Textbook - International Politics to World Politics PDF

Chapter 1 Introduction: from international politics to world politics patricia owens · john baylis · steve smith Reader’s Guide We will begin by discussing the various terms used to describe...

Chapter 1 Introduction: from international politics to world politics patricia owens · john baylis · steve smith Reader’s Guide We will begin by discussing the various terms used to describe world politics and the academic This book provides a comprehensive overview of discipline—International Relations (IR)—that has led world politics in a global era. The term most often the way in thinking about world politics. We then used to explain world politics in the contemporary look at the main ways in which global politics has period—‘globalization’—is controversial. There is con- been explained. Our aim is not to put forward one siderable dispute over what it means to talk of ‘glo- view of how to think about world politics somehow balization’, whether this implies that the main features agreed by the editors, let alone by all the contributors of contemporary world politics are different from to this book. There is no such agreement. Rather, we those of the past, and whether much of the world is want to provide a context in which to read the chap- experiencing a backlash against ‘neoliberal globaliza- ters that follow. This means offering a variety of views. tion’. The concept can be most simply used to refer to For example, the main theoretical accounts of world the process of increasing interconnectedness among politics all see globalization differently. Some treat it societies such that events in one part of the world as a temporary phase in human history; others see increasingly have effects on peoples and societies it as the latest manifestation of the growth of global far away. On this view, a globalized world is one in capitalism; yet others see it as representing a funda- which political, economic, cultural, and social events mental transformation of world politics that requires become more and more interconnected, and also new ways of understanding. The different editors and one in which they have more impact. For others, ‘glo- contributors to this book hold no single agreed view; balization’ is the ideology associated with the current they represent all the views just mentioned. Thus, they phase of the world economy—neoliberal capitalism— would each have a different take, for example, on why which has most shaped world politics since the late powerful states cannot agree on how to tackle global 1970s. In this introduction we explain how we pro- climate change, why wealthy states hoarded vac- pose to deal with the concept of globalization in this cines during the Covid-19 pandemic, why a majority book, and we offer some arguments both for and of British people voted to leave the European Union, against seeing it as an important new development the significance of the 2007–8 global financial crisis, in world politics. whether the Western-led world order is in terminal 6 patricia owens · john baylis · steve smith decline, why Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, or the that define the twenty-first century; and the sig- causes and significance of economic, gendered, and nificance of the rise of non-Western powers in con- racialized inequality in world politics. temporary world politics after a period of Western There are three main aims of this book: dominance. Part Three gives a detailed account of to offer an overview of world politics in a global era; each of the main theories of world politics—liberal internationalism, realism, Marxism, constructiv- to summarize the main approaches to understand- ism, poststructuralism, postcolonial and decolo- ing contemporary world politics; and nial approaches, and feminism. In Part Four we look crete to provide the material necessary to develop a con- understanding of the main structures and at the main structures and processes that do most to shape the central contours of contemporary world issues defining world politics today. politics, such as global political economy, interna- In Part Two we will examine the very important histor- tional security, war, gender, and racial hierarchy. ical background to the contemporary world, includ- Then in Part Five of the book we deal with some of ing: the rise of the modern international order; the the main policy issues in the globalized world, such major crises of international relations that defined as global health, poverty, human rights, refugees, the twentieth century; more recent developments and the environmental crisis. 1.1 From international politics to world politics Why does the main title of this book refer to ‘world be as important as what states and other political politics’ rather than ‘international politics’ or ‘inter- actors do. Hence, we prefer to use the more expansive national relations’? These are the traditional terms term ‘world politics’, with the important proviso that used to describe the kinds of structures and pro- we do not want you to defi ne ‘politics’ too narrowly. cesses covered in this book, such as the causes of war Many contributors to this volume also understand and peace or the global economy and its inequali- politics very broadly. ties. Indeed, the discipline that studies these issues is Consider, for example, the distinction between nearly always called International Relations. We will ‘politics’ and ‘economics’. Clearly, a great deal of power say more about this discipline shortly. The point here accrues to the group that can persuade others that the is that we believe the phrase ‘world politics’ is more existing distribution of wealth and resources is ‘simply’ inclusive than either of the alternative terms ‘interna- an economic or ‘private’ question rather than a political tional relations’ or ‘international politics’. It is meant or ‘public’ issue. Indeed, the very distinction between to signal that in this book we are interested in a very ‘politics’ and ‘economics’ has a history and is open to wide set of actors and political relations in the world, dispute. According to Oxfam, 82 per cent of the world’s and not only those among nation-states (as implied global wealth is held by 1 per cent of its population; the by ‘international relations’ or ‘international politics’). world’s richest 27 people possess the same wealth as its It is not that relations between states are unimport- poorest 50 per cent—3.8 billion people. And the global ant; far from it. They are fundamental to contem- wealth gap increases every year. The world’s ten richest porary world politics. But we are also interested in men doubled their wealth during the pandemic. The relations among institutions and organizations that point here is that we want you to think about politics may or may not be states. For example, this book will very broadly because many of the chapters in this book introduce you to the significance of multinational will describe as ‘political’ features of the contemporary corporations , transnational terrorist groups, social world that you may not have previously thought of in classes, and non-governmental organizations that way. Our focus is on the political and power rela- (NGOs) such as human rights groups. We also think tions, broadly defined, that characterize the contempo- that relations among multinational corporations, rary world. Many will be between states, but many—and governments , or international organizations can perhaps most—will not.  