liberty National independence Comparison of the lion and the fox Lion= strength, a ruler and the state need to be strong or it will be a standing invition for others to prey upon. Fox= a ruler must also be cunning and crafty The autonomy of political morals A political leader must think as a statesman and not as something else. He can only be guided by political moral in order to maintain security and independence of the state. Eg. If there is a crisis that is influencing the state in one way or another and policies have to be made to handle the crisis. An economist will think of policies so that the wealth and economony of the people and state are secured. A moral person will think of policies that are moral and just. A statesman must make policies that will protect the state and its security and independence, he cannot be guided by other morals. Hobbes and the security dilemma the state of nature = an extremely adverse human circumstance in which there is a permanent ‘state of war’ ‘of every man against every man. Creation of a state as an attempt to escape from the fearful state of nature By doing so we have created a state of nature amongst states in an international scene. There can be no lasting or perpetual peace between sovereign states Morgenthau Men and women are born to persue power and enjoy the spoils of power Eg. Territory, to maintain oneself and to enjoy oneself free from the political dictates of others Same happens in IR Follows Hobbes and other classical realist thinkers in the way that there is a different moral behaviour to be followed in international politics. Morgenthau also emphasizes that it is not only ill-advised but also irresponsible. It might be better to sacrafice a lesser good for a greater good for the benefit of the state Summary of Morgenthau’s thoughts Politics is rooted in a permanent and unchanging human nature which is basically self-centred, self-regarding, and self-interested. Politics is ‘an autonomous sphere of action’ and cannot therefore be reduced to morals (as Kantian or liberal theorists are prone to do). Self-interest is a basic fact of the human condition. International politics is an arena of conflicting state interests. The ethics of international relations is a political or situational ethics which is very different from private morality. In exercising political responsibility, a politi- cal leader may have to violate private morality to defend national security. Not only would that be justifiable, it may be absolutely necessary. Realists are opposed to the idea that particular nations can impose their ideolo- gies (e.g., democracy) on other nations. It is fundamentally unwise as, ultimately, it could backfire and threaten the crusading country. Statecraft is a sober and uninspiring activity that involves a profound awareness of human limitations and human imperfections. Schelling and strategic realism Does not pay much attention to the normative Focuses solely on foreign policy making Central concept of ‘threat’ Question of what is required for our policy to be successful Armed force as crucial concept Difference between brute force and coercion The actors involved should be acutely aware of the dangers (costs) and opportunities (benefits) they face. for coercion to be effective, it ‘requires that our interests and our opponent’s [interests] are not absolutely opposed. Waltz and Neorealism Departs from classical realism by giving no account of human nature and by ignoring the ethics of statecraft. According to Waltz, the best IR theory is one that focuses centrally on the structure of the system, on its interacting units, and on the continuities and changes of the system. Explains that certain types of outcomes tend to reoccur withing the international system The structure of the system is external to its actors Central focus: relative distribution of power, structures compel actors to act in a certain way Basic structure of the international system: Decentralized Anarchy between states In spite of their differences (states), they all perform the same basic tasks States only differ signifficantly in their varying capabilities A balance of power between states can be achieved, but war is always a possibility in an anarchical system. Neorealism employs a normative aspect state sovereignty entails the ability of a state to independently decide its approach to internal and external challenges, reflecting the normative idea that sovereign states are formally equal, with none entitled to command or required to obey, thus highlighting the acknowledged norm of equality and entitlement in the international system. Waltz also implies values: States are worth fighting for Criticism: Inability to explain change The theory abstracts away from reality by only explaining a systemic theory Three ways that further elaboration of the theory will enable us to better explain important facets of international relations expanding what is part of the structure of the international system specifying the motives that guide state action integrating domestic factors Mearsheimer, Stability Theory, and Hegemony Build on waltz’ neorealist theory concerning bipolar and multipolar power system. Three basic reasons why bipolar systems are better than multipolar the number of great power conflicts are fewer, reduces possibilities of great-power wars. easier to operate an effective system because fewer great powers are involved chances of miscalculation and misadventure are lower Question of what happens when this bipolar system is replaced by a multipolar system Answer of Mearsheimer: the prospects for major crises and war in Europe are likely to increase markedly Mearsheimer argues that the demise