Contemporary World Politics PDF

CONTEMPORARY WORLD POLITICS WEEK 1: Global power politics and China as a global actor The concept of power From unipolar (one big power) to multi/bipolar: two major powers/ relatively balanced and keep each other in check. Time periods: Cold War: USSR- USA —> we still feel that tension in th...

CONTEMPORARY WORLD POLITICS WEEK 1: Global power politics and China as a global actor The concept of power From unipolar (one big power) to multi/bipolar: two major powers/ relatively balanced and keep each other in check. Time periods: Cold War: USSR- USA —> we still feel that tension in the Ukraine War Today: CHINA-USA Unipolarity: that power tends to dominate in terms of: Hard power: military/ economic dominance Soft power: cultural influence/ideology —> spread of liberal democracy/ capitalism Smart power: Today’s main power: Class debate USA: Military power, Diplomatic power, Its economic power (tech, exporting a lot of resources) high level of tertiary education) soft power: movie industry. Research and development, corporations. Pharma industry CHINA: Hard power, export, renewables Pharma industry. RUSSIA: Military (old), oil & gas resources, in general rich in natural resources. Soft power (ideology) influence outside of Europe- attract many countries e.g “Global South” (not particular popular as a term in western literature). Russia, not at all isolated as it is often argued by the Western discourse. FRANCE: Colonisation Diplomatic strength Position in the EU GERMANY: economy, export, tech, power in Europe (EU). INDIA What is stopping India from being in the top 3: struggling with income inequality (GDP per capita), not much hard power (military). “Power on the rise” for the last 40 years (when the BRICS started, the perception was that India was going to be the next power). JAPAN: up economically in the 60s, stopped in the 80s for demographic problems: they have the most elderly population of the world. Military is strong, expansion before the war, but limitation after WW2. Military now expanding but is more a last decade development. Historically complicated relations between Chiana and Japan. Frustration coming from the China side given the growing relations between Japan and USA/UK. UK: colonialist past (commonwealth) spread cultural influence (soft power), strong military power, Brexit, to an extent also the monarchy. Culture would benefit from colonialism. The economy would benefit from colonialism: Importing-exporting goods (vast amount of land, where the colonialist exploits/uses the resources, labor instead of building up/help grow colonies (e.g India)). Historically the 1st industrial revolution. Where are we heading to? Unipolar vs Bipolar/Multipolar Now: multipolar/ bipolar 1990: unipolar 1958- 1990: bipolar 1945-1948 1880’s: Before unipolar (UK unipolar actor). RELATIONS Increase in alliances going on US-China Prediction of Nixon: “in the next 25 years (today) china will be a major world power” Established relations at a historic event in 1972: Diplomatic relations: US supported Taiwan, after WW2 (chiana’s civil war ends … recognition of Taiwan vs People’s Republic of China. Watershed 1979: China received the recognition and seat at the UN US promised protection to Taiwan. Promise to Taiwan with the Recognition of China One china principle: asserts that there is one china and there are no two: US used this principle strategically, they agreed that every one (PRC, Taiwan, US) that there is one china, the only problem was who is in charge, but every one agrees on the one china principle. Positive for china since it was put in the table and keen to establish growth for the future. For the US as well. Long Expectation (up to Obama) that with economic liberalization, china will open politically: Liberalized trade, but made the government even more appreciated by the people. On doesn’t really lead to the other (theories and theories—> with capitalism it comes democracy) China shows that this is not necessarily true. In China we see some democratic elections (low city level) but not at a higher level (communist party). In the 1990’s there was still this presumption. In 1989 it actually happen in a lot of soviet countries. In china in the same year (there was a push for political liberalization) there was the tienammen massacre.  Clinton/ Bush —> Pivot to Asia IMPORTANT: Trump administration, bipolar: how did he change the American policy? Tariffs, harsh rhetoric Personally trump complimented Xi Policy: very aggressive, trade war, tariffs Has Trump been successful? Manufacturing Became very much more difficult and expensive than anticipated, why? Labor laws vs China or other countries Labor costs less. BIDEN? He did not really change this path (not very much differences) TRADE- the main question China is the US’s second largest trade partner (after Canada) Big trade deficit Trade war—> NOT VERY SUCCESSFUL did not lead to an improvement in the US as it was intended (make it more difficult for the American Manufacturers) the products are very expensive, income stays the same—> difficult return More recent trade limitation? EVs (low cost and very high quality) , Batteries, cars, chips and know how (taiwan is one of the most advanced—> so US has a technological advantage and wants to protect it from China) MIlitary spending: US spends the most China’s growth in spending is substantial- compared to Russia China vs US military: Both countries have nuclear powers Pro-China Sharp leaps forward with technology and navy Steady increase in military spending Decoupling from US in many area (GPS) In indian & Pacific Ocean (it’s closer): most of the competition happens here China has not been engaging war/armed conflict for a very long time (seems pacific) Pro-US Vastly ahead on spending Advanced technology Many more nuclear