State, Power, and Conflict - Lecture 7 PDF

PART II: Lecture 7: Con ict and Cooperation in World Politics Today's Lecture: What is international politics? Introduction to key concepts, such as anarchy, the balance of power, and the security dilemma Introduction to fo...

PART II: Lecture 7: Con ict and Cooperation in World Politics Today's Lecture: What is international politics? Introduction to key concepts, such as anarchy, the balance of power, and the security dilemma Introduction to four main IR theoretical approaches: (1) realism, (2) liberalism, (3) constructivism, and (4) radicalism (critical theory) Introduction to ethics in international relations. Introduction to levels of analysis in international relations Nye & Welch, Chapter 2: Are There Enduring Logics of Con ict and Cooperation in World Politics? Nye is known for his works on neoliberalism, soft and hard power, worked for Clinton’s. WORLD IMPERIAL SYSTEM —> importance of Treaty of Westphalia! State is a very new concept, just born One government rules most of the world with which it has contact. Example: UK empire Technological advances have shrunk the world, making communication and travel faster and cheaper, while also enabling new forms of warfare, as seen in the rise of nuclear weapons and terrorism. Despite these changes, many aspects of international politics remain constant. Con icts like the Arab-Israeli struggle or trade disparities between powerful countries echo issues from thousands of years ago, highlighting a fundamental continuity in political dynamics. Three main systems of world politics are explored: 1. imperial systems, where one government dominates (e.g., the Roman Empire) 2. feudal systems, where loyalties are more uid and not de ned by clear territorial borders (as in medieval Europe) 3. the current Westphalian system, characterized by sovereign states without a higher global authority. This Westphalian system has shaped the modern international landscape, where states operate in an anarchic system of self-help, guided by principles laid out by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, who envisioned a world of perpetual insecurity, and John Locke, who saw potential for cooperation even in the absence of a central authority. 103  fl fl fl fi fl  FEUDAL SYSTEM When the Roman Empire fell —> authority became dispersed and political units fragmented. A form of world politics in which human relations and political obligations are not xed primarily by territorial boundaries. From the Latin word feodum (or feudum, ‘ ef') —> recent concept Political obligations are determined largely by what happens to one's superior (e.g. marriage). An individual usually had multiple obligations e.g. toward a local lord, more distant noble or bishop, and the pope. ANARCHIC SYSTEM OF STATES A system of states that are relatively cohesive but with no higher government above them. Examples: city-states of ancient Greece or Machiavelli's 15th century Italy. Westphalian system: territorial system of sovereign states. 'Politics in the absence of a common sovereign' → international politics is in a state of anarchy. —> what about EU or UN? THEORIES AND THEORETICAL APPROACHES IN IR (1) Realism, liberalism, constructivism, and Marxism are important paradigms in International Relations —> paradigm = more accurate and speci c than theories, present a view of the world Paradigms present a view of the world. A paradigms is 'a systematic statement of the basic assumptions, concepts, and propositions employed by a school of analysis.' Paradigms are based on several axioms (unquestioned assumptions) Who are the main actors? (actor = 'any person or body whose decisions and actions have repercussions for international politics'). What drives their behaviour? (e.g. states act in their 'national interest'). What are the key problems that need to be explained? The text contrasts two major philosophical traditions that shape our understanding of international relations: realism and liberalism. Realism emphasizes the persistent potential for con ict due to the anarchic nature of international politics, focusing on the pursuit of power by states, as seen in the policies of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Liberalism, in contrast, highlights the role of international cooperation, economic interdependence, and global institutions, suggesting that these forces can mitigate the harsher elements of anarchy. The discussion expands by addressing Marxism and dependency theory, which o er alternative frameworks for understanding international politics, particularly in terms of economics and class struggle. Marxist and dependency theorists focus on the role of capitalism in driving global inequalities but have faced challenges in explaining certain geopolitical developments, such as peace among capitalist states or the rapid growth of formerly poor countries like South Korea and Singapore. —> dependency theory!! While realism and liberalism each o er valuable insights, neither can fully capture the complex and evolving nature of world politics, which is characterized by a mix of enduring logics of con ict and cooperation. The future may bring changes—such as the rise of ecological interdependence and the diminishing importance of borders—but many of the core dynamics of international politics are likely to persist. THEORIES AND THEORETICAL APPROACHES IN IR (2) Paradigms provide the foundation and generate bodies of theories. 