Chapter 1 Introduction: from international politics to world politics 7 1.2 The study of International Relations As you will discover in reading this book, International discipline of International Relations is relatively Relations (IR) is an incredibly exciting and diverse field recent. This history also partly accounts for some of of study. It is exciting because it addresses the most the issues just described. Consider how the history of pressing problems shaping the lives of everyone on the the discipline of IR is itself contested. One of the most planet: the global environmental catastrophe, pandem- influential accounts of its history is that the academic ics, matters of war and peace, the organization of the discipline was formed in 1919 when the Department of global economy, the causes and consequences of global International Politics was established at the University inequality, to name just a few of the most obvious. The of Wales, Aberystwyth (now Aberystwyth University). key concepts that organize debate in the field are also The emphasis in this version of the story is that the some of the most contentious: power, violence, sover- Department of International Politics was founded after eignty, states, empire, genocide, intervention, inequal- the horrors of the First World War to help prevent a ity, justice, and democracy. future war. If scholars could find the causes of war, then The field is highly diverse, organized into various they could put forward solutions to help politicians pre- subfields and specialisms, including international his- vent wars from breaking out. According to this view, tory, international security, international political econ- the discipline of IR was—or should be—marked by omy, international law, and international organizations. such a commitment to changing the world; the task of Scholars of International Relations also often work with academic study should be one of making the world a regional specialisms, focusing on Latin America, East better place. Asia, the Middle East, Europe, Africa, or North America. Others have challenged this story as a foundation International Relations is also highly interdisciplin- myth for a field with a much darker history, situating ary, drawing on theoretical and methodological tradi- the emergence of IR somewhat earlier in the history of tions from fields as diverse as History, Law, Political colonial administration and the study of imperialism Science, Geography, Sociology, Anthropology, Gender (Long and Schmidt 2005; Vitalis 2015). For example, the Studies, and Postcolonial and Decolonial Studies. In first journal in the field was called the Journal of Race Britain, historians were most influential in the earliest Development, first published in 1910, and which is now decades of the organized study of international rela- the influential US-based publication known as Foreign tions (Hall 2012). In more recent years, especially after Affairs. The beginning of the twentieth century was the end of the Second World War, and especially in the not only a period of world war, but also one of empire, United States, Political Science has tended to have the theft of land, and belief in racial supremacy—that is, greatest influence on the discipline of International maintaining and justifying white supremacy in world Relations. This tended to narrow the range of accept- politics. In the United States, African-American schol- able approaches to the study of IR, and also led to an ars interested in studying race and world politics were excessive focus on US foreign policy, to the detriment systematically marginalized from the emerging disci- of non-Western history and theories of world politics. pline of IR (Vitalis 2015). However, situating the history However, both inside and outside the United States, of the field in this context gives a very different gloss scholars have started to pay much more attention to to the role of academic International Relations today, how and why IR has neglected non-Western histories which exists in a context of international hierarchy and experiences, and have begun to rectify this (Tickner and the continuing significance of race and racism in and Wæver 2009). In doing so, they have increasingly world politics, as discussed later in this book. Indeed, moved the field away from Eurocentric approaches to even more recently scholars have started to decentre world politics, and begun to take seriously the project the origin story of International Relations, pointing to of developing a Global IR (Acharya 2014b). its multiple origins around the world (Davis, Thakur, and Vale 2020; Thakur and Smith 2021). Watch the video on the online resources to see the The point to note here is that there are important author explain the move away from a Eurocentric debates about how academic knowledge is produced, approach to world politics. the global political contexts in which academic dis- People have tried to make sense of world politics for ciplines are formed, and some of the enduring lega- centuries. However, the formation of the academic cies of this history. Another important example is how 8 patricia owens · john baylis · steve smith histories of international thought and the discipline of and for how we should think about world politics today. International Relations almost entirely exclude women Indeed, you should keep in mind that the main theories thinkers and founders of the discipline (for an exception, of world politics did not arise from nowhere. They were see Ashworth 2014). Women in the past thought and developed by intellectuals and practitioners in specific wrote a great deal about international politics (Sluga and circumstances for very concrete and political reasons. James 2016), but this work has yet to be fully recovered International theories have histories too (Knutsen 1997; and analysed (but see Owens and Rietzler 2021; Owens Keene 2005; Ashworth 2014). et al. 2022). Knowledge about world politics—and the Watch the video on the online resources to see the academic subjects that you study at university—also has author discuss why women have been excluded a history and a politics. This history is relevant for the from the discipline of IR. identity of the academic field of International Relations 1.3 Theories of world politics The basic problem facing anyone who tries to under- only way you can decide which of the millions of pos- stand contemporary world politics is that there is so sible facts matter is by adhering to some simplifying much material to look at that it is difficult to know device. Theory is such a device. Note also that you may which things matter and which do not. Where on not be aware of your theory. It may just be the view of or earth would you start if you wanted to explain the even ideology about the world that you inherited from most important political processes? How, for exam- your family, social class, peer groups, or the media. It ple, would you explain the failures of climate change may just seem common sense to you and not at all com- negotiations, the struggles over poor countries’ access plicated. But in such a case your theoretical assump- to vaccines, ‘Brexit’ from the EU, or the 9/11 attacks? tions are just implicit rather than explicit. We prefer Why are thousands of migrants from North Africa to try to be as explicit as possible when thinking about seeking to make the extremely dangerous voyage across world politics. the Mediterranean Sea to the European Union? Why Of course, many proponents of particular theo- does the United States support Israel in its conflict with ries also claim to see the world the way it ‘really is’. Palestinians in the occupied territories? As you will Consider the International Relations theory known learn, there are very different responses to these ques- as ‘realism’. The ‘real’ world as seen by realists is not tions, and there seems no easy way of arriving at defini- a very pleasant place. According to their view, human tive answers to them. beings are at best selfish and domineering, and proba- Whether you are aware of it or not, whenever you are bly much worse. Liberal notions about the perfectibility faced with questions like these you have to turn not only of human beings and the possibility of a fundamental to the study of history, though that is absolutely essen- transformation of world politics away from conflict and tial, but also to theories. Theory is a kind of simplify- towards peace are far-fetched from a realist perspec- ing device that allows you to decide which historical or tive. Indeed, realists have often had the upper hand in contemporary facts and events matter more than others debates about the nature of world politics because their when trying to develop an understanding of the world. views seem to accord more with common sense. We will A good analogy is using sunglasses with different- say more about realism in a moment. The point here is coloured lenses: put on the red pair and the world looks to question whether such a realist view is as neutral as red; put on the