warheads Allies close to China (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan- they don’t have nuclear) vs China does not really have allies geographically close to the US. Recent position of the US with Taiwan? Trump: Supports militarily Taiwan Ukraine treatment Kamala harris Support Taiwan, wants to avoid escalation To a degree a sort of agreement NUCLEAR POTENTIAL INVESTMENT & DEBT Foreign direct investment—> very much mutual, it is not only the US investment US Public debt: Japan owns the largest part of US debt, China the second largest (US as a borrower: could be a source of stress). The debt situation limits the potential military tension (works as a deterrent). If your currency is cheaper—> goods you are exporting are more attractive. Can china call in the debt? If they did, but it would have major repercussions for both China and the US. If China sells the American debt really fast—> the dollar would fall, and the American stability to purchase Chinese good would decrease, the goods would be more expensive, and therefore the Americans would purchase more locally, hurting China in the long term. The dollar collapses also the worth of the debt drops so it is not convenient for China Chinese yuan is still pegged to US dollar- cannot replace it while not free BUT: during the trade war, china started selling much of the American Debt as a threat “we can make things more expensive for you too”. US debt overtime change (chart). Ideological dimension of china China-EU EU as a block is China’s Key trading partner China wants to work on more bilateral (country to country relations) EU wants to be work more in a multilateral war—> more bargain power Chinese-Russian relations Bottomless friendship: putting Russia and China as a key alliance. How strong? Historically? Not good. China’s more powerful (more economically powerful/trade/setting the terms) Russia’s under sanctions Declaration of friendship from 2022 Both China and Russia criticize Nato expansion Crimea (China’s has still not recognized it as a part of Russia) Formally the goal is to foster genuine democracy and counter Us-led ideology Fundamentally: Russia is very reliant on China UKRAINE AND CHINA. How does it effects the relationship with Russia? WEEK 2: INTRODUCTION TO IR September 24th What are international relations? Relationship between the countries, foreign policies, alliances between countries, bilateral, multilateral relations, creations of institutions (IOs). Establishing certain relations, negotiations in the international environment (which are not necessarily positive, some might lead to conflict and war as well) between Sovereign states, non-state actors, IOs etc. War and Peace? The main puzzle we have wanted to solve since the beginning of antiquity. Concept of International law: Jus gentium: is the law of nations→ customary law thought to be held in common by all gentes ("peoples" or "nations") in "reasoned compliance with standards of international conduct" + ius inter gentes is the body of treaties, U.N. conventions, and other international agreements = International law. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) → Lawyer who wanted to study IR internally, what is inside states, he first brought IR to the discussion. Principles of Morals and Legislation: best known for his foundational work in moral philosophy and legal theory, particularly through his principle of utilitarianism. His theory advocates for actions that maximize happiness or "the greatest good for the greatest number.” Comparing: IR x POLITICAL SCIENCE Internal Affairs (Political Science): Focuses on domestic issues within a state: such as government structures, law, security, and justice. Key Concepts ○ Ordered and hierarchical ○ monopoly on violence → only one who is in possession of military forces (non-intervention). The government decides. In the case of a state having a paramilitary group → it usually results in civil wars/ or some sorts of conflicts. Eg. Lebanon Hezbollah ○ Societal order. International Relations: Operates in an "anarchic" environment, where no central authority enforces rules.  ○ IR is actually organized through anarchy → Although we have IOs (UN) who try to make the rules of the game, we have international law, states actually still move within IR in an anarchical way Key themes: decentralized violence, security dilemmas, self-help, power relations, alliances, and conflict. ○ Security dilemma: central concept in IR, particularly within realist theory. It describes a situation where actions taken by a state to increase its own security (such as building up its military, forming alliances, or developing advanced defense technologies) can lead to increased insecurity for other states. This occurs because other states interpret these actions as potentially threatening, prompting them to respond by increasing their own security measures. ○ It happened in Europe after the Ukraine War, states feel frightened, and start to arm themselves. Militarization, modernize weaponry. Development of IR as a Discipline: Historical Roots: While the study of international affairs dates back to ancient times, it gained more structure and importance in the 19th century. Institutionalization of IR: Post-WWI: IR emerged as an academic discipline. 1919: The first dedicated IR department was established at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. 