Fassi Appunti 40 pagine en-part-1.pdf

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Relations Catholic University of the Sacred Heart - Brescia (UCSC BS) 42 pp. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Prof. Fassi Enrico (GRIECO CAP 1-6,8,10 and PARSI...

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Relations Catholic University of the Sacred Heart - Brescia (UCSC BS) 42 pp. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Prof. Fassi Enrico (GRIECO CAP 1-6,8,10 and PARSI CAP 2-3-4-5-6-8) First test in January-February cross-tabulations and short answers, Second test in June. Culture is in some ways more important than nationality. New visions of the world map. (Asia at the centre, true continent size, population, climate change) Five important theoretical traditions: Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, Marxism and Feminism. They are lenses for seeing reality and are not mutually exclusive. REALISM (Billiard balls model) looks at international relations as politics between states, hence inter-state relations. LIBERALISM (Cobweb model) views international relations as a network between state and non-state actors. THE STATE: It is the leading actor in international relations. They are political units that have three specific characteristics: people, sovereignty (monopoly legitimate violence) and territory. In international politics, states pursue interest-based objectives by combining different policy instruments into a coherent strategy. NATION: community of individuals sharing certain characteristics such as language, history, culture, ethnicity, etc. State and nation do not always coincide, there may be states that contain more than one nationality and therefore nations that do not have a state (e.g. Kurdistan and Palestine). The state is a historical institution, born in Europe in the 17th century with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. "Failed states is a case of extreme weakness leading to a more or less complete collapse of the internal order. (E.g. Somalia, Sudan, etc.). LEVELS OF ANALYSIS 1. Individual level (man) Individual actors 2. Collective level (the State) State actors (e.g. democracies/authoritarianism, territory, etc.) 3. System level (the system) also Non-state actors (the bipolar system for example) Kenneth Waltz: Men, the state and war (1959) What does explain wars? Where to look for explanation? 1stImage: Man 2ndImage: The State 3rdImage: The System Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) THE SYSTEM OF STATES GLOBAL SYSTEM OF STATES FROM 1500 TO THE PRESENT EMPIRES in the 1500s: Vast territories, several peoples/nations/languages and only one ruler. They had little contact with other empires, the only relations were through war. EUROPE IN THE 1500S The dynastic states in Europe, on the other hand, were in constant contact, unlike the empires around the world. • Feudalism (diffuse sovereignty): Crown, nobility, vassals and peasants/servants • Holy Roman Empire (sovereignty to the emperor) : Created with the coronation of Charlemagne, supported by the pope to unite Christendom. • The wars within these two systems led to the birth of the modern system of states with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, following the Thirty Years' War (the first European continental war) MUTUAL RECOGNISATION OF ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY. International law and the balance of power was born, which works very well at the European level. MAPS OF EUROPE IN 1600-1800-1900-PRESENT DAY MEDIEVAL SYSTEM IN EUROPE • There is no clear monopoly of violence • There are no territories with exclusive jurisdiction • There are no defined boundaries • A sense of NATION is missing: multiple and overlapping memberships. FROM THE MIDDLE AGES TO THE SYSTEM OF STATES • Concentration of power in the hands of the KING. • Depersonalisation of power • Monopoly of the legitimate use of force. • Defined boundaries and absolute jurisdiction. • Taxes to build armies (mercenary armies disappear) WITH THE CREATION OF STATES, THE PROBLEM OF SECURITY SHIFTED FROM THE DOMESTIC TO THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL (ANARCHIC STATE SYSTEM). EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM: 1500-1900, Competition between European states for control of ever new territories. The drive for colonialism stems from the doctrine of MERCANTILISM: • For states to consolidate, they must increase power • Power depends on wealth • Wealth depends on raw materials and their availability is fixed • So mercantilism pushed states to follow imperialism, i.e. the conquest of foreign territories to establish colonies there. WHY EUROPE IMPOSES ITSELF ON THE WORLD: 1. Military supremacy 2. Economic supremacy 3. States, machines used to war 4. Geographical location, climate and diseases. From WWI to the Cold War: Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) The year 1900 opens with Europe at the centre of the world. Until then, there was the balance of power (equilibrium policy), pursued mainly by the United Kingdom, which meant that as soon as one state on the continent tried to prevail over the others, alliances were immediately formed to counter its expansion (even alliances between ideologically opposing systems). The Concert of Europe was also established for this purpose, where ING,FRA,PRU,AUS,RUS tried to agree peacefully to settle their differences. WWI: 1. Security dilemma (related to alliances), stems from the fact that in an anarchic system (no authorities superior to the state) other states cannot be trusted, every action of the other state will be perceived in the worst possible way. This leads to a continuous arms race, which has a snowball effect on all other states. Problem of alliances before the outbreak of war (which increases insecurity and negative perceptions of the outbreak of war) 2. Optimism and miscalculations: the Schlieffen plan. Because they had got the wrong idea about war accustomed to colonialism where wars were quick and with few casualties. 