yellow pair and it looks yellow. The world it seems commonsensical. After all, if we teach world is not any different; it just looks different. So it is with politics to generations of students and tell them that theories. Shortly, we will summarize the main theoreti- people are selfish, then does this not become common cal views that have dominated the study of world poli- sense? And when they go to work in the media, univer- tics so that you will get an idea of which ‘colours’ they sities, for governments, international organizations, or paint world politics. But before we do, please note that the military, do they not simply repeat what they have we do not think theory is an option: you cannot say that been taught and act accordingly? Might realism simply you do not want to bother with theory, all you want to be the ideology of powerful states, interested in protect- do is to look at the ‘facts’. This is impossible, since the ing the status quo? What is the history of realism and  Chapter 1 Introduction: from international politics to world politics 9 what does this history tell us about its claims about how Therefore, there can be no such thing as one ‘national the world ‘really is’? For now, we would like to keep the interest ’ since it merely represents the result of what- issue open and simply point out that we are not con- ever societal preferences or bureaucratic organizations vinced that realism is as objective, timeless, or non- dominate the domestic decision-making process. In normative as it is often portrayed. relations among states, liberals stress the possibilities What is certainly true is that realism has been one of for cooperation; the key issue becomes devising inter- the dominant ways in the West of explaining world pol- national institutions in which economic and political itics over the last 150 years. But it is not the only theory cooperation can be best achieved. of international relations, nor the one most closely asso- The picture of world politics that arises from the lib- ciated with the earliest academic study of international eral view is of a complex system of bargaining among relations. We will now summarize the principal assump- many different types of actors. Military force is still tions underlying the main rivals as theories of world important, but the liberal agenda is not as restricted politics: liberal internationalism, realism, Marxism, as the realist one of relations between great powers. constructivism, poststructuralism, ­postcolonial and Liberals see national interests in more than just mili- decolonial approaches, and feminism. These theories tary terms, and stress the importance of economic, will be discussed in much more detail in Part Three environmental, and technological issues. Order in of this book; although we do not go into much depth world politics emerges from the interactions among about them here, we want to give you a flavour of their many layers of governing arrangements, comprising main themes as we also want to say something about laws, agreed norms, international regimes, and insti- how each thinks about globalization. tutional rules to manage the global capitalist economy. Fundamentally, liberals do not think that sovereignty is Watch the video on the online resources to see as important in practice as realists believe. States may the author explain how and why IR theory is be legally sovereign, but in practice they have to negoti- valuable. ate with all sorts of other public and private actors, with the result that their freedom to act as they might wish is 1.3.1 Liberal internationalism seriously curtailed. Interdependence between states is Liberal internationalism developed after the First a critically important feature of world politics. World War, in a period defined by competing but unsta- ble empires, class conflict, women’s suffrage, and exper- 1.3.2 Realism iments in international organization (Sluga and Clavin 2017). As you will later learn, there are many kinds of Realists have a different view of world politics and, like ‘liberalism’. But the main themes that run through lib- liberals, claim a long tradition. However, it is highly eral thought are that human beings and societies can be contested whether realists can actually claim a lineage improved, that capitalism is the best way of organizing all the way back to ancient Greece, or whether real- the economy, that representative democracy is neces- ism is an invented intellectual tradition for cold war sary for liberal improvement, and that ideas—not just American foreign policy needs. Either way, there are material power—matter. Behind all this lies a belief in many variants of something called ‘realism’. But in progress, modelled on the achievements of liberal capi- general, for realists, the main actors on the world stage talist societies in the West. Hence, liberals reject the are the most powerful states, which are legally sover- realist notion that war is the natural condition of world eign actors. Sovereignty means that there is no actor politics. They also question the idea that the state is the above the state that can compel it to act in specific ways. main actor on the world political stage, although they According to this view, other actors such as multina- do not deny that it is important. They see individuals, tional corporations or international organizations have multinational corporations, transnational actors, and to work within the framework of inter-state relations international organizations as central actors in some set by the most powerful states. As for what propels issue-areas of world politics. Liberals tend to think of states to act as they do, many realists see human nature the state not as a unitary or united actor, but as made up as centrally important, and they view human nature of individuals and their collective societal preferences as rather selfish. As a result, world politics (or, more and interests. They also think of the state as comprised accurately for realists, international politics) represents of a set of bureaucracies, each with its own interests. a struggle for power among states, with each trying to 10 patricia owens · john baylis · steve smith maximize its national interest. Such order as exists in To this degree, social constructivism strongly overlaps world politics is the result of the workings of a mecha- with liberalism and can even be seen as providing the nism known as the balance of power, whereby states social theory underpinnings of liberal political theories act so as to prevent any one state from dominating. of world politics. In the words of one of the most influ- Thus, world politics is all about bargaining and alli- ential constructivist theorists, Alexander Wendt, even ances, with diplomacy a key mechanism for balancing the self-help international system portrayed by real- various national interests. But finally, the most impor- ists is something that we make and remake: ‘anarchy tant tool available for implementing states’ foreign is what states make of it’ (Wendt 1992). Therefore, the policies is military force. Ultimately, since there is no world that realists portray as ‘natural’ or ‘given’ is in sovereign body above the states that make up the inter- fact far more open to change, and constructivists think national political system, world politics is a self-help that self-help is only one possible response to the anar- system in which states must rely on their own military chical structure of world politics. Indeed, not only is resources to achieve their ends. Often these ends can the structure of world politics amenable to change, but be achieved through cooperation, but the potential for so also are the identities and interests that neorealism conflict is ever-present. or neoliberalism take as given. The seemingly ‘natural’ Since the 1980s, an important variant of realism structures, processes, identities, and interests of world has developed, known as neorealism. This approach politics could in fact be different from what they cur- stresses the importance of the structure of the interna- rently are. Note, however, that social constructivism is tional system in affecting the behaviour of all states. not a theory of world politics in itself. It is an approach Thus, during the cold war two main