104  ff fi fi fl fi ff fl  Theories are built through comparisons (e.g. of di erent con icts or instances of cooperation) over time → we observe patterns. Theories are products of history. Who makes these observations? When are these observations made? And where are these observations made? Compare Thomas Hobbes (pessimistic account of the state, 17th century, England) vs. John Locke (50 years after, England, more positive view = no war) —> they arrived to two di erent conclusions Eurocentric history? PARADIGMS AND THEORIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS - De nition of Paradigm: A paradigm is a framework of assumptions and concepts guiding a school of thought. It helps organize theories, which are provisional explanations of how the world works. - Theories and Hypotheses: Theories are tested through hypotheses that predict observable outcomes. Disproven hypotheses lead to modi cations or discarding of theories, illustrating the evolving nature of paradigms in IR. Realism Core Tenets: Realism views states as primary actors in an anarchic system where power and survival are paramount. Variants: Classical Realism: Includes domestic factors and ethics in foreign policy. Neorealism: Focuses on systemic factors, with distinctions between defensive (security- oriented) and o ensive (power-oriented) realists. Key Questions: Realists debate state behavior in balancing power vs. threat and implications of rising powers like China and India. Liberalism Optimistic Perspective: Liberalism emphasizes potential for cooperation through trade, institutions, and democratic governance. Strands of Liberalism: Economic Liberalism: Advocates that trade leads to peace by altering incentives. Social Liberalism: Suggests person-to-person interactions foster mutual understanding. Political Liberalism: Argues that institutions stabilize international relations, with democratic peace theory positing that democracies rarely go to war with each other. Marxism - Critique of Capitalism: Marxism predicts capitalism's collapse due to contradictions like imperialism and wars, though this has not occurred as expected. - Weaknesses: Reductionism: Overemphasizes economic factors while neglecting other in uences like nationalism. Simplistic State View: Sees the state as a mere tool of capitalist interests. Historical Determinism: Predicts inevitable outcomes without accounting for human agency and contingency. Constructivism Focus on Social Structures: Emphasizes how identities, norms, and beliefs shape international interactions. Key Insights: Agent-Structure Interaction: States and structures in uence each other. Socially Constructed Interests: Identities and interests are not xed but evolve through interaction. Changing Norms: International norms evolve over time, impacting state behavior. Practical Implications: O ers nuanced explanations for changes in global politics, such as human rights norms and environmentalism. 105  fi ff ff fi ff fl fl fi fl ff  —>which IR paradigm focuses predominantly on the structural level when trying to explain actors’ behaviour in the international system? —> what IR paradigm holds that (state) actors’ interests aren’t xed but are shaped by identity, ideas and culture, amongst others? —> balance of power theory belongs to which IR paradigm? THEORIES AND THEORETICAL APPROACHES IN IR: TOO EUROCENTRIC? The eld of International Relations (IR) 'has largely been built on the assumption that Western history and Western political theory are world history and world political theory' (Acharya & Buzan, 2019, p.3). —> what’s the political situation? IR might be closely associated to the actual practice of international relations (ir) in the 'West' (the 'core'). However, to what extent does it also correspond to developments in other parts of the world (the 'periphery')? Are concepts such as the nation state, power, institutions, norms etc. still relevant? " What would the discipline of IR look like, had the eld been developed elsewhere? "In real-world ir we see a shift in power from the West to other parts of the world (e.g. China). Shift from Western/Anglo-spheric IR to 'global IR' is slower. ACHARYA & BUZAN (2019), INTRODUCTION (PP.1-7) This text focuses on the evolution of International Relations (IR) as a discipline, particularly in light of its centenary in 2019. 1. Linking IR and Current Events: The book argues that the evolution of IR closely tracks international relations (ir) over time, re ecting historical practices and events. This link illustrates how IR's structure has developed with a predominantly Western focus. 2. Western-Centric Foundations: Contemporary mainstream IR theories—such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism—are depicted as abstractions of Western historical and political experiences. The authors contend that if IR had emerged in di erent cultural contexts (e.g., China or Islamic history), its theories and focus would have di ered signi cantly. 3. The Evolution of IR: The authors provide a historical overview in ve chronological phases: Nineteenth Century to 1919: Focus on the core-periphery dynamics, with the West dominating and shaping IR. 1919–1945: The formal establishment of IR post-World War I, still largely centered on Western interests. 106  fi fl fi ff ff fi fi fi  1945–1989: The Cold War era marked by decolonization, but IR remained dominated by Western perspectives. 1989–2017: A gradual shift as global power dynamics changed, especially with the rise of countries like China and India. Post-2017: Emergence of a pluralistic world order that requires IR to become more global and inclusive. 