International Relations Theories Summary PDF

1. Realism ​ Focus: Describes politics as it exists, prioritizing power and security over ideals. ​ Core Assumptions: ○​ Human beings are naturally self-interested and desire power. ○​ The international system is anarchic—there’s no overarching authority. ○​ States...

1. Realism ​ Focus: Describes politics as it exists, prioritizing power and security over ideals. ​ Core Assumptions: ○​ Human beings are naturally self-interested and desire power. ○​ The international system is anarchic—there’s no overarching authority. ○​ States are the most important actors and act to secure their survival. ​ Key Concepts: ○​ Security Dilemma: When one state increases security (e.g., by building arms), others feel threatened and respond, leading to potential conflict. ○​ Balance of Power: States form alliances to prevent any one from becoming too dominant. ○​ War and Rationality: War can be a rational means for states to secure national interest. ​ Foundational Thinkers: ○​ Thucydides: Peloponnesian War, power and fear as motivators. ○​ Machiavelli: Better to be feared than loved; realpolitik. ○​ Hobbes: State of nature is violent without authority—parallels anarchy in IR. ○​ Mearsheimer: Prominent modern realist; advocates for power politics and strategic rivalry. 2. Neo-Realism (Structural Realism) ​ Developed by: Kenneth Waltz in Theory of International Politics (1979). ​ Difference from Classical Realism: Focuses on the international system’s structure rather than human nature. ​ Core Principles: ○​ Anarchy: No central global authority. ○​ States: Rational, unitary actors that seek survival. ○​ Self-Help: In an anarchic world, states rely on themselves for security. ○​ Relative Gains: States are concerned with how much they gain compared to others. ​ Types of Polarity: ○​ Multipolar: Many powerful states (e.g., pre-WWI); unstable. ○​ Bipolar: Two dominant powers (e.g., US vs. USSR in Cold War); more stable. ○​ Unipolar: One dominant power (e.g., post-Cold War US); hegemonic dominance. ​ Security Dilemma and Arms Races: ○​ Power accumulation threatens others, leading to mutual distrust. ​ Offensive Realism (Mearsheimer): ○​ States maximize power to become regional hegemons. ○​ US behavior post-1990s deviated from realism (e.g., NATO expansion, democracy promotion) and provoked rivals like China and Russia. 3. Liberal Internationalism  ​ Core Belief: Global cooperation is possible and beneficial. ​ Influences: Enlightenment ideals, Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points, Roosevelt’s post-WWII vision. ​ Main Features: ○​ Multilateralism: Cooperation via institutions like the UN, WTO. ○​ Democratic Peace Theory: Democracies less likely to go to war with each other. ○​ Economic Interdependence: Trade ties reduce incentive for war. ○​ Human Rights and Rule of Law: Upholding global norms and humanitarian values. ​ Modern Revival: ○​ Biden administration draws on Rooseveltian principles—emphasizes diplomacy, alliances, and global leadership. ​ Critiques: ○​ Too idealistic. ○​ Underestimates the role of power and conflict in global affairs. 4. Constructivism ​ Main Claim: International relations are socially constructed—norms, beliefs, identities shape outcomes. ​ Alexander Wendt: ○​ “Anarchy is what states make of it”—how states perceive each other (enemy, rival, friend) shapes international politics. ​ Cultures of Anarchy: ○​ Hobbesian: States see each other as enemies. ○​ Lockean: States as rivals, but violence constrained. ○​ Kantian: States as friends, emphasizing cooperation. ​ Social Facts vs. Material Facts: ○​ Institutions like sovereignty, balance of power exist because of shared beliefs, not objective truths. ​ Norms and Change: ○​ Norm entrepreneurs (e.g., activists, diplomats) can alter norms (e.g., abolition of slavery). ​ Securitization Theory: ○​ Issues become “security threats” when framed as existential dangers (e.g., terrorism, immigration), legitimizing extraordinary measures. 5. Marxism ​ Focus: Inequality and class struggle as the main drivers of politics. ​ Economic Base and Superstructure: ○​ Economic systems shape political and legal institutions. ​ Key Theories: ○​ World Systems Theory (Wallerstein): Core (rich) nations exploit the periphery (poor).  ○​ Dependency Theory: Global South is structurally disadvantaged—raw goods go north; value-added products return south. ​ Class Divisions: ○​ Urban: Capitalists vs. Workers. ○​ Rural: Landowners vs. Peasants. ​ Marxist IR Analysis: ○​ International conflict often reflects capitalist exploitation. ○​ U.S. foreign policy serves multinational corporate interests (e.g., United Fruit in Guatemala). ​ Limitations: ○​ Overly deterministic. ○​ Failed predictions (revolutions happened in agrarian societies). ○​ Weak policy recommendations (e.g., de-globalization often led to stagnation). 10. Globalization ​ Definition: The increasing interconnectedness of states and societies across political, economic, cultural, and technological dimensions. ​ Dimensions: ○​ Economic: Global trade, multinational corporations, global finance. ○​ Political: International institutions (UN, WTO), governance beyond the state. ○​ Cultural: Spread of ideas, media, values (Westernization vs. cultural hybridity). ○​ Technological: Internet, transportation, communication innovations. ​ Debates: ○​ Hyperglobalists: Believe globalization is eroding state power. ○​ Skeptics: Argue that globalization is overstated; states remain central. ○​ Transformationalists: Globalization is real but reshaping rather than replacing state power. ​ Impacts: ○​ Pros: Economic growth, cultural exchange, global cooperation. ○​ Cons: Inequality, environmental degradation, cultural homogenization. 11. Critical IR Theories ​ Purpose: Challenge mainstream theories like Realism and Liberalism by focusing on marginalization, inequality, and power structures. ​ Key Approaches: ○​ Feminism: Critiques masculine bias in IR; highlights roles and impacts on women. ○​ Postcolonialism: Examines the lasting impacts of colonialism on current global power relations. Thinkers: Edward Said, Frantz Fanon. ○​ Gramscian Theory: Cultural hegemony shapes global order—dominance through ideology. ○​ Critical Theory: Advocates emancipation and justice; rooted in Marxism and Frankfurt School.  ​ Key Concepts: ○​ Hegemony: Dominance through consent, not just coercion. ○​ Intersectionality: Interplay of race, gender, and class in global issues. ​ Contribution: Gives voice to underrepresented perspectives; promotes normative critique. 12. Historical Periods in IR ​ Colonialism & Empire: ○​ European domination of Africa, Asia, Americas. ○​ Spread of Western norms and economic exploitation. ​ World War I Causes: ○​ Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism, Nationalism (MAIN). ○​ Trigger: Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. ​ World War II Causes: ○​ Treaty of Versailles, fascist ideologies, expansionism. ​ Cold War (1947–1991): ○​ Bipolar world: USA (capitalism) vs. USSR (communism). ○​ Proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan), arms race, space race. ○​ Ends with collapse of USSR in 1991. ​ Post-Cold War Era: ○​ Unipolarity: US dominance. ○​ NATO expansion, liberal democracy promotion. ○​ Rise of China and resurgence of Russia challenge US hegemony. ​ Post-9/11 Era: ○​ War on Terror: Afghanistan, Iraq. ○​ Rise of ISIS, Arab Spring. ○​ Ongoing tensions with Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. 1. Realism ​ Focus: Describes politics as it exists, prioritizing power and security over ideals. ​ Core Assumptions: ○​ Human beings are naturally self-interested and desire power. ○​ The international system is anarchic—there’s no overarching authority. ○​ States are the most important actors and act to secure their survival. ​ Key Concepts: ○​ Security Dilemma: When one state increases security (e.g., by building arms), others feel threatened and respond, leading to potential conflict. ○​ Balance of Power: States form alliances to prevent any one from becoming too dominant. ○​ War and Rationality: War can be a rational means for states to secure national interest. ​ Foundational Thinkers: ○​ Thucydides: Peloponnesian War, power and fear as motivators.  ○​ Machiavelli: Better to be feared than loved; realpolitik. ○​ Hobbes: State of nature is violent without authority—parallels anarchy in IR. ○​ Mearsheimer: Prominent modern realist; advocates for power politics and strategic rivalry. 