powers dominated to the philosophy of social science with implications for the international system, and this gave rise to certain the kinds of arguments that can be made about world rules of behaviour; now that the cold war has ended, the politics. Constructivists need to marry their approach structure of world politics is said to be moving towards to another political theory of world politics, such as multipolarity (after a phase of unipolarity), which for realism, feminism, but usually liberalism, to actually neorealists will involve very different rules of the game. make substantive claims. Realism, liberalism, and social constructivism are the dominant approaches in the most influential loca- 1.3.3 Social constructivism tion for IR scholarship, which is currently the United Social constructivism is a relatively new approach States. But by no means should realism, liberalism, and in International Relations, one that developed in the social constructivism be considered the only compel- United States in the late 1980s and has been becom- ling theories or the only approaches with large num- ing increasingly influential since the mid-1990s. The bers of adherents. On the contrary, outside the United approach arose out of a set of events in world politics, States these theories are often considered to be far notably the disintegration of the Soviet empire, as sym- too narrow and thus unconvincing. We now turn to bolized most dramatically by the fall of the Berlin Wall some other approaches that are highly critical of these in 1989. These events indicated that human agency had three approaches and move beyond them in quite far- a much greater potential role in world politics than reaching ways. implied by realism or liberalism. But the theoreti- cal underpinnings of social constructivism are much 1.3.4 Marxist theories older; they relate to a series of social-scientific and phil- osophical works that dispute the notion that the ‘social The fourth main theoretical position we want to mention world’ is external to the people who live in it, and is not is Marxism, also known as historical materialism, which easily changed. To different degrees, realism and liber- immediately gives you a clue as to its main assumptions. alism stress the regularities and ‘certainties’ of political But first we want to point out a paradox about Marxism. life (although liberalism is somewhat less adamant). On the one hand, Marxist theory has been incred- By contrast, constructivism argues that we make and ibly influential historically, inspiring socialist revolu- remake the social world so there is much more of a role tions around the world, including during the process of for human agency than realism and liberalism allow. decolonization, and also in the recent global uprisings in These approaches underestimate the possibilities for response to the 2007 global financial crisis. On the other human progress and for the betterment of people’s lives. hand, it has been less influential in the discipline of IR  Chapter 1 Introduction: from international politics to world politics 11 than either realism or liberalism, and has less in com- was probably as popular a theoretical approach as any mon with either realism or liberalism than they do with discussed in this book, and it overlaps with several of each other. Indeed, from a Marxist perspective, both them. Part of the difficulty, however, is precisely defin- realism and liberalism serve the class and imperial inter- ing poststructuralism, which is also sometimes referred ests of the most powerful actors in world politics to the to as postmodernism. This is in addition to the fact, of detriment of most of the rest of the world. course, that there are substantial theoretical differences For Marxist theory, the most important feature of within its various strands. One useful definition is by world politics is that it takes place in a highly unequal Jean-François Lyotard (1984: xxiv): ‘Simplifying to the capitalist world economy. In this world economy the extreme, I define post-modern as incredulity towards most important actors are not states but classes, and metanarratives’. ‘Incredulity’ simply means scepticism; the behaviour of all other actors is ultimately explicable ‘metanarrative’ means any theory that asserts it has clear by class forces. Thus states, multinational corporations, foundations for making knowledge claims and involves and even international organizations represent the a foundational epistemology. You do not need to dominant class interest in the world economic system. worry too much about what this means right now. It is Marxist theorists differ over how much leeway actors explained in more detail in the chapter on poststructur- such as states have, but all Marxists agree that the alism (see Ch. 12), and we say a little more about these world economy severely constrains states’ freedom of meta-theory questions in Section 1.3.8. Put simply, to manoeuvre, especially that of poorer and weaker states. have a foundational epistemology is to think that all Rather than an arena of conflict among national inter- truth claims about the world can be judged true or false ests or with many different issue-areas, Marxist theo- (epistemology is how we can claim to know something). rists conceive of world politics as the setting in which Poststructuralism is essentially concerned with dis- class conflicts are played out. In the branch of Marxism trusting and exposing any account of human life that known as world systems theory, the key feature of the claims to have direct access to ‘the truth’. Thus realism, international economy is the division of the world into liberalism, social constructivism, and Marxism are all a wealthy capitalist core, a semi-periphery, and an suspect from a poststructuralist perspective because exploited periphery integrated into the economy in its they claim to have uncovered some fundamental truth provision of natural resources and labour made cheap. about the world. Michel Foucault, an important influ- Of course, in the semi-periphery and even the periph- ence on poststructuralists, was opposed to the notion ery there exist wealthy pockets that are tied into the that knowledge is immune from the workings of power. capitalist world economy, while even in the core area Instead, and in common with Marxism, he argued that there are exploited economic areas. But what matters is power produces knowledge. All power requires knowl- the dominance of the power not of states but of global edge and all knowledge relies on and reinforces existing capitalism, and it is capitalist forces, including capital- power relations. Thus there is no such thing as ‘truth’ ist crises, that ultimately determine the main political existing outside of power. Truth is not something patterns in world politics. Sovereignty is not nearly as external to social settings, but is instead part of them. important for Marxist theorists as for realists since it Poststructuralist international theorists have used refers to political and legal matters, whereas the most this insight to examine the ‘truths’ of International important feature of world politics for Marxist theo- Relations theory, to see how the concepts that dominate rists is the degree of economic autonomy, and here they the discipline are in fact highly contingent on specific see all states as having to play by the rules of the inter- power relations. Poststructuralism takes apart the very national capitalist economy. concepts and methods of our thinking, examining the conditions under which we are able to theorize about world politics in the first place. 1.3.5 Poststructuralism Poststructuralism has been a particularly influential 1.3.6 Postcolonial and decolonial theoretical development throughout the humanities and social sciences in the last 30 years. It reached interna- approaches tional theory in the mid-1980s, but it can only be said Postcolonialism has been an important approach in to have really arrived in the last few years of the twen- cultural studies, literary theory, and anthropology for tieth century. Indeed, for a time poststructuralism some time, and has a long and distinguished pedigree. 