of the bipolar Cold War order and the emergence of a multipolar Europe will produce a highly undesirable return to the bad old ways of European anarchy and instability and even a renewed danger of international conflict, crisis, and possibly war Mearsheimer follow Waltz in saying that intern system is based on anarchical structure, but he departs in the following Defensive realist (Waltz): States seek domininance, excessive power to ensure that no other state dears to go against them. Ofensive realism: great powers ‘are always searching for opportunities to gain power over their rivals, with hegemony as their final goal’ Neoclassical realism It draws upon neore- alism, and that of Waltz in particular, by acknowledging the significance of the structure of the international state system and the relative power of states. It also draws upon classical realism by emphasizing the importance of domestic factors. Four clusters of domestic variables: strategic culture, the images and percep- tions of foreign policy decision makers, domestic institutions, and state-society relations Classical real- ists—like Morgenthau or Kissinger—will want to judge leadership success or failure in relation to ethical standards: do leaders live up to their responsibilities or not? Neoclas- sical realists focus on explaining what goes on in terms of the pressures of international structure on the one hand and the decisions made by stateleaders on the other. Constructivism Introduction Basic premise: the world and the world of IR is a social construct, created by men at a specific time and place. This contrasts to other IR theories, which argue that IR is a given and materially based aspect. Constructivism argues that when ideas and thoughts change, so can the operational system of the world and also IR. If we take this as a given we notice: change is possible The rise of constructivism Constructivism came up primarily in the US after the CW had ended. The reason for this is that after the CW contructivist argued that realism was no longer representative of the current situation of the world. Neorealist dictates that after the fall of the USSR, other powers will try to balance out the power of the US in the world. This has not happened until to this day. R2P: principles have made headway at the expense of older principles of non-intervention since the 1990s (see Chapter 5), a development that is dif- ficult to understand from a perspective solely emphasizing materialist factors of power balancing. Constructivism as a social Theory Social theory is a more general theory about the social world, about social action, and about the relationship between structures and actors. Rational choice theory: a broad social theory about how people act, given certain preferences and cer- tain constraints. The social world is a world of human consiousness contrasts with the materialist philosophy of much social science positivism Materialism is a part of the constructivism It is what those entities signify to the thought and minds of people Eg. Great-Brittain with 500 nuclear weapons is far less frightening than North-Korea with 5 nuclear wapons because GB is a friend and NK is noth. Main ideational elements of construvisists: intersubjective beliefs (and ideas, conceptions, and assumptions) that are widely shared among people Four major types of ideas: Cause-effect ideas Normative ideas Ideological beliefs Policy-prescription The billiard bal example, contructivists critique: Fails to reveal the thoughts, ideas, and beliefs of the actors involved in international conflicts Conventional constructivism: Epistemological view: they think that they can observe the world as it is in an objective way. Post-Positivist constructivism: The world is not something objective, something out there Truth claims are not possibel since there is no neutral ground from which to observe things Constructivist theories in International Relations Cultures of anarchy Rejection of neo-realist assumption of anarchy in so far that it must lead to self-help It depends on the interaction of states Neorealist: identity and interest are given, a state knows who it is and what it wants before entering into relations with others. Constructivists: identity and interest are created through these interactions. Three major types of anarchy (by Wendt): Hobbesian: states view each other as enemies, ‘all states are at war with all states’. Dominant form until 17th C. Lockian: States view each other as rivals, but they respect each states’ existence and sovereignty. Dominant form after peace of Westphalie 1648 Kantian: States see each other as friends, cooperate and settle disputes peacefully and support one another in case of threat by a third country. Norms of International society Martha Finnemore: National interest in International society States’ identity and interests as starting point Focus on norms of int society and the way they interract and change national ident and interest. These norms are transmitted to states through IO’s. Analysis based on three case studies (Finnemore): Adoption of science policy bureaucracies by states after 1955: UNESCO successfully propagated the idea that in order to be a ‘modern civilized’ state, having a science policy bureaucracy was a necessary ingredient. States’ acceptance of rule-governed norms of warfare: The ICRC succeeded in prescribing what was ‘appropriate behaviour’ for ‘civilized’ states involved in war. States accepting limits to economic sovereignty by allowing redistribution to take priority over production values: 1970s, welfare improvement through economic redistribution became a principal goal of economic policy. Finnemore argues that this normative