1920s–1930s: Major institutions like the London School of Economics and the Graduate Institute of International Relations in Geneva contributed to the growth of IR studies. Foundations of IR from Historical Thinkers: Thucydides (c. 460–396 BCE): Known for his work, History of the Peloponnesian War, which highlighted power dynamics and conflict in ancient Greece, establishing early realist thought in IR. Thucydides Trap: concept that describes the tendency for conflict to arise when a rising power threatens to displace an established, dominant power. ○ Power Transition and Rising Tensions: When a rising state begins to challenge the status quo power, it generates anxiety, suspicion, and fear in the established power. The established power, fearing a loss of influence or dominance, may respond with measures to contain or counter the rising power. ○ Historical examples: WWI (Germany and established Britain) WWII (raising Japan and established US, Germany challenging the European Status Quo) ○ Current example: China challeging US hegemony. Roots of IR in Other Disciplines: Theology Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274): Developed concepts of "just war" in Summa Theologiae, influencing moral debates on warfare.  Francisco de Vitoria (c. 1483–1546): Advocated for the legality of war through works like De Jure Belli Hispanorum in Barbaros. Legal Science: Hugo Grotius (1583–1645): His work, De Iure Belli ac Pacis, laid the foundation for international law and the concept of "open seas," advancing norms for war and peace. Political Philosophy Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527): The Prince emphasized pragmatism and power in politics, influencing realist IR theory. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679): In Leviathan, Hobbes described a "state of nature" and social contracts, underpinning the idea of an anarchic international system. Military Theory Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831): His work On War analyzed the nature and strategy of warfare, highlighting the unpredictability of conflict, a key theme in IR. Philosophy Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Advocated for perpetual peace and considered ideas of human nature and conflict. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)*: Proposed a "perpetual peace" grounded in republicanism and international cooperation, influencing liberal IR theory. Economics Mercantilism: Emphasized state power through economic control. Thomas Mun argued for trade as a means to national wealth. Liberalism: Adam Smith promoted free markets in The Wealth of Nations, a view later extended by John Stuart Mill and Alfred Marshall. Marxism: Karl Marx critiques capitalism's inequalities, leading to IR theories that consider economic structures in global power dynamics. Keynesianism: John Maynard Keynes advocated for state intervention in economics, shaping debates on global economic policies. Week 3: INTRODUCTION TO IR (II) …WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS? How do scholars approach the International Environment? State-centered view vs pluralist concept → depends on how we define things. State-centered: Approaches emphasize the state as the primary actor, focusing on sovereignty and power See only Nations states as the only actors → relations between the states Sovereignty is an important factor → they are independent Also Power → by some is defined as “military”, and states are the only actors who have it. Power is defined by how much big is the military capabilities Pluralist: include non-state actors The International Environment is much more diverse → emphasizes the interconnected nature of international politics. We can talk about IOs, Non state actors, NGO, multinational corporations… which also shapes IR and makes the International Environment diverse. Here we have a kind of power which is Soft. Goals of IR Key goals in IR involve establishing peace, managing anarchy, balancing power and national interests, and promoting security, multilateralism, and potentially emancipation (freedom from structural constraints). IR as a Professional Discipline IR includes studying war, peace, hierarchy, anarchy, power, and multilateralism. The discipline evolved post-WWI and includes both theory (realism, liberalism, etc.) and practical studies. One brand of IR is GEOPOLITICS: ENGLISH x GERMAN Geography-politics→ how the IR and how states behave based on their geographical positions (territory, position, land, neighbors, resources). What is a threat? Which resources do we have? → The study of geography’s influence on politics, particularly in shaping national power and strategies. English vs. German Geopolitics English scholars like Mahan and Mackinder focused on naval and continental strategies. German thinkers like Ratzel and Haushofer emphasized territorial control and expansion. ENGLISH Mackinder's Heartland Theory: "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the World." His theory stressed the importance of controlling Central and Eastern Europe to dominate global power. Spykman’s Rimland Theory: Nicolas Spykman countered Mackinder by asserting, “Who controls the rimland rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia controls the destinies  of the world.” This concept focuses on coastal regions as pivotal for global dominance. GERMAN German Geopolitics was very prominent before WW2 German geopolitics emerged with scholars like Friedrich Ratzel, who emphasized Lebensraum (living space) and territorial expansion, and Karl Haushofer, who founded the journal Zeitschrift für Geopolitik, promoting these ideas in early 20th-century Germany. POSSIBLE VIEWS OF IR: What is the key driver of International polity? The structure of the international system can be seen in terms of states as key drivers or in broader terms that include transnational and global actors STRUCTURE: Studies of international system: MACRO VIEW of the International system Divides into empirical studies and theoretical studies EMPIRICAL STUDY observing real-world dynamics and subsystems ○ Worldwide system ○ Local subsystem → single conflicts THEORETICAL STUDY Creating General model systems. Structure and Power Distribution Main theories of IR (realism