12 patricia owens · john baylis · steve smith In recent years, more and more scholars studying inter- far-reaching ways. In 1903, W. E. B. DuBois famously national politics are drawing on ideas from other disci- argued that the problem of the twentieth century would plines, including postcolonialism, especially those that be the problem of the ‘colour-line’. How will transna- expose the Eurocentric character of IR. It is noteworthy tional racism continue to shape global politics in the that all the major theories we have discussed so far— twenty-first century? realism, liberalism, Marxism, social constructivism, and poststructuralism—emerged in Europe in response 1.3.7 Feminism to specific European problems, including imperialism. They are all ‘Eurocentric’. Postcolonial scholars ques- Feminists were among the earliest and most influential tion whether Eurocentric theories can really purport to writers on international politics in the period during explain world politics, its historical relation to empire which the academic discipline of International Relations and colonialism, or world politics as it relates to the emerged (Ashworth 2011; Owens et al. 2022). But, as lives of most people on the planet. It is more likely that noted earlier, this tradition of international theory these Eurocentric approaches help to continue and jus- was marginalized from the discipline of International tify the military and economic subordination of the Relations after the Second World War until the 1980s. Global South by powerful Western interests. This pro- The first and most important thing to note about femi- cess is known as ‘neocolonialism’. nism itself is that there is no one feminist theory: there Postcolonialism has also become more popular in are many kinds of feminisms. However, the different IR since the 9/11 attacks, which encouraged people to approaches are united by their focus on the construc- try to understand how the histories of the West and tion of differences between ‘women’ and ‘men’ in the the Global South have always been intertwined. For context of hierarchy and power and the highly contin- example, the identities of the colonized and coloniz- gent understandings of masculinity and femininity that ers are constantly in flux and mutually constituted. these power relations produce. Indeed, the very catego- Postcolonial scholars argue that the dominant theo- ries of ‘women’ and ‘men’, and the concepts of mas- ries, especially realism and liberalism, are not neutral culinity and femininity, are highly contested in much in terms of race, gender, and class, but have helped feminist research. Some feminist theories assume natu- secure the domination of the Western world over the ral and biological (i.e. sex) differences between men and Global South. At the same time, traditional Marxism women. Some do not. However, all the most interest- did not pay sufficient attention to the way that racial ing work in this field analyses how gender both affects and gendered identities and power relations were cen- world politics and is an effect of world politics; in other tral to upholding class power. Decolonial scholarship, words, how different concepts (such as the state, war, or which comes out of and is closely linked to postcolo- sovereignty) are gendered and, in turn, how this gen- nialism, then proceeds to think about how to ‘decol- dering of concepts can have differential consequences onize’ the dominant theories and ways of knowing. for ‘men’ and ‘women’. Thus, an important claim of postcolonial and decolo- Some feminists look at the ways in which women nial approaches is that global hierarchies of subordina- are excluded from power and prevented from playing a tion and control, past and present, are made possible full part in political activity. They examine how women through the historical construction and combination have been restricted to roles critically important for of racial, gendered, class, and national differences and the functioning of things (such as reproductive econo- hierarchies. As other chapters in this volume suggest, mies) but that are not usually deemed to be important IR has been slightly more comfortable with issues for theories of world politics. Other feminists argue of class and gender. But the issue of race was almost that the cause of women’s inequality is in the capital- entirely ignored from the end of the Second World War ist system – that overthrowing capitalism is the neces- until quite recently. This occurred even though at the sary route for the achievement of the equal treatment of turn of the twentieth century international relations women. ‘Standpoint feminists’ identify how women, as explicitly meant ‘race relations’ since a large propor- a particular class by virtue of their sex rather than eco- tion of international relations research focused on the nomic standing (although the two are related), possess administration of colonies (Vitalis 2015). As shown a unique perspective—or standpoint—on world poli- in Chapter 18, race and racism continue to shape the tics as a result of their subordination. For example, in contemporary theory and practice of world politics in an important essay, J. Ann Tickner (1988) reformulated  Chapter 1 Introduction: from international politics to world politics 13 the famous ‘six principles of political realism’ devel- between explanatory and constitutive theories. An oped by the ‘godfather’ of realism, Hans J. Morgenthau. explanatory theory is one that sees the world as some- Tickner showed how the seemingly ‘objective’ rules of thing external to our theories of it. In contrast, a con- realism reflect hegemonic ‘masculine’ values and defi- stitutive theory is one that thinks our theories actually nitions of reality. As a riposte, she reformulated these help construct the world. In a very obvious way our same rules taking women’s experiences as the starting theories about the world shape how we act, and thereby point. make those theories self-confirming. For example, if we Postcolonial and decolonial feminists work at the think individuals are naturally aggressive then we are intersection of class, race, and gender on a global scale, likely to adopt a different posture towards them than and especially analyse the gendered effects of trans- if we think they are naturally peaceful. However, you national culture and the unequal division of labour in should not regard this claim as self-evidently true, since the global political economy. From this perspective, it it assumes that our ability to think and reason makes is not good enough to simply demand (as some liberal us able to determine our choices (i.e. that we have free feminists do) that men and women should have equal will rather than having our ‘choices’ predetermined). rights in a Western-style democracy. Such a move What if our human nature is such that we desire certain ignores the way in which poor women of colour in the things ‘naturally’, and that our language and seemingly Global South remain subordinated by the global eco- ‘free choices’ are simply rationalizations for our needs? nomic system—a system that liberal feminists were too The point is that there is a genuine debate between those slow to challenge in a systematic way. who think of the social world as like the natural world, and those theories that see our language and concepts as helping to create that reality. Theories claiming the 1.3.8 Some meta-theoretical questions natural and social worlds are the same are known as For most of the twentieth century, realism, liberalism, naturalist (Hollis and Smith 1990). and Marxism tended to be the main theories used to In IR, realist and liberal theories tend to be explana- understand world politics, with constructivism, femi- tory, with the task of theory being to report on a world nism, and poststructuralism becoming increasingly that is external to our theories. Their concern is to influential from the mid-1990s and postcolonialism uncover regularities in human behaviour and thereby gaining some influence since the 2000s. explain the social world in much the same way as a nat- While it is clear that each of these theories focuses ural scientist might explain the physical world. By con- on different aspects of world politics, each is saying trast, nearly all the approaches developed in the last 30 more than this. Each view is claiming that it is picking years or so tend