3. A local crisis out of control: from the Balkan Wars to the World War. 14 Points of Wilson: Self-determination of peoples Treaty of Versailles: • Punishments Germany • Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire • Creation of new states in Eastern Europe (Poland, Lithuania, etc.). Number efforts to establish lasting peace after WWI: (peace as a public good: for all and of all) League of Nations: first attempt at collective security. 1925 Locarno Accords: to resolve border tensions. 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact: legal elimination of war (ILLEGAL), states sign a document where war can no longer be pursued to resolve international conflicts. Economic cooperation: trade returns to pre-ww1 levels WW2 Causes: 1929 U.S. stock market crisis -> Great Depression. Birth of dictatorial regimes in Italy,Germany,Japan and the USSR from 1920-1930. Ineffective League of Nations. (USA is not a member) Failure of appeasement strategies towards Hitler. Breakthrough moments: Hitler's decision to attack the USSR (Operation Barbarossa) Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbour. Conclusion of the War: Conquest of Berlin, April-May 1945 Resa Japan, launch of the two atomic bombs, move to show its power to the USSR Yalta Conference in 1944, the future of Europe is decided. The international system began to show the pre-eminence of two actors: the USA and the USSR. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) THE COLD WAR SYSTEM, THE MAIN FEATURES: 1. BIPOLAR; how power is distributed internationally (Multipolar, Bipolar and Unipolar), two blocs US and USSR. 2. GLOBAL; because while the material and intellectual origins are European, it is ideologies all over the planet (CAPITALISM vs. COMMUNISM) that clash, through alliances (NATO and the WARSAW PACT), political influences towards other states and aid towards rebels/liberation movements. 3. DISOMOGENEOUS; due to the presence of different ideologies (CAPITALISM-COMUNISM) can also be homogeneous if they have the same ideology. 4. LOCKED; i.e. that war is not possible, because of the balance of terror due to the nuclear arsenal, which is different from other weapons because it is not possible to calibrate action and reaction to achieve the political objective we want, i.e. the certainty of mutual destruction (M.A.D. Mutually assured destruction) so it could not be used. 5. SUSPENDED SOVEREIGNTY; Sovereignty is suspended for all other superpowers except the US and USSR, which were the only two to have political control of a possible all-out war. The only conflicts were with proxy wars (e.g. Vietnam and Afghanistan). They only intervene to prevent a local war from escalating into a global war. Suspended sovereignty remains until the end of the Cold War and states take possession of it once it is over. THE COLD WAR AS SEEN FROM THE THIRD WORLD Beginning of decolonisation after World War II, during the context of the Cold War, due to: European weakness (after the two world wars) Anti-Western nationalism (Europe brings to the colonies the nationalistic notion that power can only be had with full autonomy) The new states are poor, weak but very numerous, and this counts a lot for their representative presence within the UN, which becomes their forum for dialogue. International 'Third World' activism The NAM, or Non-aligned Movement, was born in 1955. Other political-economic initiatives: o G-77 (developing countries in the UN as one group) o UNCTAD (United Nation Conference Trade And Development), which contrasted the Bretton-Woods system (formerly the GATT system). Because Third World countries could not adopt a system like Bretton-Woods, based on high capital, they created UNCTAD based on commodities. o OPEC (Organisation Petroil export Country) these countries create an organisation, which is nothing more than a cartel, to manage oil together and keep prices constant. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) o Also an instrument of power, the Arab-Israeli Kippur War in the 1970s. NIEO (New International Economic Order) stems from the call for reform of the international economic order, because these countries identify the causes of underdevelopment as the prosperity of the industrialised countries. There are two economic reasons why some countries break away from the NIEO: oilproducing countries become rich and have resource abundance problems, on the other hand some countries are brought to be integrated into the needs of the international economy (South Korea and Taiwan). That they no longer want to change the international economic system at this point, but on the contrary to fit more and more into it. THE END OF THE COLD WAR It took place in 1989, symbolising the fall of the Berlin Wall, and there are four types of explanation: 1. DOMESTIC EXPLANATION (2ND LEVEL ANALYSIS) due to Gorbachev's policies, namely: a. Perestroika (economic restructuring, small market liberalisation) and b. Glasnost (Political Transparency), too radical policies that got out of hand. 2. EXTERNAL EXPLANATION (2ND LEVEL ANALYSIS), due to Reagan's policies, which increased spending on rearmament to undermine the Soviet economic system, SDI, Strategic Defense Initiative and increased pressure in 'proxy conflicts'. proxy wars, such as Angola, Cambodia, Nicaragua and Afghanistan. 3. LEADER-BASED EXPLANATION (1ST LEVEL ANALYSIS), looks at the nature of the two leaders, especially the understanding between Reagan and Gorbachev through: a. diplomacy of the summits, they never miss a chance to show the world how they cooperate, which had a great impact on public opinion in their respective countries, the Cold War in fact seemed to be over for the two leaders and this led to the real end. 4. SOCIETY-BASED EXPLANATION (3RD LEVEL ANALYSIS), There are two theories: o Interdependence: economic, social, cultural... o Peace movements: Nuclear freeze movement, Physicians for social responsibility (Pugwash Conference, to manage technology requires technical advice from states, these physicists get together to reduce the use of nuclear power) CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL ORDER What are the characteristics of the new order? Unipolar? Not known precisely, perhaps a new US-China bipolarity Global?/Regional? One global power or one power controlling a regional area Nuclear weapons/terrorism? Many states have nuclear weapons but we have no guarantee of their rational use. Homogeneous? Different models of capitalism Full sovereignty? Yes Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) THE THEORETICAL SCHOOLS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Book:Theories and Methods of International Relations CHAPTER 1 'International relations: the name and the thing'. First Chair of the R.I. Created at the University College of Wales in 1919 by David Davies in honour of Woodrow Wilson, it was based on the convention of liberalism (called 'idealism' by detractors, since attempts at peace failed). They believed they could avoid war through the study of international politics. Carr, a critic of liberalism, criticises Wilson for his attempts, since for him war is ineradicable. After 1945, the dominant school became realism, relying solely on the model of anarchy to explain behaviour between states. It lasts to the present day. The other major historical shift is the shift in discipline from the European perspective to that of the United States, as they found themselves leading the free world, so they invested in figuring out how to improve their international policy. The other disciplines that develop arise as the antithesis of realism. In the early 1960s there is an attempt at a European perspective given by the English school, born of a group of scholars who propose a third way between liberalism and realism, it posits the idea that international politics functions on the basis of unwritten norms (principles) of which little remains in the realist analysis, there is a social dimension to international politics, given by the anarchic system, saying that one should speak of an anarchic society, where states despite the anarchy have basic principles that they respect. (They try to understand what is scientific in international relations) In the 1970s, there was a high rate of cooperation between states (European communities), something that realism could not explain with the anarchist model (e.g. NATO with the US in charge of Europe), to understand this situation, liberals introduced the concept of Interdependence Liberalism, in which institutions change the perspective and increase cooperation between states, international institutions and organisations are therefore fundamental to changing the actions of states. In the mid-1970s, IPE (international political economy) was born, bringing together international politics and economics, which according to this theory is fundamental to understanding international relations. Within this, we find the contribution of Marxist theories, which in those years seemed to explain the problem of underdevelopment, saying that it was the result of a specific system, which favoured the countries of the 'centre' over the 'periphery'. In 1979, a split occurred within the realist discipline with Kenneth Waltz's book 'Theory of International Politics'. It takes realism and transforms it into neo-realism, in fact it tries to produce a truly scientific approach to international relations (it was not before), a methodological-scientific approach. The challenge went beyond the realms of realism and neo-liberalism was born, i.e. the liberal response to Waltz's challenge to take the scientific method and bring it to liberal methods. The period of the 1980s is called the neo-neo-consensus, methodological-scientific, as both realism and liberalism coordinate. The fall of the wall in 1989 had a great effect on the theories of international relations. In fact, a whole series of approaches emerged criticising the discipline itself for not having been able to predict the end of the bipolar system, and by now the two approaches would have had nothing more to say from here on. The theories of Constructivism, Critical Theory, and Neo-Colonialism were born, which have two things in common: 1. Methodological approach, the idea that international politics cannot only be studied with a positivist approach. 