and neorealism) Polarity and Stability: Describes the distribution of power among states, often classified as unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar. Stability often depends on the configuration and number of major power centers. Preconditions for an IR System Realist Precondition → we understand the states as power centers. Key Factors: State is the actor Anarchy (no central authority), rivalry, and military power (hard power) define the system → ability to influence the behavior of others. Power is measured as the ability to influence others and can be exercised through hard (military/economic) or soft (cultural/diplomatic) means. Sources of power: HARD vs SOFT power ( influence through culture, ideology) Theoretical Contributions Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations: one of the major realist scholars. Morton Kaplan’s System and Process in International Politics contribute to understanding IR system structures and power dynamics. He based the understanding of the international system on the existence of POLARITY: examines the number of dominant power centers in the world (unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar), affecting global stability and conflict likelihood. Polars are power centers which have military power: based on the units that the poles have, “number of main power units” of each autonomous power center, the more powerful is a power center. Who is an autonomous power center? State vs State/ Coalition of states Polarity vs. polarization (tendency to form coalitions) Balance of Power vs. Security Dilemma: Stability: Balance of power → cancel each other's hard power out → None of the parties is willing to go to war. ○ Requires maintaining system characteristics, like number of key actors, structure, anarchy (order), balance of power, AND managing fear-driven escalation (security dilemma). Instability: one party will feel confident to go to war and win over the other (in this case we have an hegemonic power dominating in the system) ○ Conflicts may arise as local wars (limited to regions) or system wars (impacting global stability). The balance of power is a core assumption of the realist preconditions Which later on became the balance of fear: security dilemma—> you need to create coalitions (flexible) out of fear of situations which threaten your existence. 3 BASIC TYPES OF POLARITY IN IR: UNIPOLARITY: a single hegemonic power that maintains order. HIERARCHICAL unipolar system: There is an Hegemon (dominant power → the super power, there is no equally strong power or coalition of powers), and then we have other powers behind → Powers, middle-sized and small states, failed states, colonies Universal unipolar system: an International system being the super power trying to be at the top: but this requires enough enforcement and enough legitimacy given by nation states. BIPOLARITY: Two main power blocs; often seen as more stable due to predictable rivalries. Two superpowers in the international environment which are equally powerful and attract other powers around them. TIGHT bipolar system→ Strong, structured alliances with clear blocs. LOOSE bipolarity→ you have 2 super powers, you have states around them. But you also have some other power units which try not to be attached, involved in the bipolar system (eg. Non-aligned movement during the cold war: Yugoslavia, India…) MULTIPOLARITY: Characterized by multiple major powers, allowing diverse alliances and interactions but often leading to higher uncertainty and a potential for conflicts. Multipolar: 5 to 8 power units which have more or less similar powers. ○ The most effective ○ Possibility to create flexible coalitions ○ Also the less predictable WHICH POLAR SYSTEM GIVES MORE STABILITY? idealism (search for universal arrangement) → emphasizes the role of ethical, moral, and cooperative principles in guiding IR, seeking to create a world order grounded in peace and cooperation. Idealism focuses on the potential for diplomacy, international law, and multilateral institutions to prevent conflict and promote a universal arrangement where states coexist harmoniously. The basis of the “Global Governance” concept. Theory of hegemonic stability → Theory in IR that argues a single, dominant power (hegemon) can create and maintain order in the international system by providing stability and enforcing rules.  ○ The theory suggests that global stability is more likely when one state is powerful enough to lead and impose rules that benefit the international community, even if these rules are aligned with the hegemon's interests Multipolarity vs. bipolarity? THERE ARE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF BOTH Bipolarity → Tends toward stability with clear superpower interests and stable alliances Permanent bonds Opponent's transparency Restraint, prudence of superpowers Easier to maintain equality of superpowers easier agreement, rules of the game the same interests (to remain in the position of a superpower) Multipolarity → Offers flexibility but also unpredictability, potentially leading to a less stable system due to shifting alliances and coalitions. more interactions less attention to other states greater uncertainty - aversion to risk less intense armaments possibility of coalitions International System: Empirical View Empirical Analysis of the International System Empirical studies (e.g., by Singer and Small) examined system stability relative to polarity, suggesting that bipolarity (20th century) was more stable than multipolar configurations (19th century). WHAT IS NEXT? Current trends indicate a shift beyond military power to include economic, ideological, and cultural dimensions, reflecting a more interconnected and complex world order. Week 4: IR THEORIES Possible views of IR→ What is the key driver of International