2. Neo-Realism (Structural Realism) ​ Developed by: Kenneth Waltz in Theory of International Politics (1979). ​ Difference from Classical Realism: Focuses on the international system’s structure rather than human nature. ​ Core Principles: ○​ Anarchy: No central global authority. ○​ States: Rational, unitary actors that seek survival. ○​ Self-Help: In an anarchic world, states rely on themselves for security. ○​ Relative Gains: States are concerned with how much they gain compared to others. ​ Types of Polarity: ○​ Multipolar: Many powerful states (e.g., pre-WWI); unstable. ○​ Bipolar: Two dominant powers (e.g., US vs. USSR in Cold War); more stable. ○​ Unipolar: One dominant power (e.g., post-Cold War US); hegemonic dominance. ​ Security Dilemma and Arms Races: ○​ Power accumulation threatens others, leading to mutual distrust. ​ Offensive Realism (Mearsheimer): ○​ States maximize power to become regional hegemons. ○​ US behavior post-1990s deviated from realism (e.g., NATO expansion, democracy promotion) and provoked rivals like China and Russia. 3. Liberal Internationalism ​ Core Belief: Global cooperation is possible and beneficial. ​ Influences: Enlightenment ideals, Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points, Roosevelt’s post-WWII vision. ​ Main Features: ○​ Multilateralism: Cooperation via institutions like the UN, WTO. ○​ Democratic Peace Theory: Democracies less likely to go to war with each other. ○​ Economic Interdependence: Trade ties reduce incentive for war. ○​ Human Rights and Rule of Law: Upholding global norms and humanitarian values. ​ Modern Revival: ○​ Biden administration draws on Rooseveltian principles—emphasizes diplomacy, alliances, and global leadership. ​ Critiques: ○​ Too idealistic. ○​ Underestimates the role of power and conflict in global affairs. 4. Constructivism ​ Main Claim: International relations are socially constructed—norms, beliefs, identities shape outcomes. ​ Alexander Wendt: ○​ “Anarchy is what states make of it”—how states perceive each other (enemy, rival, friend) shapes international politics. ​ Cultures of Anarchy: ○​ Hobbesian: States see each other as enemies. ○​ Lockean: States as rivals, but violence constrained. ○​ Kantian: States as friends, emphasizing cooperation. ​ Social Facts vs. Material Facts: ○​ Institutions like sovereignty, balance of power exist because of shared beliefs, not objective truths. ​ Norms and Change: ○​ Norm entrepreneurs (e.g., activists, diplomats) can alter norms (e.g., abolition of slavery). ​ Securitization Theory: ○​ Issues become “security threats” when framed as existential dangers (e.g., terrorism, immigration), legitimizing extraordinary measures. 5. Marxism ​ Focus: Inequality and class struggle as the main drivers of politics. ​ Economic Base and Superstructure: ○​ Economic systems shape political and legal institutions. ​ Key Theories: ○​ World Systems Theory (Wallerstein): Core (rich) nations exploit the periphery (poor). ○​ Dependency Theory: Global South is structurally disadvantaged—raw goods go north; value-added products return south. ​ Class Divisions: ○​ Urban: Capitalists vs. Workers. ○​ Rural: Landowners vs. Peasants. ​ Marxist IR Analysis: ○​ International conflict often reflects capitalist exploitation. ○​ U.S. foreign policy serves multinational corporate interests (e.g., United Fruit in Guatemala). ​ Limitations: ○​ Overly deterministic. ○​ Failed predictions (revolutions happened in agrarian societies). ○​ Weak policy recommendations (e.g., de-globalization often led to stagnation). 6. Rationalism  ​ Core Idea: States are rational actors seeking to maximize utility in an anarchic system. ​ Key Theories: ○​ Rational Actor Model: States make calculated decisions by evaluating costs and benefits. ○​ Expected Utility Theory: War occurs when expected benefits outweigh costs. ○​ Information Asymmetry: Misunderstandings and misperceptions can lead to conflict. ○​ Commitment Problems: Inability to trust future compliance can push states into preventive war. ​ Strategic Tools: ○​ Game Theory: Models like brinkmanship and chicken explain decision-making under threat. ○​ Deterrence: Using the threat of retaliation to prevent attacks. ​ Critique: ○​ Assumes perfect rationality; overlooks emotions, ideology, identity, and misperceptions. 