4. Consequences for Teaching and Institutionalization: The authors argue for a transition in how IR is taught and understood, moving away from a predominantly Western viewpoint towards a Global IR that re ects diverse histories and philosophies. REALISM Classical realism (focus on human nature) and neo-realism (or structural realism). Key axioms: The international system is in a state of anarchy (a self-help system). States are the only signi cant actors in international politics. States seek to maximize power and security (i.e. they pursue their own (material) interests). States compete with each other over power and to maintain their security. Fear (of non-existence) and a desire to dominate drive states' behaviour. Strong focus on war, force, and survival. BALANCE OF POWER How can states secure their survival? By making sure no single state can gain so much power that it can dominate all others! If one state gains too much power → smaller/weaker states might unite / form alliances ('balancing'). Di erent strategy: 'bandwagoning', that is, aligning with the dominant power (again to secure their survival!) In the 1980s, international relations theory underwent signi cant shifts as neorealism and neoliberalism sought to formalise and simplify the study of state behaviour. Scholars like Kenneth Waltz (neorealist) and Robert Keohane (neoliberal) emphasised structural models of states as rational actors in an international system characterised by anarchy. This marked a departure from classical realism and liberalism, prioritising a more scienti c, deductive approach. By focusing on state-centric rationalist models, both neorealism and neoliberalism streamlined theory but at the cost of neglecting the complex interactions and nuanced dynamics that had characterised earlier approaches. By the end of the decade, the debate between these perspectives had narrowed to disagreements within the same framework, largely ignoring the diverse concerns of previous theorists. The rise of feminist constructivism in the 1990s further broadened the scope of international relations theory by highlighting gendered perspectives often ignored by traditional theories. Feminists argue that the language and imagery of war and politics are shaped by gender, and they draw attention to global gender disparities, such as the low representation of women in leadership positions or the impact of globalization on women and children. In contrast to the scienti c approach of neorealism and neoliberalism, constructivists reject the search for universal laws in international politics. Instead, they aim for "thick descriptions" and contingent generalisations that account for how ideas and social constructs shape global relations. This approach provides a valuable critique of realism and liberalism, complementing these theories by highlighting what they often miss: the importance of changing identities, norms, and nonmaterial factors in shaping global politics. Joseph Nye's re ections highlight the value of all three schools of thought—realism, liberalism, and constructivism. In practice, the blend of these theories provides a more comprehensive 107  ff fl fi fi fl fi fi  understanding of international relations, each contributing unique insights based on the situation at hand. Theory, as Nye concludes, acts as a necessary roadmap to navigate the complexities of world politics, o ering critical perspectives for both academics and policymakers. THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR The Peloponnesian War, as chronicled by Thucydides (greek historian), remains one of the foundational works for understanding the dynamics of international politics, particularly through the lens of realism. Thucydides' account of the war between Athens and Sparta, and the broader context of Greek city-states, provides rich insights into the perennial themes of power, fear, and human behavior in political con ict. Realism and Thucydides Thucydides is often remembered as the father of realism in international relations. Realism, in its simplest form, focuses on the idea that states are primarily motivated by the desire to ensure their own security and maintain their power. Thucydides emphasized that the underlying cause of the Peloponnesian War was not merely the immediate events—such as the disputes involving smaller states like Corcyra and Corinth—but rather the deeper issue of the rising power of Athens and the fear this provoked in Sparta. This growth in power, he argued, made war between Athens and Sparta "inevitable." Robert Gilpin, a modern realist theorist, echoed this point, suggesting that the behaviour of states has not changed substantially since the time of Thucydides. The fundamental drivers of international politics—fear, power, and competition—remain the same, and modern international relations can still be explained using the same basic principles observed in ancient Greece. The Role of Power and Fear The narrative of the Peloponnesian War illustrates how changes in the balance of power between states lead to fear and ultimately con ict. Athens, after its victory over Persia, expanded its in uence through the Delian League, becoming a powerful sea-oriented empire. This growth alarmed Sparta, a conservative, land-oriented state focused on maintaining its dominance on the Peloponnesian Peninsula. Sparta's fear of Athens' rising power exempli es what is often called the security dilemma. This concept, central to realist theory, explains that one state's actions to increase its security can make other states feel less secure, prompting them to take countermeasures. These actions, in turn, increase overall insecurity and can lead to con ict, even when neither side desires war. Sparta, perceiving the threat of Athens' expanding in uence, felt compelled to act, not out of aggression, but from a fear of losing its position in the Greek world. The Security Dilemma and the Prisoner’s Dilemma Thucydides’ depiction of the events leading up to the war mirrors the dynamics of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a concept in game theory used to illustrate the challenges of trust and cooperation in competitive situations. In the Peloponnesian War, both Athens and Sparta faced a situation in which cooperation could have been bene cial, but mistrust made such cooperation nearly impossible. Athens, fearing Corinth's alliance with Corcyra and the potential naval power shift, decided to intervene even though it risked breaking the peace treaty with Sparta. Both Athens and Sparta acted rationally from their own perspectives, but their actions led to a war that neither may have wanted initially. SECURITY DILEMMA A direct consequence of anarchy in the international system. If one state increases its security (e.g. expands its military) → the rational response of other states is to do the same. The rst might expand its security even more → other states make more e ort to defend/protect themselves. 