to be constitutive theories. Here theory out the most important features of world politics and is not external to the things it is trying to explain, and that it offers a better account than rival theories. Thus, instead may construct how we think about the world. the different approaches are really in competition with Or, to put it another way, our theories define what we one another. While you can certainly choose among see as the external world. Thus, the very concepts we them and combine some aspects of some of the theories use to think about the world help to make that world (see, for example, Marxism, feminism, and postcolo- what it is. nialism), it is not always so easy to add bits from one to The foundational/anti-foundational distinction the others. For example, if you are a Marxist then you refers to the simple-sounding issue of whether our think that state behaviour is ultimately determined by beliefs about the world can be tested or evaluated class forces. But realists and liberals do not think that against any neutral or objective procedures. This is a class affects state behaviour in any significant way. In distinction central to the branch of the philosophy of other words, these theories are really competing ver- social science known as epistemology (the study of how sions of what world politics is like rather than partial we can claim to know something). A foundationalist pictures of it. They do not agree on what the ‘it’ is. position is one that thinks that all truth claims (about One way to think about this is in relation to meta- some feature of the world) can be judged true or false. theoretical questions (questions above any particu- An anti-foundationalist thinks that truth claims can- lar theory). Such terms can be a little unsettling, but not be judged in this way, since there are never neutral they are merely convenient words for discussing fairly grounds for doing so. Instead each theory will define straightforward ideas. First consider the distinction what counts as the facts, and so there will be no neutral 14 patricia owens · john baylis · steve smith position available to adjudicate between rival claims. anti-foundational. The point at this stage is not to con- Think, for example, of a Marxist and a liberal arguing struct some checklist, nor to get you thinking yet about about the ‘true’ state of the economy. Foundationalists the epistemological differences among these theories. look for ‘meta-theoretical’ (above any particular theory) Rather we want to draw your attention to the important grounds for choosing between truth claims. In con- impact of these assumptions about the nature of knowl- trast, anti-foundationalists think that there are no such edge on the theories you will be learning about. The positions available; the belief itself is simply a reflection last 30 years have seen these underlying assumptions of an adherence to a particular view of epistemology. brought more into the open. The most important effect Most of the contemporary approaches to interna- of this has been to undermine realism’s and liberalism’s tional theory are much less wedded to foundationalism claims to be delivering the truth. than were the traditional theories. Thus, poststructural- We have offered a very rough representation of how ism, postcolonialism, and some feminist theory would various International Relations theories can be catego- tend towards anti-foundationalism, whereas neoreal- rized. This is misleading in some respects since there are ism and neoliberalism would tend towards foundation- quite different versions of the main theories and some alism. Interestingly, social constructivism wishes to of these are less foundationalist than others. So the clas- portray itself as occupying the middle ground. On the sifications are broadly illustrative of the theoretical land- whole, and as a rough guide, explanatory theories tend scape and are best considered a useful starting point for to be foundational while constitutive theories tend to be thinking about the differences among theories. 1.4 Theories and globalization No International Relations theory has all the answers For realists, the picture looks very different. For them, when it comes to explaining world politics in a global globalization—however its advocates define it—does era. In fact, each sees ‘globalization’ differently. We do not alter the most significant feature of world poli- not want to tell you which theory seems best, since the tics, namely the territorial division of the world into purpose of this book is to give you a variety of lenses nation-states. While the increased interconnected- through which to look at world politics. All we will do is ness among economies and societies might make say a few words about how each theory responds to the them more dependent on one another, the same can- debate about ‘globalization’. We will then say something not be said about the state system. Here, powerful about the possible rise of globalization and offer some states retain sovereignty, and globalization does not ideas on its strengths and weaknesses as a description of render obsolete the struggle for political power among contemporary world politics. those states. Nor does it undermine the importance of the threat of the use of force or the importance of the For liberals, globalization is the end product of a long- balance of power. Globalization may affect our social, running, progressive transformation of world politics. economic, and cultural lives, but it does not transcend Liberals are particularly interested in the revolution the international political system of states. For exam- in economy, technology, and communications repre- ple, we might think of the decision of the British peo- sented by globalization. This increased interconnect- ple to leave the European Union, or the way wealthy edness among societies, which is economically and states hoarded Covid-19 vaccines, as a demonstration technologically led, results in a very different pattern of of the enduring significance of national sovereignty. world political relations from that which came before. For constructivist theorists, globalization tends to be States are no longer such central actors. In their place presented as an external force acting on states, which are numerous actors of differing importance depend- leaders often argue is a reality that they cannot chal- ing on the issue concerned. The world looks more like lenge. For constructivists, this is a very political act, since a cobweb of relations than like the state model of real- it underestimates the ability of changing social norms ism or the class model of Marxist theory. For example, and the identity of actors to challenge and shape global- from this perspective, the British vote to exit from the ization, and instead allows leaders to duck responsibility EU was a foolish and very expensive decision to reject by blaming ‘the way the world is’. Instead, constructiv- political and economic integration. ists think that we can mould globalization in a variety  Chapter 1 Introduction: from international politics to world politics 15 of ways, notably because it offers us very real chances, persistence of colonial forms of power in the global- for example, to create cross-national human rights and ized world. For example, the level of economic and social movements aided by modern technological military control of Western interests in the Global forms of communication such as the internet. South is in many ways greater now than it was under For Marxists, globalization is a sham, and the recent direct colonial control—a form of ‘neo’-colonialism backlash against ‘globalization’ is evidence of this. that is compatible with neoliberal capitalism. So, From a historical perspective, it is nothing particularly although the era of formal colonial imposition by new, and is really only the latest stage in the develop- force of arms is largely over, an important starting ment of international capitalism: neoliberalism. It does point for postcolonial scholarship is the issue of vast not mark a qualitative shift in world politics, nor does inequality on a global scale, the forms of globalizing it render all our existing theories and concepts redun- power that make this systematic inequality