7. International Law ​ Definition: Rules and norms governing state behavior, recognized as binding. ​ Sources: ○​ Customary Law: Practices accepted as law. ○​ Treaties: Formal agreements (e.g., UN Charter). ○​ Natural Law: Morality-based principles (e.g., Grotius). ​ Institutions: ○​ ICJ: Settles disputes between states. ○​ ICC: Tries individuals for war crimes, genocide. ​ Enforcement Mechanisms: ○​ Reputation, reciprocity, and norm internalization. ○​ No centralized enforcer; relies on voluntary compliance. ​ Laws of War: ○​ Jus ad bellum: Justifications for going to war. ○​ Jus in bello: Conduct in war—proportionality, civilian protection. 8. Human Rights & Humanitarian Intervention ​ Human Rights: ○​ 1st Generation: Civil/political (e.g., speech, religion). ○​ 2nd Generation: Economic/social (e.g., education, health). ○​ 3rd Generation: Collective rights (e.g., development, peace). ​ Key Documents: UDHR (1948), ICCPR, ICESCR. ​ Intervention: ○​ Use of force to prevent atrocities. ○​ R2P (Responsibility to Protect): States must protect populations; if they fail, international community can intervene.  ​ Debates: ○​ Universalism vs. Cultural Relativism. ○​ Legal vs. Moral Justifications. ○​ Selectivity and abuse of humanitarian interventions. 9. Nationalism ​ Definition: Belief that the nation should govern itself and act in its interest. ​ Core Tenets: ○​ Nation and state should be congruent. ○​ National interest should guide policy. ​ Positive Aspects: ○​ Promotes democracy, unity, and social programs. ○​ Historically led to decolonization and self-determination. ​ Negative Aspects: ○​ Can promote exclusion, xenophobia, and violence (e.g., ethnic cleansing). ○​ Conflicts with cosmopolitanism and international cooperation. ​ Inclusive vs. Exclusive Nationalism: ○​ Inclusive: Based on shared civic values. ○​ Exclusive: Based on ethnicity or heritage. ​ Contemporary Relevance: ○​ Resurgence in populism and anti-immigrant rhetoric. ○​ Debate over its compatibility with globalization and liberal democracy. 1. To what extent has globalization reshaped the international system? Sample Answer: Globalization has significantly reshaped the international system by increasing economic, political, and cultural interconnectedness. While realists argue that the state remains the dominant actor, globalization has blurred the lines between domestic and international politics. Transnational actors—such as NGOs, multinational corporations, and international organizations—play increasingly influential roles. Hyperglobalists argue it undermines state sovereignty, while skeptics believe states still drive the process. Transformationalists contend that globalization has led to complex governance beyond the state, including global regimes and norms. Globalization has also intensified issues like climate change, migration, and inequality, requiring cooperative responses that challenge the traditional state-centric Westphalian model. 2. How does Constructivism differ from Realism and Liberalism in explaining international relations? Sample Answer: Constructivism differs from Realism and Liberalism by emphasizing the importance of ideas, identities, and norms in shaping international relations. While Realism focuses on power politics in an anarchic system, and Liberalism highlights cooperation and institutions, Constructivism argues that the international system is socially constructed. Key concepts like sovereignty, anarchy, and security are not objective realities but shaped by collective beliefs and social interactions. Alexander Wendt’s famous phrase—“anarchy is what states make of it”—illustrates this view. Constructivism allows for change in the system through shifts in identity and norms, offering a more flexible and human-centered approach to global politics. 3. Are humanitarian interventions a violation of state sovereignty or a moral necessity? Sample Answer: Humanitarian interventions sit at the contentious intersection of sovereignty and moral responsibility. Critics argue that interventions, especially those without UN Security Council authorization, violate the principle of non-intervention enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. They caution that such actions may be selective, politically motivated, and destabilizing. However, proponents claim that when a state commits mass atrocities or fails to protect its citizens, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine justifies intervention to uphold human rights and prevent genocide. Interventions in Kosovo (1999) and Libya (2011) reflect this rationale. Thus, while sovereignty is a core principle, it is not absolute when human lives are at stake. 