2. The issue of identity is fundamental in the clash of political systems. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) THE VARIOUS PROTAGONISTS OF THE THEORIES Liberalism and Neo-liberalism: Angell 'The Great Illusion the illusion is that war can bring economic benefits Bull 'the anarchist society', Keohane 'after hegemony' what happens to international cooperation if the US goes into decline? Start of nuclear non-proliferation treaties, end of the Bretton- Woods system with the centrality of the dollar. Institutions survive the decline of the hegemon. Ikenberry 'after victory' what happens if the bipolar system fails? What does the hegemonic system do? It has to integrate the other institutions into Western institutions and rules. Realism and Neo-realism: Hans Morgentau 'politics among nations', Waltz 'theory of international politics', Mearsheimer, 'the tragedy of the great powers', says that war is bound to return, as sooner or later a state will come to challenge the hegemonic power. Constructivism: Wendt 'social theory of international politics', takes Waltz's book as an example, saying that it lacked the adjective 'social', which makes a lot of difference, moving away from realist theory. THE GREAT DEBATES BETWEEN THEORIES, WHICH DETERMINE THE HUBS OF THE DISCIPLINES: 1. Between 1930 and 1950, Utopian Liberalism (Idealism) vs. Realism. 2. Between 1950 and 1960, Traditional approaches vs Behaviourism (behaviourism, says that in analysing politics we can only focus on what is observable) 3. In the 1980s, Neorealism and neoliberalism (neo-neo-consensus) vs. neo-Marxism. 4. After '89, Mainstream approaches vs. post-positivism. DEBATE 1: UTOPIAN LIBERALISM VS. REALISM The creation of the liberalist doctrine as a consequence of WW1: Preventing a repeat of the war. War is limitable, avoidable, eliminable. Angell 'The great illusion Illusion: that war can bring profits Thesis: war is costly economically and politically. War is irrational (rational citizen, non-rational state) So for the Liberal Perspective: Individuals are rational Wilson: Liberal Thought and Action War caused by undemocratic regimes Rigid alliance systems that dragged democratic states into war (the balance of power norm is obsolete, superseded by a collective security instrument: society of nations) Perceptions and misconceptions of leaders Its aim is to promote democracy throughout the world (US role after the war) Edward Carr criticises liberalism with book 'crisis of the twenties' Liberalism has a distorted, utopian vision of international relations No harmony of interests: with different interests inevitable conflict Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) International relations involve more conflict than cooperation In this first debate, the clear winner is Realism, which takes hold as the dominant doctrine. (NEO)CLASSICAL REALISM (POLITICAL REALISM) It starts with Hans Morgenthau's book Politics Among Nations, 1948. Man is understood as a 'political animal' (Aristotle), his nature is the pursuit of power: 'animus dominandi' (Not related as Aristotle said to the Res Publica). ETHICS (political): political sphere separated from the private sphere and characterised by its own criteria. We must adopt a political ethics as Thucydides said: o disparity in strength (more powers Athens, Sparta, Persia) o inevitable competition (Between the city states and Persia) o inevitable inequality Implications: o Submission to the strongest (natural law: depends on the power of constraint) INDEPENDENT STATE: The search for a political space to act autonomously is the prerequisite for remaining free (the state's number one goal, to maintain its autonomy). Macchiavelli, in The Prince, writes about the international system of the time (danger but with opportunity), Strength (Leo) and cunning (Fox) important for foreign policy, the supreme political value is independence, the ethic to be followed is political (not that of faith, humanity, etc.). ANARCHICAL CONTEXT: characterised by conflict between states. Hobbes (The Leviathan), State of nature characterised by anarchy -> State created by contract with the Sovereign. (The problem shifts from internal to external-> between states -> cannot be brought to a supra-state level because if states surrender their sovereignty they are no longer states). For states, anarchy is sustainable, compared to individuals, because they are more complex organisms. PRESCRIPTIVE INDICATIONS: Prudence, restraint, decisiveness and courage. SIX PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL REALISM: 1. Politics is rooted in human nature: egocentrism and self-love 2. Politics is an autonomous sphere 3. Each individual is primarily interested in his own security: politics is the clash of interests. 4. The ethics of international relations is a situational ethics of political responsibility. 