shift was pushed by the World Bank International norms promoted by international organizations can decisively influence national guidelines by pushing states to adopt these norms in their national policies. Two different kinds of empirical evidence: Correlations between the emergence of new systemic norms and changes in state interests and practice. Analysis of discourse to see if actions are justified in ways consistent with the values and rules embed- ded in the norms. The power of international organizations Traditional realist view on IO’s: IO’s are not more than mere servant to nations and states’s interest. Constructivist counterargument/observations: IO’s are powerful actors who might exercise power in their own right and interest They construct the social world in which cooperation and choice take place IO’s have compulsory power, they often own resources that can be used to influence others. (UN has military, World Bank has money) IO’s have normative resources. (EU influences MS to assume certain values and policies that are right and to take them under national values as wel) Domestic formation of identity and norms Another side-branch of constructivism focuses more on the internal/domestic identity and norms and how this influences different domestic FSP Thomas Risse’s book demonstrates how a regime type, the experience of civil war, and the presence of domestic human rights organizations influence the degree to which states are ready to comply with international human rights norms. Peter Katzenstein argues that culture, norms, and identity matter, also in the core area of national security. Emphasis on normative domestic structure and how it influences state’s identity, values and policy. Example of Japan: difference between militaristic foreign policy before and after the war. After war, Japan had a new constitution, with a policy of pacifism and a low ceiling on military expenditure (1%). However, Constructivists are united by much more than what divides them; especially, they all emphasize the importance of culture and identity, as expressed in social norms, rules, and understandings Liberalism in international relations Introduction to liberalism Liberalism starts from a rather positive view on human nature in contract with realism Focus on Freedom, Progress, Peace and Cooperation Modernization as the basis for liberalism: modernization constantly increased the need for global cooperation The core concern of liberalism is the happiness and contentment of individual human beings, states need to help people/individuals to achieve this happiness Liberlist thinking V. realist thinking Realist: the state as a concentration of power (machtstaat) Liberlist see the state a constitutional entity (rechtsstaat) Immanuel Kant, believed that such a constitutional and respectful states (republics) were going to lead to ‘Perpetual peace’. Four main post-war strands of liberalism Interdependence liberalism Sociological liberalism Institutional liberalism Republican liberalism Sociological realism: Rejects realist ideas that international relations is only about the interaction between governments and states, Sociological realism emphasizes the importance of transnational actors (individuals, groups, corporations Karl Deutsch as main figure of transactionalism Argues that a high degree of transnational ties decreases the possibility of war due to the creation of ‘security communities’ Cobweb model: any nation-state consists of many different groups of people that have different types of external ties and different types of interest: religious groups, business groups, labour groups, etc. Realism is then often described as the billiard ball model James rosenau has further developed sociological liberalism to transnat. relations Focuses on transnational relations on a macro-level Argues that the anarchic state system still exists, but now we have more and more different groups of people that have transactional relations and ties that are diverse and sovereignty-free, which exist apart from the state system. Moises Naim stresses the diffusion of power towards the micro-level conventional players in political, military, and corporate ‘macro-structures’ of power are increasingly being undermined and challenged by ‘micropowers’: fringe political parties, innovative start-ups, hackers, loosely organized activists, upstart citizen media out- lets, leaderless young people in city squares, etc. He argues this based on three revolutions Revolution of more Revolution of mobility Revolution of mentality Interdependence liberalism Interdependence means mutual dependence: peoples and governments are affected by what happens elsewhere, by the actions of their counterparts in other countries. Thus, a higher level of transnational relations between countries means a higher level of inter- dependence. In an earlier age, the possession of territory and ample natural resources were the key to greatness. In today’s world that is no longer the case; now a highly qualified labour force, access to information, and financial capital are the keys to success. For highly industrialized countries, economic development and foreign trade are more adequate and less costly means of achieving and prosperity than military force and territorial expansion When goods don’t cross borders, the soldiers will. When citizens saw the welfare improvements that resulted from efficient collaboration in international organ- izations, they would transfer their loyalty from the state to international organizations. In that way, economic interdependence would lead to political integration and to peace. Spill-over theory Post-war complex interdependence Relations between