possible, dant. Above all, globalization is a Western-led capitalist and the continued domination of subaltern peoples, phenomenon that simply furthers the development of those classes dominated under hegemony such as global capitalism, in a neoliberal vein. Neoliberalism is poor rural women in the Global South. less a variant of liberal internationalism, though there Each of the different branches of feminist scholar- are links, than the effort to deregulate global capitalism ship responds differently to the question of global- for the benefit of the rich. Rather than make the world ization, but they all address and debate the effects it more alike, neoliberal globalization further deepens the has on gendered forms of power. Liberal feminists, existing divides between the core, the semi-periphery, as is to be expected, are most positive and hopeful and the periphery. about globalization, viewing it as a way to incorpo- For poststructuralists, ‘globalization’ does not rate more women into the liberal capitalist politi- exist out there in the world. It is a discourse. cal and economic system that has benefited many Poststructuralists are sceptical of the grand claims women in the West. Others are much more scepti- made by realists, liberals, and Marxists about the cal, pointing to the negative effects of neoliberalism nature of globalization, and they argue that any and economic globalization on the global wealth claims about the meaning of so-called ‘globaliza- gap, which has a disproportionately negative effect tion’ make sense only in the context of a specific dis- on women of colour. From a feminist perspective, to course that itself is a product of power. These various really assess the significance, causes, and effects of regimes of truth about globalization reflect the ways globalization requires concrete analysis of the lived in which both power and truth develop together in experiences of men and women, showing how seem- a mutually sustaining relationship throughout his- ingly gender-neutral issues are highly gendered, tory. The way to uncover the workings of power reinforcing relations of power and other forms of behind the discourse of ‘globalization’ is to under- gender injustice. take a detailed historical analysis of how the prac- By the end of the book, we hope you will work out tices and statements about globalization are ‘true’ which of these approaches (if any) best explain not only only within specific discourses. ‘globalization’, but world politics in general. The central Postcolonial and decolonial scholarship on global- point here is that the main theories see globalization ization is similar to much Marxist thought in that differently because they have a prior view of what is it highlights the important degree of continuity and most important in world politics. 1.5 Globalization: myth or reality? This book offers an overview of world politics in a graphic example since it allows us to sit at home and global era. But what does it mean to speak of a ‘global have instant communication with people around era’? Societies today are affected both more exten- the world, including during the Covid-19 pandemic. sively and more deeply by events in other societies. Email and social media such as TikTok, Facebook, The world seems to be ‘shrinking’, and people are and Twitter have also transformed communications increasingly aware of this. The internet is one very and hence how we come to know about world politics. 16 patricia owens · john baylis · steve smith But these are only the most obvious examples. Others common culture, a good deal of it emanating would include: pandemics such as Covid-19, pollu- from Hollywood. tion and climate change, global supply chains and A global polity is emerging, with transnational global newspapers, international social movements social and political movements and the beginnings such as Black Lives Matter, Amnesty International, of a transfer of allegiance from the state to sub-state, or Greenpeace, global franchises such as McDonald’s, transnational, and international bodies. Coca-Cola, and Apple. Have these developments A cosmopolitan culture is developing, especially really changed the nature of world politics? The around the issue of climate change. People are debate about globalization is not just the claim that beginning to ‘think globally and act locally’. the world has changed, but whether the changes are However, just as there are powerful reasons for see- qualitative and not merely quantitative. Has a ‘new’ ing globalization as a new stage in world politics, often world political system really emerged as a result of allied to the view that globalization is progressive—that these processes? it improves people’s lives—there are also arguments Our final task in this introduction is to offer you a that suggest the opposite. Some of the main ones are: summary of the main arguments for and against glo- balization as a distinct new phase in world politics. Globalization is merely a buzzword to denote the We do not expect you to decide where you stand on latest phase of global capitalism: neoliberalism. In a the issue at this stage, but we think we should give you very powerful critique of globalization theory, Paul some of the main arguments to keep in mind as you Hirst and Grahame Thompson (1996) argue that one read the rest of this book. Because the arguments for effect of the globalization thesis is that it makes it globalization as a new phase of world politics are most appear as if national governments are powerless in effectively summarized in Chapter 2, we will spend the face of global economic trends. This paralyses more time on the criticisms. The main arguments in government attempts to subject global economic favour are: forces to control and regulation. Arguing that most globalization theory lacks historical depth, Hirst The pace of economic transformation is so great and Thompson suggest that it paints the current that it has created a new world politics. States are juncture as more unusual, and also as more firmly less and less like closed units and they cannot con- entrenched, than it is. Current trends may well be trol their own economies under global capitalism. reversible and the more extreme versions of global- The world economy is more interdependent than ization are ‘a myth’. Hirst and Thompson support ever, with cross-border trade and financial flows this claim with five main conclusions from their ever expanding. study of the contemporary world economy (Hirst Communications have fundamentally revolution- and Thompson 1996: 2–3). First, the present interna- ized the way we deal with the rest of the world. We tionalized economy is not unique in history. In some now live in a world where events in one location can respects, it is less open than the international econ- be immediately observed on the other side of the omy between 1870 and 1914. Second, ‘genuinely’ world. Electronic communications alter our notions transnational companies are relatively rare; most of the social groups we live in. are national companies trading internationally. A risk culture is emerging, with people realizing Third, there is no shift of finance and capital from both that the main risks they face are global (pollu- the richest to the poorest countries. Overseas direct tion and climate change, Covid-19, HIV/AIDS) and investment continues to be highly concentrated in that individual states are unable to deal with these the richest states. Fourth, the world economy is not problems. Time and space seem to be collapsing. global; rather trade, investment, and financial flows Our old ideas of geographical space and of chrono- are concentrated in and among different blocs— logical time are undermined by the speed of mod- Europe, North America, China, and Japan. Finally, ern communications and media, as well as by new if they coordinated policies, this group of blocs infectious diseases. could regulate global economic markets and forces. There is now, more than ever before, a global Hirst and Thompson offer a very powerful critique culture, so that most urban areas resemble of one of the main planks of the globalization thesis: one another. Much of the urban world shares a that the global economy is something beyond our  Chapter 1 Introduction: from international