Liberalism in International Relations PDF

LIBERALISM The configuration of liberalism since the 1970s LIBERALISMS: CLASSICAL LIBERALISM with Locke, Kant, Smith, etc. UTOPIC LIBERALISM 'IDEALISM' with Angell and Wilson INTERDEPENDENCE LIBERALISM with Mitrany and Haas, states begin to cooperate, especially the European states establishing the...

LIBERALISM The configuration of liberalism since the 1970s LIBERALISMS: CLASSICAL LIBERALISM with Locke, Kant, Smith, etc. UTOPIC LIBERALISM 'IDEALISM' with Angell and Wilson INTERDEPENDENCE LIBERALISM with Mitrany and Haas, states begin to cooperate, especially the European states establishing the ECSC, associated with the theory of (neo)functionalism, which serves to explain the cooperation that arises between European states. NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM with Keohane and Nye with the book 'power and interdependence'. LIBERALISM Common points taken on board by the Liberals: 1. Optimistic view of human nature (as opposed to the anarchy of the realists) 2. Cooperative nature of BRs (war is avoidable) 3. Primary value of well-being and freedoms (security comes second) 4. Confidence in progress (human history is a continuous improvement, not cyclical) A conception antithetical to Realism: 1. Focus on individuals -> liberals have the individual at the centre and not states 2. Rationality individuals -> 'common interests' 3. "Collective interests" -> cooperation policy 4. Modernisation -> democratisation LIBERAL POSITIONS 1. TRADE LIBERALISM (FREE TRADE) Free trade but a pacifying effect on relations between states Intellectual roots: Adam Smith and David Ricardo with the notion of comparative advantage: all nations can benefit from trade. Random logic: • Free trade allows absolute gains for every nation • Wars and conflicts damage free trade (profits and employment) • Citizens of trading states have vested interests in maintaining cooperative relations. 2. LIBERALS SUPPORT DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY Democratic states do not wage war against each other, it does not mean they are peaceful, but they do wage war against non-democratic states. 3. LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM SUPPORTS THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL NORMS, RULES AND INSTITUTIONS International organisations have important effects on the actions of states, institutions fulfil the function of increasing information, transparency and trust. 4. AT THE SUB-STATE LEVEL, TRANSNATIONALISM COUNTS Trans-national relations matter, liberals in fact follow the 'cobweb model', a network linking states, non-governmental organisations, private economic actors, media, organised crime, etc. 5. COSMOPOLITANISM It is the ability to be open to interactions with groups of other cultures and traditions. It encourages relations between citizens of different countries, political consequences. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) NEO-LIBERALISM (1970s-1980s) or NEO-LIBERALISM Birth comes from two factors: Empirical: interdependence, organisations and cooperative responses of states. Theoretical: US decline?/Hegemonic stability theory? K.Walt, International Policy Theory, 1979 NEOLIBERALS: FOCUS ON 'INSTITUTIONS': distinction between: institutions, regimes and international organisations. REGIMES: "set of principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures around which the expectations of the actors in a given subject area converge" Krasner , stands at a higher level of abstraction than an international organisation, hence the org.int. They come after a regime. E.g. Nuclear non-proliferation regime. TWO APPROACHES: o RATIONALIST INSTITUTIONALISM: He takes from Waltz the idea that actors are rational. o SOCIOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONALISM (to be skipped) RATIONALIST INSTITUTIONALISM DISTINGUISHING FEATURES: Selfish and rational actors: they maximise their own utility I t adopts the same neo-realist assumptions as Waltz: o Centrality of the State (big leap from liberalism to neo-liberalism) o Anarchic environment o State as unitary actor Ma emphasises the existence of common interests: o Possibility of joint gains through cooperation (absolute gains) International institutions/regimes/organisations alter the international context: o They change the strategic environment in which states operate, calculate, decide o They create constraints and opportunities for states that will make cooperation more likely. OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS: Contractualist and functionalist perspective (regimes=intentional creations of states) R.Keohane: regimes reduce obstacles to cooperation: o Transaction costs o Uncertainty o Incentives to violate agreements Stein and Snidal: different regimes x different issue areas: Using game theory o Problems of collaboration (prisoner's dilemma) role of the most challenging regimes. o Coordination problems (battle of the sexes) Less demanding role of the regimes. CRITICISM OF RATIONALIST INSTITUTIONALISM: Relative power Role domestic politics Consequences of regimes ANSWERS Krasner: power and bargaining Putnam: 'two-level game'= national leaders have to negotiate with foreign leaders and public opinion. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) CONSTRUCTIVISM It is very different from realism and liberalism, according to some it is not a theory but a method. It marks the post '89 transition, together with feminism. Methodological (post-positivist) perspective and criticises the hegemony of realist and neo-liberal approaches, opens up the R.I. To different influences. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM is the theory behind constructivism: International politics must first of all be recognised as a social fact, made up of relationships between actors, and as a social reality it cannot be equated with the method of the natural sciences. For realists and neo-liberals, there is only a universal science, whereas for constructivists, scholars are within the object being studied, so the scientific method cannot be applied. THE EMERGENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVISM End of the Cold War: o Neorealism unable to predict the end of the Cold War and explain what comes next. o Greater focus on the role of ideas (bringing the intangible aspects of R.I. to the centre) Inspiration from other disciplines: o Sociology: Giddens' 'structuralism', there is a two-way relationship between actor and structure o Psychology: shared meanings o Philosophy of Science: post-positivism Ideas, meanings, interpretation and understanding. THE CENTRAL IDEA OF CONSTRUCTIVISM IS THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY Social reality does not exist independently of the ideas of the individuals who give it life. The social world is an inter-subjective sphere: it acquires meaning through shared meanings. Material elements exist but not in a neutral way: they are infused with meanings that give meaning and direction. Post-positivist approach: political science cannot be objective. There are no 'natural laws' to be discovered. International relations therefore have intangible elements of a social nature. E.g. Atomic bomb in France and North Korea, why is the latter more worrying? One has to look at meanings and not only at scientifically measurable data. CONSTRUCTIVISM It is introduced by Nicholas Onuf: A world of our making, later developed by Alexander Wendt. CENTRAL IDEA: Anarchy exists, but this need not lead to a competitive and conflictual system. Whether this happens or not cannot be known a priori, it depends on the type of interaction that develops between states. Whereas for neorealists, states have predetermined interests (maximising security, interests and identities are exogenous to the interaction). For constructivists, it is the interaction between states that determines their specific identities and thus their specific interests (endogenous to the process of social interaction) Examples: End of the Cold War due to the relationship developed between Reagan and Gorbachev. Birth of the European Union due to the new identity and interests of European countries. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) ALEXANDER WENDT He published an article in 1992 that reads: ANARCHY IS WHAT STATES DO TO US. His main work is Social Theory of International Politics (1999) • Anarchy is the product of social interaction between states. • The anarchy described by the realists is only one possible option. • It is necessary to focus on the discursive interaction between states in order to understand what culture of anarchy has developed: 1. Hobbesian anarchy: States regard each other as enemies. It is the war of all against all. War is endemic because conflict is necessary to survive (until the 17th century) 2. Lockian anarchy: States regard each other as rivals. There are constraints and limitations. The aim is not the total elimination of the opponent, but political goals. Mutual recognition after Westphalia 1648. 3. Kantian anarchy: States see each other as 'friends'. They settle disputes peacefully. They cooperate. This is the condition that developed among Western democracies after 1945. CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH IN OBJECTIVE SYNTHESIS: understanding of the social construction process of international reality. HALF: analysing conceptual factors: Resulting from collective intentionality, the doing of an actor acquires meaning as part of a common doing. Social facts: a reality that exists thanks to an agreement between human beings. FOCUS: process of structuring international reality (constitutive norms vs. regulatory norms) ASSUMED: Actors behave according to the logic of appropriateness and role expectations. THE NEXUS OF NORMS-> IDENTITY -> INTERESTS Norms, shared ideas, expectations influence the identities of actors (states) o The way states pursue interests o The definition