polity? The study of International Relations (IR) theories revolves around key questions about power, interests, and the nature of global interactions. IR theories provide different perspectives on how states and other actors behave in the international system. These theories offer various answers to fundamental questions about the organization of global politics and its dynamics. Key Concepts in IR Theories: Paradigms: These are overarching frameworks or worldviews that guide the study of IR. They shape the questions researchers ask and the methods they use to study international politics. ○ Each paradigm has its unique characteristics, advantages, and shortcomings. ○ These paradigms help scholars understand and explain the complex nature of international relations. Proto-Theories: Early conceptual frameworks that provide a foundation for the development of formal IR theories. Paradigms in IR→ There are major differences in how paradigms address the following: Why study IR?: Different paradigms have distinct motivations for studying and understanding international politics, ranging from the desire to maintain peace to understanding power dynamics. These theories are simplifications and models in order to understand the system, and each have preconditions. What to study in IR?: Paradigms differ in terms of what they consider important, what are the main elements/aspects. E.g some prioritize state behavior, while others focus on non-state actors and institutions. How to study IR?: Each paradigm proposes different methodologies, such as qualitative analysis, quantitative research, or case studies. Which method is the correct one according to each paradigm? Each paradigm has different Prerequisites and corequisites → Which lead to different important debates, such as the tension between anarchy and order, rationality and irrationality, and the morality of international actions. How do we define states good or bad? Key Proto-theories→ IR theory has historically been shaped by two main traditions: Hobbesian Tradition: Stemming from thinkers like Thucydides, (History of peloponnesian War) Machiavelli (Il Principe) , and Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan, or the essence, establishment and power of the ecclesiastical and civil state) ○ This tradition emphasizes the inevitability of conflict and the central role of power in international relations. ○ It views human nature as self-interested and international politics as a struggle for dominance. Kantian Tradition: This tradition, with roots in thinkers like Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae just war) Hugo Grotius (Open Sea, Three books on peace and war) , and Immanuel Kant (towards eternal peace)  ○ Emphasizes the possibility of peace through law, cooperation, and ethical standards. ○ It focuses on the role of international institutions and the potential for moral progress in IR. Key Paradigms in IR Theory: 1920s right after WWI: LIBERALISM (Idealist Tradition): 1st theory of IR established after WWI. League of Nations: The Idea was that in order to prevent another war, nation states needed to start cooperating: We started to see the world as such→ ORDER IN IR (Peace) creating some kind of order in the anarchical IR environment. HOW? Liberalism argues that: ○ Humans are inherently good; ○ COOPERATION: is the core of IR and how the system should work ○ For them rationally, cooperation is fostered by Repeated Interactions: States are more inclined to cooperate when they anticipate having to deal with one another on a regular basis since cooperation has longer-term advantages than cheating has short-term advantages. This is sometimes called the "shadow of the future," when cooperative behavior is encouraged by the expectation of future transactions. ○ NON-ZERO SUM GAME: TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS, SECURITY DILEMMA, FREE RIDES… ○ INSTITUTIONS are very important: International relations can be organized peacefully through institutions and cooperation. IOS are the ones that follow the liberal values and make order in the environment. Every cooperation creates more predictability in the system and creates some kind of order→ binds the states through some rules and agreements. ○ Pluralistic conception of IR→ IOs, transnational organizations are also actors in IR ≠ only states or primarily states (realist) This paradigm supports a pluralistic view of IR, recognizing the importance of various actors, not just states. Key figures include Norman Angell, Alfred Zimmern, Robert Keohane, and Joseph Nye. ○ Norman Angell, → wrote books on why wars are actually something that will always lead to destruction and not to benefit states. WHy states actually cooperate nowadays → repeater interdependence ○ Alfred Zimmern,Robert Keohane, ○ Joseph Nye → created the idea of soft power ≠ hard power What the liberals were wrong? another WW happened→ national interests overcome the incentive to cooperate. Why did the institution (league of nation) not work? Ethiopia: Italy fought against Ethiopia and then was thrown out of the league the great depression→ led to protectionism instead on economic cooperation WWII→ italy’s fascism, Germany’s nazism, authoritarian regime Started to prevail in the 30s: REALISM (Realist Tradition) → states were back to promoting militarization, national interests In contrast, realism views international relations as characterized by power struggles, competition, and the inevitability of conflict. Hobbes→ men are bad and egoist→ they think about them and their survival, and they never change (relaist belif that change never happens) Anarchy in the International Environment would remain ZERO-SUM GAME STATE-CENTERED view of IR→ Realists believe in the centrality of states (ONLY ACTORS) and national interests, often emphasizing the