108  fl fi fl ff fl fi fi fl fl ff  The independent e ort of each state to improve its security makes both more insecure —> but they need to do it to ensure their survival (threat of con ict) So why do these states not cooperate? Realism: strong focus on distrust… Was the War Inevitable? While Thucydides presents the war as inevitable due to the structural forces of power and fear, modern scholars like Donald Kagan argue that it was not. Kagan suggests that the war was the result of a series of bad decisions and miscalculations rather than an unavoidable clash of great powers. He points to speci c actions, such as Athens’ trade embargo against Megara and Pericles’ ultimatum to Potidaea, which escalated tensions unnecessarily. This debate between structural inevitability and contingent human decisions remains central in discussions of international relations. Thucydides focused on the broader, impersonal forces driving the con ict, but Kagan reminds us that human agency and decision-making play critical roles in shaping history. Lessons for Modern Politics Thucydides' insights into the Peloponnesian War o er timeless lessons for modern international relations: 1. The Persistence of Power Politics: The fundamental drivers of international con ict— competition for power, fear of rising states, and mistrust between rivals—remain as relevant today as they were in ancient Greece. 2. The Role of Perception: Wars are often caused not by actual shifts in power, but by the perception of such shifts. Sparta’s fear of Athens was as much about its perception of Athenian ambition as it was about Athens’ actual capabilities. 3. Security Dilemmas and Trust: The Peloponnesian War exempli es the challenges of the security dilemma, where actions taken in the name of self-defence lead to greater insecurity. This dynamic is still at play in contemporary con icts, from the arms races of the Cold War to modern geopolitical tensions. 4. Human Decisions Matter: While structural factors like power imbalances create the conditions for con ict, human decisions—whether driven by miscalculation, overcon dence, or fear—play a decisive role. The lesson is that war is not always inevitable; diplomatic skill and prudent decision-making can sometimes avert con ict, even in tense situations. LIBERALISM Key axioms: The international system is in a state of anarchy, but the e ects of anarchy are mitigated by international institutions (non-Hobessian anarchy). States are the main actors, but non-state actors are important too. States and non-state actors seek welfare, justice, and security (focus on progress). Actors do not only compete with each other but can also cooperate. Fear and a desire to live well drive actors' behaviour. Complex interdependence Three strands of liberalism: Economic: trade Social: transnational society Political: institutions (neo-liberalism) & democracy So factors other than power and security can also de ne the national interest! Democratic peace theory: liberal democracies do not ght other liberal democracies. —> two liberals democracies will never go to war, but: impose a democracy to a country?? B. Obama: “America is a Nation with a mission - and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace - a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman.” 109  fl fl ff fi fl ff fl fi fi ff fl fi fl fi  CONSTRUCTIVISM Emend of the cold Wear realism and liberalism (neither of these theories could predict As a response to the limitations of both realism and liberalism, constructivism emerged, challenging these theories' capacity to account for change over time in international relations. Neither realism nor liberalism could explain the unexpected end of the Cold War, illustrating their defects in understanding shifts in global power and ideologies. Constructivists argue that material interests alone cannot explain state behavior; instead, ideas, culture, and identities shape states' preferences and actions. These factors are not static but evolve through interactions and changing norms. As Alexander Wendt famously stated, "Anarchy is what states make of it," meaning that the international system's nature depends on states' perceptions and shared ideas. Constructivists place great importance on how norms and identities in uence international politics, asking questions like: Why did slavery or apartheid become unacceptable? Could war, too, become obsolete? Their focus extends to nonmaterial factors like morality, culture, and societal expectations, which in uence state behavior. For instance, they explore why the United States fears one North Korean nuclear weapon more than hundreds of British ones or why war between former enemies like France and Germany now seems unthinkable. Constructivism also o ers a critique of the concept of "national interest," questioning how states de ne and pursue these interests. Unlike realists and liberals, constructivists assert that interests are socially constructed and uid, shaped by changes in collective identity and evolving norms. For example, the concepts of state sovereignty and security have changed over time. Where once security was understood primarily in military terms, today issues like poverty, human rights, and ecological threats have become central to the discourse on security. Key axioms: Reality is 'socially constructed' (the politics of meaning). States and non-state actors are important. States are driven by interests, but not just material interests! Identities, ideas, culture —> shape interests (which are subjective/socially constructed) Strong focus on (international) norms and social constraints: what is appropriate behaviour? —> dynamics that take place NATIONAL INTEREST 1. Realist View: - National interest is primarily de ned in terms of power, with states driven by the need for security and survival. 