of interests themselves. ORIGIN OF INTERESTS Constructivism: interests are 'endogenous' to the process of social interaction o Constitutive rules o Complex learning o Re-elaboration of one's identity o Dynamism (continuous change) NeoR-NeoL: Interests are 'exogenous' to the social interaction process o Rational egoist states: utility maximisation o Static approach (interests never change) o Positivist method (causal power of material factors) o Regulative' norms -> adaptation of rational strategies Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) CONSTRUCTIVISM AND STRUCTURALISM Agent-structure debate: For Waltz, it is the structure that determines the actors' behaviour. Structure for constructivists: The individual can influence the structure, changing it 1) Shared meanings 2) Material Resources 3) Social practices Social institutions carry the DNA of structures, reproducing them over time. Norms are reworked in the process of social interaction. STANDARDS AND CHANGE Where do international standards come from? (Katzenstein) 1) Spontaneous (e.g. multilateralism) 2) Intentionally promoted by an actor (e.g. conditionality) 3) Negotiated (e.g. humanitarian law) 4) Mix of the above. Why do they assert themselves? 1) Carrier capacity. 2) Consistency with the regulatory framework. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) POST-POSITIVISM It includes: Constructivism: focus on immaterial and conceptual factors, International politics as a process of social interaction. Critical theory: emancipatory (political) goal, knowledge is politics and power. Post-modern theory: theoretical/methodological objective: deconstructing the false myths of positivism Feminism, Orientalism, post-colonialism... Questioning the assumptions, implicitly, on which BRs are based. THE FOURTH DEBATE: MAINSTREAM APPROACHES (POSITIVISM) vs. POST-POSITIVISM Positivism: Observation Measurement Regularity, patterns that can be discovered and explained Neutral and objective knowledge of the world Post-positivism: Rejects empiricism (observing is not enough); Neutral observation or measurement is not possible (we are part of the reality we study); There are always prior ideas of what to observe, how to measure; There is NO objective reality, no subject/object separation and no neutral science. METHOD AND CONTENT Ontological question: is there an objective reality? Difference between: • Materialism/objectivism (behaviourists) THINGS, one looks at material elements Vs. • idealism/subjectivism (radical postmodernists) IDEAS, one looks at the process of social interaction Epistemological question: how can we acquire knowledge about the world? Difference between: • Explain (behaviourists), verifiable empirical propositions and cumulative knowledge (general theories always applicable) Vs. • Understanding (radical post-modernists), interpretations (knowledge is not cumulative) CRITICAL THEORY Origins: Frankfurt School Horkheimer, Adorno, Habermas: denunciation of capitalist society Against the positivist idea of science of the separation of subject and object; (positivism= ideologically determined= conservative) Means: Marxism Dialectics Critique of instrumental reason General objective: Countering the 'Enlightenment Myth' that improves people's lives Unveiling how formal reason is transformed into 'political domination Specific objectives: 1. International politics= global interaction of social, economic and political forces (and not simply of states considered at the centre by the NeoR.) Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) 2. Creating an Emancipatory Theory vs. Problem Solving Theories (NeoR. AND NeoL.) Change, questioning the structure, the assumptions, changing them, is a radical action vs. status quo (fixed assumptions) 3. Countering false neutrality: criticism of the hidden ideology of BRs. Every theory always reflects a position in time and space. Robert Cox: "a theory is always for someone and for some purpose". POSTMODERNISM He wants to challenge existing systems Crisis of 'modernity': Primacy of Reason Linear and progressive history Universality Overcoming tradition Z.Bauman "order?" "Linearity?" World as infinite models of order: o Simultaneous (vs. Sequential) o Overlapping (vs. Progressiveness) It cannot be said that one order is preferable to another TWO POST-MODERNISMS RADICAL: o Absolute relativism: non-transferable meanings (different experiences) o Dissociation and fragmentation: 'the hysteria of subjectivity'? There are no longer meanings that can be shared by all but there are only subjects that are made absolute o World as language: hermeneutics? Language as an end in itself, inert. MODERATE: o Pluralism possible Communicable differences between cultures • Intellectual interpreter vs 'universal' legislator SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF POST-MODERNISM IN THE RI (MODERATE POST-MODERNISM) 1. Deconstructing concepts (especially realist ones) a. Anarchy b. Domestic/international