4. In what ways do feminist and post-colonial theories challenge mainstream IR? Sample Answer: Feminist and post-colonial theories challenge mainstream IR by exposing its biases and blind spots. Feminist IR critiques the male-dominated perspectives of Realism and Liberalism, arguing they ignore how gender roles and patriarchal structures shape international politics. Issues like sexual violence in conflict, economic exploitation of women, and gendered conceptions of power are brought to the forefront. Post-colonial theory critiques Eurocentrism and the legacy of imperialism in IR, highlighting how race, colonialism, and power asymmetries have structured global relations. Scholars like Edward Said and Frantz Fanon emphasize the need to deconstruct dominant narratives and include voices from the Global South. Together, these approaches advocate for a more inclusive, just, and representative understanding of world politics. 5. Why do states comply with international law despite the absence of a global enforcer? Sample Answer: States comply with international law due to a combination of legal obligation, self-interest, and normative pressure. Although international law lacks a centralized enforcer, states often follow it to maintain reputation, avoid retaliation, and ensure reciprocity. Institutions like the ICJ and ICC provide mechanisms for dispute resolution and accountability. Moreover, international law helps create predictability and order in international relations, reducing the risk of conflict. Constructivist scholars argue that compliance is also driven by internalized norms and legitimacy—states follow rules not only because of external pressure but because they see them as appropriate and just. Thus, while enforcement may be weak, the system relies on voluntary adherence reinforced by social, political, and legal incentives. 1. To what extent has globalization reshaped the international system? Sample Answer: Globalization has significantly reshaped the international system by increasing economic, political, and cultural interconnectedness. While realists argue that the state remains the dominant actor, globalization has blurred the lines between domestic and international politics. Transnational actors—such as NGOs, multinational corporations, and international organizations—play increasingly influential roles. Hyperglobalists argue it undermines state sovereignty, while skeptics believe states still drive the process. Transformationalists contend that globalization has led to complex governance beyond the state, including global regimes and norms. Globalization has also intensified issues like climate change, migration, and inequality, requiring cooperative responses that challenge the traditional state-centric Westphalian model. 2. How does Constructivism differ from Realism and Liberalism in explaining international relations? Sample Answer: Constructivism differs from Realism and Liberalism by emphasizing the importance of ideas, identities, and norms in shaping international relations. While Realism focuses on power politics in an anarchic system, and Liberalism highlights cooperation and institutions, Constructivism argues that the international system is socially constructed. Key concepts like sovereignty, anarchy, and security are not objective realities but shaped by collective beliefs and social interactions. Alexander Wendt’s famous phrase—“anarchy is what states make of it”—illustrates this view. Constructivism allows for change in the system through shifts in identity and norms, offering a more flexible and human-centered approach to global politics. 3. Are humanitarian interventions a violation of state sovereignty or a moral necessity? Sample Answer: Humanitarian interventions sit at the contentious intersection of sovereignty and moral responsibility. Critics argue that interventions, especially those without UN Security Council authorization, violate the principle of non-intervention enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. They caution that such actions may be selective, politically motivated, and destabilizing. However, proponents claim that when a state commits mass atrocities or fails to protect its citizens, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine justifies intervention to uphold human rights and prevent genocide. Interventions in Kosovo (1999) and Libya (2011) reflect this rationale. Thus, while sovereignty is a core principle, it is not absolute when human lives are at stake. 