2. Liberal and Constructivist Views: - National interests are shaped by domestic factors such as culture, societal values, and international relationships. These factors create a contested notion of national interest, where states may debate the best ways to achieve their goals. 110  fi ff fl fl fi fl  'Anarchy is what states make of it' (Alexander Wendt) —> can be very competitive, or peaceful and friendly. State mitigate it INTEGRATION OF THEORIES Liberalism and Constructivism: - These approaches often cross levels of analysis by incorporating state-level and individual- level factors, examining how domestic politics and individual leaders in uence international norms and behaviors. The international system, while anarchic, operates under a structured framework in uenced by social norms, power dynamics, and institutional regulations. Realism emphasizes the importance of power, while liberalism and constructivism highlight the role of norms and social interactions. By analyzing these interactions across di erent levels—individual, state, and systemic—scholars can gain a comprehensive understanding of international relations, recognizing that state behavior is shaped by a complex interplay of factors. The passage you provided o ers a comprehensive overview of the major paradigms in international relations (IR) and the role of counterfactuals in analyzing historical events. Below is a structured summary of the key points, organized into sections for clarity. SWEDEN FEMINIST FOREIGN POLICY 'Feminist foreign policy is an agenda for change to strengthen the rights, representation and resources of all women and girls’ CONNECTION TO FIRST PART OF THE COURSE Hard power and soft power (Joseph Nye). Realists focus only on hard power resources. Constructivists do not deny the importance of hard power resources, but: These hard power resources should be interpreted in light of the historical/social context in which they are situated. Soft power is also important, that is, an actor's capacity to shape other actor's preferences, beliefs and perceptions ('power as establishing preferences'). 111  ff ff fl fl  MARXISM Politics is a function of economics Key axioms: Rejects state-centric notion of IR; economic classes are the main actors. The international system is de ned by economic inequality. The capital-owning class’s interest lies with maximising pro t; the working class seeks fair wages and working conditions. Interactions among di erent actors are characterized by exploitation. Dependency theory; world systems theory —> look at the book where they compare di erent theories !! Comparative Summary of Marxism and Constructivism - Marxism: O ers a critique of capitalism but relies on deterministic views that have proven inaccurate. - Constructivism: Focuses on social dynamics, providing exibility and depth in understanding how global politics change over time. ETHICS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Skeptics: 'Might makes right' (there is little room for morality in a realist world, which mostly revolves around security and survival). State moralists: ”International politics rests on a society of states with certain rules, although these rules are not always perfectly obeyed.” State sovereignty as a moral rule. Example: John Mearsheimer's account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine (blaming the EU and NATO for Russia's invasion of Ukraine); Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Cosmopolitans: The world as a global society of individuals. National boundaries have no moral standing. ETHICAL QUESTIONS AND INTERNATIONAL POLITICS The Role of Morality in International Politics Despite the prevalence of the "security dilemma," morality does in uence international relations, though in a di erent way than in domestic politics. Historical examples like Corcyra’s plea to Athens during the Peloponnesian War demonstrate the longstanding use of moral language to justify actions in international a airs. However, moral arguments in this realm can serve either as genuine expressions or as propaganda masking more self-interested motives. The Athenians’ brutal response to the Melians, arguing that "the strong do what they can and the weak su er what they must," illustrates a realist perspective in which power, not morality, governs behavior. 