importance of security and political power. ○ Other actors don’t have enough power, they are only components of the states, they only exist and work to the extent of the powers granted to them by states. Key thinkers include Edward Carr, Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, and Robert Gilpin. (1960S “SCIENTISM”) NEO-FORMS OF LIBERALISM AND REALISM: In the 60s both started to criticize → not enough methodologies, IR theories are just ideas not based on exact data or methodologies which actually explain why and how IR works. Neo-liberalism and Neo-realism: These emerged in the 1960s and brought a scientific approach to IR, focusing on causality, statistics, and game theory. ○ Despite differing views on the nature of international relations, both neo-realists and neo-liberals seek to explain the behavior of states and the role of institutions in the global system. They also started to be criticized: WHEN WERE THE NEOREALISTS AND LIBERALS PREDICTIONS WRONG ??? They were not able to predict the end of the cold war→ they said that after the bipolar system, there would be a multipolar system in which states would have struggled. It did not happen→ unipolar system, neoliberal order. OTHER THEORIES started to appear in IR: Liberals→ Look at the world, and how it could be (optimist view→ the world can be better) Realist→ say how the world is, don’t envision the possibility of change (pessimistic view) Constructivism: a very different angle of how we look at the world. Focuses on the social construction of reality in IR→ objective vs. social facts: how we understand it, how we understand the world through our eyes→ which might lead to different understandings, social constructions, interpretations. Understanding of the world through socialization (especially of political groups, leaders). It emphasizes the importance of identity, norms, and language, arguing that international relations are shaped by social, rather than purely material, factors. Rejection of rationality (logic of appropriateness vs. consequences) → based on appropriateness→ we behave like that because it is the socially accepted behavior, because it is appropriate→ but in this sense you are not acting rationally, you’re acting based on how the people around you are acting. specific questions: identity, standards, language… Sense of identity is very important → how you set norms and standards, how you set language Constructivists like Alexander Wendt and Nicolas Onuf focus on understanding and interpreting international dynamics, rather than merely explaining them through cause and effect. All the theories have certain limitations→ they can’t explain IR alone. Great Debates in IR: First Debate (Idealism vs. Realism): This took place in the 1940s and centered on the question of whether IR should focus on idealistic notions of peace or on the realist emphasis on power and conflict. Second Debate (Realism vs. Scientism): In the 1960s, the debate shifted towards the methods of studying IR, with a focus on whether scientific methods could be applied to international politics. Third Debate (Neorealism vs. Neoliberalism): During the 1970s and 1980s, this debate revolved around the role of institutions and the extent to which they can influence state behavior in an anarchic international system. Fourth Debate (Positivism vs. Postpositivism): Starting in the 1990s, this debate questioned the very nature of knowledge in IR, with post positivists challenging the assumptions of objective reality in favor of more interpretive approaches. Critical Theories in IR: In addition to the mainstream paradigms, IR also includes critical perspectives that challenge traditional approaches: Positivism vs. Postpositivism: Positivists seek objective, scientific knowledge, while post positivists emphasize the importance of subjective interpretation and social context. (Neo)Marxism: This theory focuses on class conflicts and the unequal structure of the international system.  Feminism, Postcolonialism, Green Theory, and Critical Geopolitics: These post positivist theories highlight issues like gender, colonial legacies, environmental concerns, and power dynamics in the study of international relations. TIMELINE OF POLARITY: 1815–1914: Multipolar System Main Powers: British Empire: Dominated global trade and military through a powerful navy, with vast colonies covering one-fourth of the world’s population. Acted as a “global policeman” by maintaining the balance of power in Europe. French Empire: Expanded influence in Africa and Asia, promoting republicanism and nationalism after the French Revolution. Russian Empire: Strong military force in Europe and Asia, promoting conservative monarchies in Europe. Prussia (later Germany): Focused on military efficiency and economic strength, leading to unification through victories in key wars. Austro-Hungarian Empire: Central European power with a large, multiethnic population and a strong military presence. Ottoman Empire: Controlled strategic locations in the Mediterranean, with ongoing modernization efforts but facing challenges to its stability. Key Events: Congress of Vienna (1815): Established a framework for European diplomacy, aiming to maintain balance post-Napoleonic Wars. Revolutions of 1848: Widespread revolutions across Europe that promoted ideas of democracy and nationalism. Berlin Conference (1884–85): European powers divided African territories, formalizing colonial boundaries. Balkan Wars (1912–1913): Conflicts in Southeast Europe that weakened the Ottoman Empire and set the stage for WWI. 1914–1945: Shift to Multipolarity and World Conflicts Main Powers: Germany: Rising industrial and military power, especially after unification. Russian Empire/USSR: Shift from monarchy to communist state after the Russian Revolution. Japan: Expanding influence in Asia, particularly in Korea and Manchuria. United Kingdom and France: Traditional colonial powers with extensive global influence. United States: Increasing involvement in world affairs, marked by entry into WWI. Austria-Hungary: Disintegrated after WWI, ending the empire's influence. Major Events: World War I (1914–1918): Triggered by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand; reshaped Europe’s political map.  