5. Not chasing ideologies (unlike liberalism) 6. Realist' analysis, based on an awareness of the limits of human nature. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) NEO-REALISM Originates with Kenneth Waltz (International Political Theory,1979) and J.Mearsheimer Waltz wrote 'Men, the State and War' in 1959, dividing explanations of war into three categories of analysis: The man (e.g. Hitler) The State (e.g. post-WW1 Germany) The System (e.g. International Time System) Lacking according to Waltz are theories concerning the third category of analysis, which he finds with the second book, theory of international politics: I t attempts to provide a scientific explanation of international politics. Takes some elements of Political Realism: independent states living in international anarchy. It does not take up political ethics. Explanatory approach influenced by economic models (the state always seeks to maximise its utility, as individuals do) SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: o States behave in certain recurring and predictable ways. o States have no choice if they want to survive in anarchy (determinism) NEOREALISM= STRUCTURAL REALISM Focus on the STRUCTURE of the international system. DOMESTIC Authorising principle Hierarchical Functional differentiation High Capacity distribution Uneven INTERNATIONAL Anarchist Absent Unequal (distributed.power, changes according to context, the only variable!) The distribution of power is the only thing that varies from one international system to another; all of Waltz's analyses are based on this variable, i.e. how power is distributed. BIPOLAR SYSTEMS More stability for Waltz MULTIPOLAR SYSTEMS More stable for the Neoclassical Realists Cold War Two powers Fewer calculation errors Pre- and post-Cold War More distributed power More balancing possibilities (easier to find allies) Similar power=deterrence No absolute wars (today's enemy is tomorrow's ally) No tendency to embark on 'marginal wars', as in the First World War. Less focus on a single threat OFFENSIVE REALISM: MEARSHEIMER (EGEMONIA USA) waltz was a defensive realist. Every great power always seeks hegemony (global, or if that is not possible, regional). E.g. The US has sought hegemony in the western sphere, since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, to ensure that no hegemon would grow in Europe and Asia. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) Book 'the tragedy of the great political powers' is a tragedy because it is history repeating itself, the powers will clash for hegemony. REALISM AND NEOREALISM (textbook= realism Waltz) 1. HIRED: a. Centrality of the State b. Anarchic context (constant danger, everyone is left to their own devices, no authority) c. States as actors: i. Rational (objective-sensitive, 'cost-sensitive', economic vision of the state) ii. Autonomous (vis-à-vis society and special interests) iii. Unitary (cohesive actors) 2. PROPOSALS: a. States as defensive actors: in an anarchic context they maximise their security b. Defensive positionalists: focus on relative power (fear of losing positions of power) c. Quest for independence: in order to maximise security, they seek to maintain their autonomy. (Macchiavelli: independent of other states to follow their own strategies) 3. EMPIRICAL APPLICATIONS: a. Balancing (policies of states to counterbalance an emerging power) prevails over bandwagoning (allying with the emerging power): Stephen Walt; equilibrium theory of 'threat' (not power) to explain band: i. Relative power ii. Geography iii. Armaments iv. Intentions b. System stability and polarity = depends on power distribution Kenneth Waltz; bipolar systems are more stable (for classical realists it is the opposite) i. Simpler balance ii. Fewer calculation errors iii. Asymmetrical alliances iv. Less economic interdependence = less friction c. Strong limits to cooperation: i. Cheating problem (deception) no actor can trust others. ii. Problem of relative gains (defensive positioning) iii. Poor functional differentiation (cannot specialise, each state does everything): only possible with economic leadership. 4. CRITICS: a. Unitary actor state? i. Krasner: yes, in spite of 'weak' US domestic structure theories. ii. Ikenberry: yes, IPE case and oil price (national interest) b. Realism does not consider 'Change': (it is a static theory) i. There are theories of change (e.g. Gilpin) ii. The elements of continuity are more relevant c. Realism neglects unit-level variables: (Waltz's structural realism, 3 levels) i. Downing: dependent/independent variable? (Depends on the second level analysis) ii. Posen: Political leaders and 'systemic sensitivity' (Depends on the first level of analysis) d. Realism in the face of the EU and the role of the institutions: i. Weak states: voice opportunity ii. Strong states: hegemony in disguise? (More legitimate perceptions) e. Do states maximise power or security? i. Waltz: defensive positionists to maximise security ii. Mearsheimer: offensive realism based on power maximisation (bandwagoning > balancing) Cooperation? iii. Some states maximise power and others maximise security: why? f. Empirical predictions? i. At most probabilistic: do not overestimate the structure ii. Feaver: not only the causes, but to include the adverse consequences of action? Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])