112  ff ff ff ff fi ff fl fi fl ff  Similarly, modern actions like Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait re ect continuity with this realist ethos, though contemporary political discourse often conceals such motivations behind a façade of morality. While moral arguments matter, they are not all equally persuasive. Their strength often depends on their internal consistency and logical coherence, with impartiality often serving as a key touchstone. Ethical reasoning can be rooted in di erent philosophical traditions, such as the Kantian rejection of killing for any purpose or utilitarian reasoning, which focuses on maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number. International politics tends to operate under more utilitarian norms, where considerations of consequences can outweigh strict adherence to moral principles, especially when survival or broader interests are at bet. LIMITS OF MORALITY IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS There are key reasons why morality plays a reduced role in international politics compared to domestic a airs: 1. Lack of International Consensus on Values: The world is marked by cultural and religious diversity, which can create con icting views of what is morally justi able. 2. States Are Not Individuals: Leaders are judged di erently when acting on behalf of their states, as their primary responsibility is to protect their people, not to act according to personal moral standards. For instance, a president might be expected to use force if necessary, whereas an individual refusing to kill might be viewed as morally admirable. 3. Complexity of Causation: International relations involve multiple actors and layers of interaction, making it harder to predict the outcomes of decisions and moral actions. 4. Weakness of International Institutions: The international system lacks a strong centralized authority (like a government) capable of enforcing order and justice, making it harder to balance these two values. Without su cient order, justice becomes di cult to achieve. THREE VIEWS ON THE ROLE OF MORALITY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS There are three main perspectives on morality in international relations: skeptics, state moralists, and cosmopolitans. 1. Skeptics: This group believes that moral considerations are irrelevant in international relations due to the anarchic nature of the global system. Without an overarching authority, power determines outcomes. The Athenians' stance in the Melian dialogue—where "might makes right"—embodies the skeptics' viewpoint. Skeptics argue that moral obligations are impossible without institutions to enforce them. However, this argument is overly simplistic. International politics is not entirely a "kill or be killed" environment; there are institutions, norms, and choices that can in uence outcomes. International law, such as the prohibition of crossing borders to annex territory, and practices like the just war doctrine, which restricts the killing of innocents, create a rudimentary order that allows for some moral decision-making, even in extreme situations like war. 2. State Moralists: These individuals recognize that while morality has a role in international relations, the primary duty of leaders is to ensure the survival and well-being of their states. They emphasize the importance of maintaining international order, even at the cost of moral concerns. Reinhold Niebuhr, a realist theologian, argued that moral goals should be tempered by practical strategic concerns, as moral crusades could lead to disorder, ultimately harming more people. 3. Cosmopolitans: This perspective asserts that moral obligations transcend borders, and people should be treated equally regardless of nationality. Cosmopolitans advocate for the application of universal moral principles, such as human rights, in guiding international relations. Realists’ Focus on Order and Justice Realists argue that international order is necessary before justice can be pursued. While order may not always be a complete condition for justice, it is a prerequisite for any lasting moral or 113  ff ffi fl ff ff fl ffi fi fl  just outcome. Moral crusades aimed at promoting democracy or human rights, for instance, can destabilize international order and cause more harm than good. Realists like Niebuhr acknowledge the importance of moral concerns but argue that they must be balanced with strategic considerations to avoid catastrophic outcomes like war. Moral perspectives on international politics: sovereignty, justice, and intervention. 1. State Moralists State moralists emphasize that international politics is governed by a system of states that, while imperfectly obeyed, is founded on rules, the most important being state sovereignty. This principle argues that states have jurisdiction over their own territories, and other states should not interfere. Michael Walzer argues that respecting national boundaries is a form of respecting individuals, as states embody the collective rights of their citizens. Despite this, sovereignty is often violated in practice. Examples range from the U.S. invading Panama to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, raising questions about when violations of sovereignty are morally justi ed. Di erent outcomes of such interventions show that moral considerations cannot be simplistic, and the complexities of intention, means, and consequences must be considered. 2. Cosmopolitans Cosmopolitans, like Charles Beitz, view international politics not merely as relations between states but as a global society of individuals. They argue that justice should focus on individuals, not just states, and that national boundaries perpetuate inequalities that ought to be abolished. Cosmopolitans highlight the global interdependence of economics, which can impact life-and- death issues for people in poorer countries. While cosmopolitans call for distributive justice, which could include redistributing wealth across borders, critics argue that such actions might cause instability and con ict. A more moderate cosmopolitan stance recognizes multiple loyalties (to nations, humanity, etc.) and advocates for policies that respect human rights, such as international laws against genocide, without undermining global order. 