Treaty of Versailles (1919): Imposed harsh reparations on Germany, sowing resentment that contributed to WWII. Great Depression (1929): Economic collapse that had a global impact, affecting political stability. Rise of Communism: USSR established as the world’s first communist state. World War II (1939–1945): Major global conflict leading to the defeat of Axis Powers, massive loss of life, and reconfiguration of power. 1945–1989: Bipolar System (Cold War Era) Main Powers: United States: Leader of the Western bloc, promoting capitalism, liberal democracy, and forming alliances like NATO. Soviet Union: Leader of the Eastern bloc, advocating for communism and controlling much of Eastern Europe through satellite states. System Format: Loose Bipolarity: The world was divided between two superpowers (USA and USSR), with allied nations aligned with either bloc. Non-Aligned Movement (NAM): Formed in 1961, NAM allowed countries not aligned with either bloc to pursue independent policies. Major Events: Iron Curtain Speech (1946): Marked the beginning of the ideological divide. Berlin Blockade (1948–1949): First major Cold War conflict over control of Berlin. Korean War (1950–1953): Proxy war between capitalist and communist forces. Cuban Missile Crisis (1962): Brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Vietnam War (1955–1975)**: Another significant proxy conflict. Fall of the Berlin Wall (1989)**: Symbolized the end of the Cold War and the bipolar era. 2000–2024: New Multipolarity and Power Shifts Main Powers: USA: Maintains influence through military, economic power, technology, and culture. China: Major economic power with strong influence in manufacturing and technology. European Union (Germany and France): Economic and research influence, often leading initiatives in global policy. Russia: Military and energy power, with extensive natural resources. Japan: Known for cultural influence and high-tech manufacturing. India: Significant player in the pharmaceutical industry and has a large workforce. System Format: Multipolarity: Power is distributed across multiple centers, with influence divided among military, economic, and soft power. Bipolar Economic Competition: USA and China dominate economically, showing a close rivalry in GDP and global influence. Major Events: 9/11 Attacks (2001): Marked a new era in global terrorism and led to the War on Terror. 2008 Financial Crisis: Triggered a global recession and reshaped economic policies. Paris Agreement (2015): Global effort to combat climate change. Brexit (2016–2020): UK’s departure from the EU, impacting European politics. COVID-19 Pandemic (2019): A global health crisis with lasting economic and social implications. Russia–Ukraine War (2022): Ongoing conflict challenging European stability and global alliances. WEEK 5: STATE AS AN ACTOR IN IR We understand the nature of the international system as anarchic, with the state being the primary actor. Non hierarchical system What kind of entities can we find in this environment and how do they interact with each other? STATE CENTRIC VIEW: Realist view The STATE is the key unit and sole actor of the state Rationally defines the goals of its foreign policy (chooses the optimal solution when making decisions) foreign policy of the state = policy of power power as a means and a goal of foreign policy → how much power does the state have? States in an anarchic environment are not responsible to a supranational power (IOs) → realist see IOs as defined by the power of the state members (the ones that make the decision making) → also the realist view sometimes underscores the possibility of IO as an actor, but only as a tool for the states to multiply their power → not as an entity with its own power. NARROW STATE CENTRISM State Sovereignty (internal order) Absence of superior power (anarchy) Self-help Survival, maximal influence Diplomacy, power Political and military issues (security) BROAD STATE CENTRISM → Thes state is the only actor but also other aspects come into play, in order to adjust to the reality of the system. Disadvantage of war → is war always profitable for the states? More goals of states (prosperity, well-being…)  The complex nature of relations between states Interdependence → states are actually interdependent (start to think about potential partners for eg) Start paying attention to: Economic ties Cultural, social Interstate or intergovernmental STATE EXISTENCE Constitutive elements on STATEHOOD 1. Territory 2. Population (natural and permanent character) 3. Sovereign public power a. Failed states b. Fragile states→ the government is not able to govern the territory/ population. 