4. In what ways do feminist and post-colonial theories challenge mainstream IR? Sample Answer: Feminist and post-colonial theories challenge mainstream IR by exposing its biases and blind spots. Feminist IR critiques the male-dominated perspectives of Realism and Liberalism, arguing they ignore how gender roles and patriarchal structures shape international politics. Issues like sexual violence in conflict, economic exploitation of women, and gendered conceptions of power are brought to the forefront. Post-colonial theory critiques Eurocentrism and the legacy of imperialism in IR, highlighting how race, colonialism, and power asymmetries have structured global relations. Scholars like Edward Said and Frantz Fanon emphasize the need to deconstruct dominant narratives and include voices from the Global South. Together, these approaches advocate for a more inclusive, just, and representative understanding of world politics. 5. Why do states comply with international law despite the absence of a global enforcer? Sample Answer: States comply with international law due to a combination of legal obligation, self-interest, and normative pressure. Although international law lacks a centralized enforcer, states often follow it to maintain reputation, avoid retaliation, and ensure reciprocity. Institutions like the ICJ and ICC provide mechanisms for dispute resolution and accountability. Moreover, international law helps create predictability and order in international relations, reducing the risk of conflict. Constructivist scholars argue that compliance is also driven by internalized norms and legitimacy—states follow rules not only because of external pressure but because they see them as appropriate and just. Thus, while enforcement may be weak, the system relies on voluntary adherence reinforced by social, political, and legal incentives. 6. How do power and structure shape global inequality? Sample Answer: Global inequality is deeply influenced by power dynamics and structural arrangements in the international system. Structural theories, such as Marxism and Dependency Theory, argue that global capitalism perpetuates a core-periphery divide, where wealthy countries exploit poorer ones through unequal trade, investment, and debt relationships. Institutions like the IMF and World Bank have promoted neoliberal reforms (e.g., Structural Adjustment Programs) that often exacerbate inequality by cutting social spending and encouraging privatization. Critical theorists argue that global norms and discourses legitimize these structures, maintaining Western dominance. Addressing inequality thus requires rethinking global power arrangements and promoting fairer development models grounded in human rights, sustainability, and local empowerment. 7. Does the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) represent progress in international relations? Sample Answer: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) represents both progress and ongoing challenges in international relations. It emerged in response to the failures to prevent atrocities in Rwanda and the Balkans and was endorsed at the 2005 World Summit. R2P redefines sovereignty as responsibility, emphasizing that the international community must act if states fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. It includes preventive, reactive, and rebuilding responsibilities. However, implementation remains inconsistent and politically selective. Cases like Libya (2011) show potential, but inaction in Syria and Yemen reveals gaps. Despite its flaws, R2P institutionalizes a moral obligation that marks progress toward prioritizing human security in global governance. Key IR Theories – Summary: ​ Realism: States are rational, self-interested actors in an anarchic system; power = survival ​ Liberalism: Cooperation is possible via institutions, trade, democracy ​ Constructivism: Norms, identities, and ideas construct international reality ​ Marxism: Class struggle and global capitalism explain inequality ​ Feminism: Focus on gendered power structures and women's exclusion ​ Post-colonialism: Critique of Eurocentrism and imperial legacies 2. Concepts of Sovereignty and Anarchy: ​ Sovereignty: Ultimate authority within a state; no external interference ​ Anarchy: Lack of a central authority in global politics – does not always mean chaos 3. Types of Power: ​ Hard Power: Military and economic coercion ​ Soft Power: Cultural appeal, diplomacy, persuasion ​ Structural Power: Ability to shape norms and institutions 4. Globalization – 3 Positions: ​ Hyperglobalists: Globalization is real and transformative ​ Skeptics: Globalization is exaggerated; states still matter most ​ Transformationalists: Globalization reshapes power, but unevenly 5. Human Security vs. Traditional Security: ​ Traditional: Focus on state protection from external threats ​ Human: Focus on individuals and threats like poverty, disease, violence 6. Three Generations of Human Rights:  ​ First Gen: Civil & political (freedom of speech, voting) ​ Second Gen: Economic, social, cultural (education, health, housing) ​ Third Gen: Collective/solidarity (development, clean environment) 7. R2P (Responsibility to Protect) – Key Pillars: 1.​ States must protect their populations 2.​ International community should assist 3.​ If state fails, others must intervene (preferably via UN) 8. Just War Theory – Two Key Parts: ​ Jus ad bellum: Justification for going to war (e.g., just cause, last resort) ​ Jus in bello: Just conduct during war (e.g., proportionality, discrimination) 9. Global Institutions: ​ UN: Peacekeeping, human rights, development ​ ICJ: Resolves state disputes ​ ICC: Prosecutes individuals for war crimes, genocide ​ World Bank & IMF: Economic aid and structural adjustment 10. Development Perspectives: ​ Orthodox: GDP growth = development; top-down approach ​ Alternative: Focus on grassroots, human development, sustainability 11. Colonialism & IR: ​ IR theories often ignore colonial legacies ​ Post-colonial theory exposes racial hierarchies and Western dominance 12. Feminist Contributions: ​ IR is gendered ​ Women’s experiences (e.g., in war, economy) often ignored ​ Push for redefinition of security and power 1. Key IR Theories – Summary: ​ Realism: States are rational, self-interested actors in an anarchic system. Focus on survival, balance of power, security dilemma, and zero-sum competition. ​ Liberalism: Believes in cooperation through institutions (UN, WTO), economic interdependence, democracy, and rule of law. Peace is possible. ​ Constructivism: Norms, identities, and shared ideas shape international relations. Anarchy and power are socially constructed. Key phrase: “Anarchy is what states make of it.”  ​ Marxism: International system is structured by capitalism. Global North exploits Global South. Emphasizes class struggle and economic dependence (core-periphery). ​ Feminism: Highlights how international politics is gendered. Critiques the exclusion of women, gender-based violence in war, and masculine conceptions of power/security. ​ Post-colonialism: Analyzes legacy of empire and racism. Challenges Eurocentric narratives. Highlights how colonial structures still influence world politics. 2. Sovereignty & Anarchy: ​ Sovereignty (Westphalian model): States have supreme authority within borders. ​ Anarchy: No higher authority above states → self-help system → causes insecurity (Realist view) 3. Types of Power: ​ Hard Power: Military force, economic sanctions ​ Soft Power: Attractiveness of culture, values, diplomacy (Nye) ​ Smart Power: Combining hard and soft power ​ Structural Power: Ability to shape frameworks, norms, rules (Susan Strange) 4. Globalization – Key Arguments: ​ Hyperglobalists: Globalization is real; power of states is eroding ​ Skeptics: Globalization is overstated; states are still dominant ​ Transformationalists: Globalization is reshaping state authority and creating new power dynamics 5. Human Security vs. Traditional Security: ​ Traditional: Prioritizes state security (military, borders) ​ Human: Focus on individuals (food, health, environment, personal safety) 6. Generations of Human Rights: ​ 1st Gen: Liberty rights – freedom of speech, religion, political participation ​ 2nd Gen: Welfare rights – education, healthcare, work ​ 3rd Gen: Collective rights – development, peace, clean environment 7. R2P (Responsibility to Protect): ​ Adopted in 2005 World Summit (UN GA) ​ Pillars: 1.