politics to world politics 17 control. This view both misleads us and prevents us raises crucial questions of censorship and prevent- from developing policies to control national econ- ing access to certain kinds of material, including omies. All too often we are told that our economy those trading in the sexual exploitation of children. must obey ‘the global market’, with enormous con- Turning to so-called global governance, the main sequences for social spending and social justice. Is worry here is about responsibility. To whom are this a myth? the transnational social movements responsible Another obvious objection is that globalization is and democratically accountable? If IBM or Shell very uneven in its effects. At times it sounds very becomes more and more powerful in the world, then much like a Western theory applicable only to this raises the issues of accountability and demo- a small part of humankind. If 40 per cent of the cratic control. One of the arguments for ‘Brexit’ was world’s population is not connected to the inter- that EU decision-making is undemocratic and unac- net, then we are in danger of overestimating both countable. Most of the emerging powerful actors in a the extent and the depth of globalization. Some globalized world are not accountable to democratic have argued that we are now in a period of so- publics. This argument also applies to seemingly called ‘deglobalization’, of diminishing support for ‘good’ global actors such as Amnesty International greater interdependence, as witnessed with Brexit, and Greenpeace. the US election of Donald Trump, Russia’s invasion We hope that these arguments for and against the of Ukraine, and rising populist parties in Europe dominant way of representing globalization will cause and the United States. you to think deeply about the utility of the concept of globalization. The chapters that follow do not take a Watch the video on the online resources to see common stance for or against. We end by posing some the author discuss if we are now in a period of questions that we would like you to keep in mind as you ‘deglobalization’. read the remaining chapters: A related objection is that globalization may well Is globalization a new phenomenon in world politics? be simply the latest stage of Western imperialism. Which International Relations theory best explains It is the old modernization theory in a new guise. globalization? The forces that are being globalized are conveniently Is globalization a positive or a negative development? those found in the Western world. What about non- Is neoliberal globalization merely the latest stage of capitalist development? Western experiences and values? Where do they fit into this emerging global world? The worry is that Does globalization make the state obsolete? they do not fit in at all, and what is being celebrated Does globalization make the world more or less democratic? in globalization is the triumph of a Western world- view, at the expense of others. Is globalization merely Western imperialism in a new guise? There are very many losers as the world becomes Does globalization make war more or less likely? more ‘globalized’. Globalization only represents the supposed ‘success’ of neoliberal capitalism in an In what ways is war a globalizing force in itself? economically divided world. Perhaps one outcome Do you think that the vote for Brexit or the spread of Covid-19 represent a major new challenge to is that neoliberal globalization allows the more effi- globalization? cient exploitation of poorer nations, and segments of richer ones, all in the name of economic ‘open- We hope that this introduction and the chapters ness’. The technologies accompanying globalization that follow help you to answer these questions, and are technologies that benefit the richest economies that this book provides you with a good overview of in the world, and allow their interests to override the politics of the contemporary world. Whether or those of local communities. Not only is globaliza- not you conclude that globalization is a new phase tion imperialist, it is also exploitative. in world politics, whether you think it is a positive Not all globalized forces are necessarily ‘good’. or a negative development, or that it does not really Globalization makes it easier for drug cartels and exist at all, we leave to you to decide. But we think terrorists to operate, and the internet’s anarchy it is important to conclude this chapter by stressing 18 patricia owens · john baylis · steve smith that how we think about politics in the global era racialized, economic, and political spaces we occupy. will reflect not merely the theories we accept, but World politics suddenly becomes very personal: how also our own positions in the world. In this sense, does your economic position, your ethnicity, race, how we respond to world events may itself be ulti- gender, culture, or religion determine what global- mately dependent on the social, cultural, gendered, ization means to you? Further Reading On the history of the academic field of International Relations, see L. M. Ashworth (2014), A History of International Thought: From the Origins of the Modern State to Academic International Relations (London: Routledge); R. Vitalis (2015), White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press); A. Acharya and B. Buzan (2019), The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR at its Centenary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); A. E. Davis, V. Thakur, and P. C. J. Vale (2020), The Imperial Discipline: Race and the Founding of International Relations (London: Pluto Press). On the history of international political thought and international theories more generally, see E. Keene (2005), International Political Thought: An Historical Introduction (Cambridge: Polity); D. Armitage (2013), Foundations of Modern International Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); and P. Owens and K. Rietzler (2021), Women’s International Thought: A New History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). There are several good introductory guides to the globalization debate. On the intellectual origins of ‘globalism’, see O. Rosenboim (2017), The Emergence of Globalism: Visions of World Order in Britain and the United States, 1939–1950 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). Comprehensive discussions are found in A. McGrew and D. Held (2007), Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies (Cambridge: Polity Press) and F. J. Lechner and J. Boli (eds) (2014), The Globalization Reader (Oxford: Blackwell). Also see C. el-Ojeili and P. Hayden (2006), Critical Theories of Globalization (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). C. Enloe (2016), Globalization and Militarism: Feminists Make the Link, 2nd edn (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield) is a good analysis from a leading feminist of the connections between globalization and various forms of violence. We also point you to other books in the Rowman & Littlefield series on globalization edited by M. B. Steger and T. Carver, in particular J. Agnew (2017), Globalization and Sovereignty: Beyond the Territorial Trap, 2nd edn; V. M. Moghadam (2020), Globalization and Social Movements, 3rd edn; and M. E. Hawkesworth (2018), Globalization and Feminist Activism, 2nd edn. Excellent critiques of the globalization thesis are J. Rosenberg (2002), The Follies of Globalization Theory (London: Verso); D. Held and A. McGrew (2007), Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond the Great Divide, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Polity Press); B. K. Gills (ed.) (2002), Globalization and the Politics of Resistance (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan); B. K. Gills and W. R. Thompson (eds) (2006), Globalization and Global History (London: Routledge); J. E. Stiglitz (2017), Globalization and its Discontents Revisited: The Era of Trump (London: Penguin); L. Weiss (1998), The Myth of the Powerless State (Cambridge: Polity Press); and P. Hirst and G. Thompson (1999), Globalization in Question, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Polity Press). Visit the online resources to access the latest updates in the field of International Relations.