3. Moral Skeptics Moral skeptics, often aligned with realists, argue that the primary goal of international politics is maintaining order, as justice without order is meaningless. They are wary of moralistic interventions or redistributive policies, fearing they will lead to disorder and violent con ict. 4. Tensions and Trade-o s The text concludes by emphasizing the trade-o s between di erent approaches to international morality. State moralists focus on rules like sovereignty, but this does not always provide clear guidance on when intervention is justi ed. Cosmopolitans focus on justice for individuals, but their approach risks disorder. Moral skeptics emphasize order but may downplay justice. Thus, while morality cannot be ignored in international politics, applying it requires caution. There is no simple formula for determining the moral course of action, and the challenge lies in navigating the tensions between maintaining order, respecting sovereignty, and ensuring justice. Understanding the historical context and moral trade-o s is key to making informed decisions in international relations. LEVELS OF ANALYSIS Individual level: Considers the role of, for example, individual leaders (e.g. George Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq). But do individual personalities/psychological considerations matter? State level: 114  fi ff ff ff fi ff ff fl fl  Considers domestic politics, various features of domestic society, or the machinery of government. System level: Considers how the overall system constrains state action. However, in reality, it is di cult to neatly distinguish between these di erent levels of analysis. For example, when we consider 'capitalism' should we look at the state-level or the system-level? Di erent levels of analysis might interact. Liberal and constructivist theories tend to cross di erent levels of analysis. Question to you: On what level of analysis does neo-realism focus? State level, STRUCTURE STUDY QUESTIONS 1. What role should ethical considerations play in the conduct of international relations? What role do they play? Can we speak meaningfully about moral duties to other countries or their populations? What are America's moral obligations in Iraq? In Afghanistan? 2. How well did the Iraq war satisfy the principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello? What about Afghanistan? 3. Is there a di erence between moral obligations in the realms of domestic politics and international politics? On the basis of the Melian dialogue, did the Athenians act ethically? Did the Melian elders? 4. What is realism? How does it di er from the liberal view of world poli-tics? What does constructivism add to realism and liberalism? 5. What does Thucydides pinpoint as the main causes of the Peloponnesian War? Which were immediate? Which were underlying? 6. What sort of theory of international relations is implicit in Thucydides' account of the war? 7. Was the Peloponnesian War inevitable? If so, why and when? If not, how and when might it have been prevented? Nye & Welch, Chapter 3: Explaining Con ict and Cooperation: Tools and Techniques of the Trade KEY IR’S VOCABULARY CONCEPTS: 1. State: A political entity with de ned territory and sovereignty (absolute authority over that territory). States like France and Japan are the primary actors in international politics. 2. Sovereignty: The right to govern without external interference. It can be held by monarchs, elected o cials, or the people, depending on the political system. 3. Confusion Over "State": The term can refer to sovereign countries or subnational regions (like U.S. states). It can also describe government strength (e.g., "strong" or "weak" states). 4. Nation: A group of people with shared traits (language, culture). A **nation-state** is a state where most people belong to one nation, like Japan, but this is rare. 5. Self-Determination: The right of a group to govern itself or form its own state, such as the Kurdish independence movement. 6. Recognition of States: New states must be recognized by other states to gain legitimacy, with criteria like government control and legitimacy. 7. Actors: States are key players, but non-state actors (corporations, NGOs, individuals) also in uence global politics. ROLE OF STATES AND OTHER ACTORS IN GLOBAL POLITICS 1. Importance of States: Despite the in uence of various non-state actors (e.g., NGOs, corporations, terrorist groups), states remain the most powerful in international politics. They control borders, maintain armies, have the power to tax and spend, and enforce laws. 2. Power: Power is central to politics, de ned as the ability to achieve goals or in uence others. Robert Dahl de nes power as getting others to do what they otherwise wouldn’t. Power can be measured through resources (e.g., population, territory, military), but also through the ability to convert these resources into in uence (power conversion). 115  fl ff ffi ff fi ffi fi ff fl fl fi ff fl ff fl  3. Soft vs. Hard Power: Hard power relies on coercion (e.g., military force, economic pressure). Soft power involves in uencing others by making them want what you want through culture, ideas, or institutions. Both types of power are necessary, but soft power is often harder to wield and less tangible. 4. Historical Context: The passage also illustrates how di erent forms of power (e.g., military, industrial, or cultural) have shaped global politics throughout history, from Bismarck’s use of railroads in warfare to the role of nuclear weapons in modern deterrence. 5. Changing Nature of Power: In today’s world, especially in post-industrial societies, soft power is becoming more crucial. However, hard power remains signi cant, particularly in industrializing regions. The key to successful in uence is "smart power," a balanced use of both hard and soft power. 