states nowadays are not only or even primarily relations between stateleaders; there are relations on many different levels via many different actors and branches of government. a host of transnational relations between individuals and groups out- side of the state. under complex interdependence states become more preoccupied with the ‘low politics’ of welfare and less concerned with the ‘high politics’ of national security Keohane and Nye: under complex interdependence states become more preoc- cupied with the ‘low politics’ of welfare and less concerned with the ‘high politics’ of national security Keohane and Nye thus construe ‘complex interdependence’ not as a direct description of reality but as an ideal type that could be contrasted with the realist ideal type. Institutional liberalsim Core idea: self-interested states create international regimes to solve collective action problems Repeated games: bargaining that states will have the need for cooperation again in the future Accepted the idea of realism about the importance of states, but they did not follow realism in the sense that international organization or institutions were mere scraps of paper with no added value. The extent of institutionalization can be measured according to two measures: Scope: concerns the number of issue areas in which there are institutions Depth: commonality, autonomy, specificity EU countries cooperate so intensively that they share some functions of government, for example, in agricultural and industrial policies; they have established the regulatory framework for a single market in the eco- nomic sector, and they are in the process of intensifying their cooperation in other areas. Institutional liberalism V. Neorealism After CW, neorealist argue that there would be instability in the West due to the bipolarity, which could lead to major war. Institutional liberals argue that the high degree of institutionalism significanlty reduces the risk of war and the distrust between states in the multipolar system. Republican liberalism Republican liberalism is built on the claim that liberal democracies are more peace- ful and law-abiding than other political systems. Democratic states have never gone to war with each other Three elements behind this claim that democracies do not go to war with each other domestic political cultures based on peaceful conflict resolution democracies hold common moral values which lead to the formation of what Kant called a ‘pacific union’ peace between democracies is strengthened through economic cooperation and interdependence Republican liberals are optimistic that peace and cooperation will eventually prevail in international relations, based on progress towards a more dem- ocratic world. However recently more and more people argue that there is an increasing deficit in democratic values in the West. In the UK (69 per cent), in the US (59 per cent), in France (58 per cent), and in Greece (74 per cent) are expressing dissatisfaction (Pew Research Center 2020). A recent analysis goes so far as to frame this as a new process of ‘de-consolidation’ of western democracies Republican liberals need to specify the exact ways in which democracy leads to peace, and they need to sort out in more precise terms when there is a democratic peace between a group of democracies and why Neorealist critique of liberalism Liberlist split up in two sides: weak-liberalist, who tend to share the same premise of neorealist concerning the anarchy of the state-system, and strong liberalist who still hold on to their core values of liberalism. Critique of economic interdependence neorealist argue against liberalist that economic interdependence has existed for a long time and that it had done not much to prevent war. The idea that after the war economic interdependence increased in misleading in the sense that it merely leveled back to the point before the wars. The retreat to weak-liberalism Some liberalist have moved somewhat closer the premise of the realist ideas in the sense that the world in anarchical, we will call this weak-liberalism. Some liberalist still hold their core-values and do not bend to the critique of neorealists. Realist claim that Keohane as well as several other liberalist have overlooked the aspect of relative gains. Institutional liberals claim that institutions facilitate cooperation and thus make it less likely that states will cheat on each other. That is because international institutions are transparent. They provide information to all member states and they thus foster an environment in which it is easier for states to make reliable commitments. Neorealists reply that cheating is not the main problem in negotiation between states. The main problem is relative gains. IPE, marxism, mercantilism and liberalism Marxism: Karl Marx represents in many ways a fundamental critique of economic liberalism Sees the economy as a place of exploitation and class inequality The two antagonistic classes in Marxism Bourgeoisie: owns the means of production Proletariat: owns only its labour power, which it musts sell to the bourgeoisie Labour puts in more work than it gets back in pay, the surplus goes to the bourgeoisie Karl Marx sees capitalism as progressive in two ways capitalism destroys previous relations of production, such as feudalism, which were even more exploitative, with peasants subsisting under slave-like conditions capitalism paves the way for a socialist revolution where the means of production will be placed under social control for the benefit of the proletariat who are the vast majority According to Marx, the bourgeoisie will also dominate the political sphere, since politics is driven by the economy.