political separation 2. Theorising: by intuition (no strong theories) 3. Revisiting, revisiting, trespassing: foregrounding language, symbols and meanings. a. Deconstructing texts, an instrument of power b. Derrida, Foucault, Chomsky Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) FEMINISM Starting point: recognising the basic inequalities between men and women and the consequences of such inequalities in world politics; Differences -> Inequalities: we live in a society in which the qualities associated with 'masculinity' (rationality, ambition and strength) have a higher value than the qualities associated with 'femininity' (emotionality, dialogue, weakness); A 'gendered' world that leads to a gender hierarchy: a power system in which masculinity is privileged over femininity. FEMINISM IN THE RI (BOOK BANANA, BEACHES AND BASES BY CYNTHIA ENLOE) The language of BRs, the ideas of BRs are dominated by the male vision: o Man, the State and war (1959 Waltz) 'power' 'domination' 'struggle' etc. o The same obsession with power, security reflect male visions Need for a gender focus in world politics to bring gender inequalities to light and expose how international politics reproduces and reinforces a subordinate position for women. KEY POINTS IN FEMINISM Women play a role in the world economy and geopolitical system but mainly as subordinate and undervalued workers (objective inequality). Dominant views on world affairs ignore the views of the weak and powerless, particularly women (partial views) States and BRs are characterised by structures of domination and interaction with a profound gender dimension (gender matters for power). ORIENTALISM (Edward Said) Western thinking: Western societies are advanced, modernised and democratic vs Eastern societies backward, traditional and despotic. He is totally uninterested in the cultural nuances, political traditions and practices of the Arab world, considers the East as totally irrational. (Seen as barbarians) If the East is so backward, it is logical and rational that it be dominated by the West so that it can be brought to progress and modernisation. POST-COLONIALISM IN THE RE Inspired by post-structuralism (exported structures from western countries to former colonies) Specific critique of relations between Western countries in Europe and North America and former colonies in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Thesis: the logic and ideas underlying the relationship between the West and former colonies continues to be hierarchy-centred, reflecting Western concepts and ideas, even after decolonisation. Need to free non-Western thought from this form of domination: 'intellectual decolonisation'. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS QUESTION: What factors most influence the foreign policy of states? FOREIGN POLICY AND R.I. RI= general patterns of interaction between states (2 or more and other actors) Foreign policy= why a given state x or y has decided to take certain actions 1) What does 'foreign policy' (EP) consist of? 2) What are the sources of foreign policy (EP)? Individual, state and international 3) Why do states change their foreign policy? 1.1 FOREIGN POLICY = INTERESTS + STRATEGIES Foreign policy is the result of interests and strategies States have interests in the International System: o Interest = "a situation that the leaders of a state would like to see occur". To pursue interests, states define specific objectives within the framework of a foreign policy strategy. A PE strategy consists of: Specification of objectives (concrete results that help to pursue an interest) Choice of instruments (concrete measures to achieve these objectives) Foreign policy instruments can be persuasive or coercive: Persuasive: o Diplomacy o Economic incentives (e.g. EU ENP) Coercive: o Economic sanctions (e.g. sanctions on Russia by the EU) could lead to escalation or have a boomerang effect. o Propaganda ('black' or 'strategic') based on fake news or manipulated true news. o Coercive diplomacy (deploy army or naval blockade) o Covert operations, hacking, attacks, etc. o War (starting a military conflict) GRAHAM ALLISON: 'ESSENCE OF DECISION', 1971 3 ways of examining US choices during the crisis: 1. RATIONAL ACTOR APPROACH: Governments as unified, rational actors who want to pursue clearly defined foreign policy objectives; 2. ORGANISATIONAL APPROACH: foreign policy emerges from groups made up of governmental organisations that aim at their own particular interest and follow standardised 'standard operating procedures' (SOPs); 3. BUROCRATIC POLICY APPROACH: Foreign policy emerges as the result of bargaining and competition by influence of individual decision-makers, each with their own personal agenda. 