​ State must protect citizens from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity 2.​ International community must help them do so 3.​ If state fails, international intervention (preferably UN-approved) is justified  ​ Controversial: Libya used R2P, but Syria didn’t get same attention → shows selectivity 8. Just War Theory: ​ Jus ad bellum (Before war): ○​ Just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, last resort, probability of success, proportionality ​ Jus in bello (During war): ○​ Proportionality, discrimination (protect civilians), humane treatment of prisoners 9. Global Institutions & International Law: ​ UN: Maintains international peace & security, promotes human rights ​ ICJ: Resolves disputes between states (UN organ; voluntary jurisdiction) ​ ICC: Tries individuals for serious crimes (Rome Statute) ​ IMF & World Bank: Provide loans; often require neoliberal reforms (SAPs) ​ Sources of Intl. Law: Treaties, customary law, general principles, judicial decisions ​ Pacta sunt servanda: Agreements must be kept 10. Development – Competing Views: ​ Orthodox: Top-down, GDP-focused, Rostow’s stages ​ Alternative: Bottom-up, participatory, focused on basic human needs, sustainability ​ Human Development Index (HDI): Combines income, education, and health ​ SAPS: Structural Adjustment Programs → privatization, austerity → often worsened inequality 11. Colonialism in IR: ​ Post-colonial critiques: IR theory emerged in Western context, often ignored colonial history ​ Edward Said – Orientalism: West created image of the East as inferior ​ IR must account for historical power imbalances and racism 12. Feminism – What to Know: ​ Gender shapes IR theory and practice ​ Patriarchy is embedded in the concepts of power and security ​ Feminists ask: Where are the women? How does war affect them differently? ​ Types: Liberal feminism (equal rights), Marxist feminism (class/gender), Post-colonial feminism (race/gender) STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES OF KEY IR THEORIES 1. Realism  ​ Strengths: ○​ Explains conflict, power politics, and security dilemmas effectively ○​ Accounts for the persistence of war and competition ○​ Emphasizes the importance of state sovereignty ​ Weaknesses: ○​ Neglects the role of non-state actors and institutions ○​ Overly pessimistic about cooperation ○​ Ignores internal politics and identity 2. Liberalism ​ Strengths: ○​ Explains the role of institutions (e.g., UN, WTO) in fostering peace ○​ Highlights democracy and economic interdependence ○​ Supports global governance ​ Weaknesses: ○​ Can be overly idealistic ○​ Underestimates conflict and power struggles ○​ Assumes states will act rationally in all situations 3. Constructivism ​ Strengths: ○​ Emphasizes the power of ideas, identity, and norms ○​ Explains change in the international system ○​ Recognizes social construction of key concepts (e.g., anarchy, sovereignty) ​ Weaknesses: ○​ Less predictive; difficult to test empirically ○​ Lacks a unified methodology ○​ Sometimes vague in identifying causality 4. Marxism ​ Strengths: ○​ Highlights economic inequality and exploitation ○​ Connects domestic class relations to global power ○​ Critiques capitalism and imperialism effectively ​ Weaknesses: ○​ Overly deterministic ○​ Downplays agency and diversity of global South states ○​ Often dismisses the potential of international institutions 5. Feminism ​ Strengths: ○​ Exposes gender bias in IR theories and institutions  ○​ Includes marginalized voices (e.g., women in war, caregiving) ○​ Challenges militarized and masculine definitions of security ​ Weaknesses: ○​ Not always seen as mainstream ○​ Difficult to generalize due to internal diversity (liberal, radical, post-colonial, etc.) 6. Post-colonialism ​ Strengths: ○​ Deconstructs Eurocentric narratives ○​ Highlights historical injustices and racial hierarchies ○​ Adds voices from colonized and marginalized communities ​ Weaknesses: ○​ Can be overly critical without clear alternatives ○​ Less focused on policy application ○​ Sometimes lacks empirical grounding