6. System of International Relations: The international political system is compared to a poker game, where structure (distribution of power) and process (interactions between states) shape outcomes. While states remain key actors, they operate within an interconnected global system that includes non-state actors, economic forces, and environmental changes. —> While states dominate global politics due to their control over hard power resources, understanding the balance between hard and soft power is essential in shaping global outcomes. How the international system, despite its anarchic nature, maintains a degree of order through various social practices, norms, and laws: This understanding is framed through di erent theoretical lenses in International Relations (IR), including realism, liberalism, and constructivism, each providing distinct interpretations of state interactions in a chaotic global environment. ANARCHY AND ORDER IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM 1. Anarchy De ned: - Anarchy in IR means the absence of a central governing authority among states. However, this does not equate to chaos; rather, states often behave in predictable ways due to established norms and rules. - International law, while weaker than domestic law, still experiences a high degree of compliance, indicating a structured order. 2. Social Dimensions: - The behavior of states is governed by a set of norms that dictate diplomatic conduct and con ict resolution. - Historical violations of these norms, such as Bismarck’s manipulations leading to the Franco- Prussian War, illustrate how disregard for established practices can lead to con ict. 3. Theoretical Perspectives: - Realism: Focuses on power dynamics and sees the international system as primarily driven by states’ pursuit of power and survival. - neo-Liberalism: Emphasizes the importance of international institutions and norms, viewing them as avenues for cooperation. - Constructivism: Highlights how shared identities and social constructs shape state behavior and international interactions. STABILITY IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM 1. System Stability: - Stability is de ned by a system's ability to withstand shocks without collapsing. Wars can threaten state sovereignty and destabilize the system. - Kenneth Waltz posits that the con guration of power—unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar—a ects system stability. Bipolar systems can lead to rigidity, while unipolar systems may be more exible. 2. Crisis Stability: - The role of technology and military doctrine is crucial. During the Cold War, for instance, the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) contributed to crisis stability, as both superpowers recognized the futility of initiating con ict. 116  fl fi fi fl fi fl ff fl ff fi fl fl ff  LEVELS OF ANALYSIS 1. Individual Level: - This level considers how the characteristics and decisions of individual leaders in uence state behavior. The example of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 illustrates how a speci c leader’s choices can diverge from expected systemic responses to events like 9/11. 2. State Level: - Examines domestic factors that shape a state's foreign policy, such as political institutions and economic systems. 3. System Level: - Focuses on the overall structure of the international system and how it constrains or facilitates state behavior. The interplay between systemic, state, and individual factors helps to explain complex international events. SYSTEMIC THEORIES AND THEIR SIMPLICITY 1. Realism: - Emphasizes the importance of power distribution and asserts that states act as rational actors aiming to maximize security and power within the anarchic system. 2. Balance-of-Power Theory: - Suggests that states will align against the most powerful states to maintain stability. 3. Non-Hobbesian Systems: - Unlike the competitive nature of realist systems, these systems prioritize cooperation, in uenced by norms and institutions that mitigate the harshness of anarchy. COUNTERFACTUALS AND VIRTUAL HISTORY IN IR 1. Counterfactuals - De nition: Thought experiments that alter historical events to explore potential di erent outcomes. - Usefulness: Helps assess the signi cance of speci c causes by asking "what if" questions. Criteria for E ective Counterfactuals: - Plausibility: Scenarios must be realistic. - Proximity in Time: Closer changes yield clearer impacts. - Relation to Theory: Should test theoretical frameworks. - Factual Basis: Must adhere to accurate historical details. 2. Virtual History De nition: A disciplined method of constructing counterfactuals based on actual historical behavior. Example: The 2008 lm Virtual JFK, examining President Kennedy's potential actions in Vietnam had he survived. 3. Role in Historical Analysis - Importance: Counterfactuals help clarify causation and the signi cance of events in history. - Challenges: Poorly constructed counterfactuals can detract from meaningful analysis, while well-done ones enhance understanding of international politics. The exploration of paradigms in international relations, alongside the use of counterfactuals and virtual history, enhances our understanding of world politics. Realism and liberalism provide contrasting views on power and cooperation, while Marxism critiques economic structures, and constructivism emphasizes social factors. Counterfactuals serve as valuable tools in assessing causation and understanding the complexities of historical events in IR. 1. What are the relationships among the concepts “state,” “nation,” and “nation-state”? 2. How might authority be a source of power? Would it be a source of hard power or soft power? 3. What is the relationship between system stability and crisis stability? 4. What are Waltz’s three images? Can they be combined? If so, how? 117  fl fi fi fi ff fi fi fi fi ff fl