2.1 THE SOURCES OF FOREIGN POLICY 1) INDIVIDUAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS: LEADER Assumption: leaders and their beliefs have a substantial influence on foreign policy. Sources of leaders' beliefs: Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) 1. Very defined personalities (Obama vs. Bush vs. Trump) 2. Attitude-shaping events (Vietnam and 9/11) Focus on the psychological aspects of decision-making, such as perceptions. Why do actors make mistakes or misinterpret the intentions of others?(RobertJervis) a. Selective reading: they only see what they want to see (data collection) b. Cognitive bias: driven by pre-existing, ingrained beliefs (data organisation) c. Wishful thinking: confusing analysis and hopes 2) LEVEL OF STATE ANALYSIS: A. NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICS: Influence of bureaucratic politics and political regime. B. DYNAMICS BETWEEN EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE: System of government C. SOCIAL ACTORS: Public opinion, media and interest groups Public opinion: Theories on the specific role of public opinion in relation to foreign policy 1. Casuality aversion law: support for war depends both on the number of casualties but also on the probability of victory. 2. Rally 'round the flag effect: with war comes increased support for the political leader. Media: Three mechanisms link media, public opinion and foreign policy: 1. Priming: making some aspects more relevant than others 2. Framing: providing a narrative, a framework within which to interpret events 3. 'CNN effect': speeding up decision-making on specific crisis situations 3) LEVEL OF INTERNATIONAL ANALYSIS: 1. Geographical context: a. Geopolitical determinism: geography -> interests -> strategies b. Island/terrestrial states c. Specific regional context (e.g. Israel) d. Demographic flows -> foreign policy (e.g. NATO) 2. Economic development (in relative terms): a. Economic development -> military power -> international influence b. Development level -> specific objectives 3. National resources (in relative terms): a. Demography (population size and structure) b. Natural Resources c. Level of scientific and technological advancement d. National vs. international governance structures 3.3 HOW FOREIGN POLICY CHANGES As sources of foreign policy, sources of change can be traced back to different levels of analysis: 1. INDIVIDUAL LEVEL: a. Learning of leaders b. Change of leadership 2. STATE LEVEL: a. Change in the domestic political regime b. Active role of NGOs and pressure groups 3. INTERNATIONAL LEVEL: a. External shocks b. Changes in relative power INTERNAL STRUCTURE AND FOREIGN POLICY It is a deepening of the state level of analysis, i.e. the political regime. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Aim: to explain the differences in the foreign policy of states. Levels of analysis and debate on globalisation: Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected]) o For Waltz domestic policy (capacity)-> foreign policy (second image) o For Gourevitch, on the other hand, international politics -> domestic politics (second image inv) o Process of 'domestification' of R.I. o Role of the political regime: does democracy matter? Theories of internal structure o Bridge between levels of analysis (state/international system) o Centred on the state/society relationship INTERNAL STRUCTURE AND IPE (INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY): KATZENSTEIN (1976) CONTEXT: o US and French energy policy in the face of the 1970s oil crisis HYPOTHESIS: o Realist (the state will try to maximise national security) o Liberal (The state also takes the interest of private individuals into account) INTERNAL STRUCTURE: o USA: weak state and strong civil society o France: strong state and weak civil society RESULTS: o It depends on the internal structure, in the US liberal, France realist. INTERNAL STRUCTURE AND SECURITY POLICY: EVANGELIST (1988) CONTEXT: o US and USSR arms policy (innovations) during the Cold War HYPOTHESIS: o Realist: action/reaction o Liberal: bureaucratic politics INTERNAL STRUCTURE: o USA: weak state and strong civil society o USSR: strong state and weak civil society RESULTS: o The internal structure specifies the conditions of validity of the different theories INTERNAL STRUCTURE AS INTERVENING VARIABLE: KAPPEN BRAWLS Public opinion -> Domestic structure -> Foreign policy FOUR DEMOCRACIES: France, USA, Germany and Japan o Common attitude of public opinion towards the USSR o ...but different foreign policies. INTERNAL STRUCTURE: 1. Nature of political institutions: degree of centralisation 2. Structure of society: polarisation, force, mobilisation 3. Policy-networks: state-dominated (a), corporate (b) or corporate (c) MODELS: o Strong state/weak society (France) vs. weak state/strong society (USA) o Balancing in Germany for consensus and in Japan for corporate P-Ns Three research perspectives: impact of globalisation, role of transnational actors (NGOs and international organisations) and transmission of international norms into domestic practices. Document shared on https://www.docsity.com/it/relazioni-internazionali-870/7667403/ Downloaded by: loda70 ([email protected])