4. Ability to enter into international political relations 5. Recognition (de jure and de facto): two theories a. Declaratory theory: Being recognized by the other b. Constitutive theory: If a state has the three criteria of population, territory, sovereignty, and recognizes itself, then it is a state. The UN can accept only nation states as members→ obtain recognition multilaterally, through a ⅔ vote in the GA. E.g KOSOVO→ not recognized by enough countries in the UN so it is not a member Obtain recognition bilaterally between two states→ starting to exchange, having a diplomatic relationship, entering into agreements. De jure: you grant recognition for good. De facto: it is just a temporary thing, we can grand recognition only temporary → maybe only in certain fields (economic for eg) Usually in the 19th century → the great powers granted recognition. STATE AS A BLACK BOX the black box→ realist approach: only see how it acts from the outside, from the international environment The image on the right→ actually go in depth into what happens inside, the behavior, the foreign policy strategy. FACTORS INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR OF A STATE  Size→ large states have more resources, bigger population, they have “more” to say in international relations. A small state is usually constrained by its borders, limited population. Also if we look at the foreign policy of a big state (US) and a small state (Czech republic) they differ a lot. Small states are not the decision makers in the international system. They can influence the system through for example bilateral or multilateral agreements→ use IOs as a tool to strengthen their foreign policy. While on the other hand large states may withdraw from IOs→ limit their power/sovereignty/possibility of action. ○ small states x large states ○ objective - subjective criteria Economic development Political system → parties but also the system itself, if it is presidential or not, how are the elections→ determines also who takes the decisions. Geographical location (geopolitics) Values, norms and identities (projected into political culture) History→ historical path HOW CAN STATES INFLUENCE THE SYSTEM? Hard power (political, economic) Normative (often associated with EU to show its international legal personality, its “actorness”→ share a certain set of values in the community, has power to influence through the values and norms that it has which might be attractive for other powers, eg. attract through their values new members, or economic trade agreement, human rights agreement etc.) soft power, smart power (the combination of both hard and soft power) Different kinds of power: Superpower Power Emerging power Middle-sized power Small state BOTTOM OF POWER PYRAMID Small states States not recognized or with limited recognition fragile, failed states dependent territories (colonies) nationalism nation ≠ state recognition as a nation self-determination x status quo HOW SHOULD CURRENT SEPARATISM CHANGE THE WORLD MAP? STATE AS A SOVEREIGN UNIT? Monopoly of power within (territory, population) → controls rules in the system Exclusive external representation → only one that has control in the territory Independence from other power (power unit) Also based on recognition DEFINITION OF SOVEREIGNTY External S: No interference of other states in the international affairs of a state, mutual recognition and equality in international law Internal S: Territoriality, monopoly of power, legitimate use of force → only actors who control the police or the military in its territory. Do states have a right/possibility to determine who enters, resides and exits their territory? Is state sovereignty absolute within a bounded territorial space? STATE SOVEREIGNTY → Nation states born with the Peace of Westphalia (1648) → start of the Westphalia System. Before: Ancient Greece Polis (governed by citizens) Decentralization Cultural and trade relations In pursuit of hegemony => conflicts Ancient Rome Rome as a center Centralized system (united law and administration) Pax Romana (internal order + external expansion) Christianity Middle ages → states were NOT nation states. Emperor vs pope – who is superior? ○ The pope was a very important actor→ not only had territory, but it could also intrude into other states' affairs. ○ The kings needed to be confirmed by the pope→ so he could very easily play games and not confirm the king/emperor and interfere. Feudal arrangements City-states (Italy), N. Machiavelli Christianity + Latin culture and language The Westphalian system after 1648 → sovereignty was established and over the decades, and centuries the system consolidated. At the end of the 30 years war→ religious conflict (one of the last very big religious conflict in europe) between catholics and protestants→ the protestants won which was very significant, when catholics lost: Church power declines Cuius regio, eius religio → the king was in charge of deciding its religion: one of the basic preconditions for the national states to have their sovereignty. Dynastic sovereignty→ sovereignty of people External S Internal S This Sovereignty system started to also be criticized for having created a lot of troubles. World War II Genocide, Nuremberg war crime tribunal → international law– protection of human rights→ idea of some international rights that are above the sovereignty of states that must be protected. We have to have sets of international standards to protect human rights above the power and control of sovereign states. Before: IL as a reinforcement of state sovereignty Intergovernmental organizations, NGOsn Decolonization → new states started to exist and of course the question was if these newly independent states could actually govern themselves→ some times the former colonizer accompanied this process. New states not fully sovereign? Lack of capacity to govern Randomly drawn borders Development cooperation PRINCIPLES (FINAL ACT 1975) Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty Refraining from the threat or use of force Inviolability of frontiers Territorial integrity of States Peaceful settlement of disputes Non-intervention in internal affairs Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief Equal rights and self-determination of peoples Co-operation among States Fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law APPROACHES TO SOVEREIGNTY Globalists S in crisis End of S/national state  International organizations, TNC´ s also actors S and territoriality disrupted by globalization, environmental problems, HR, multiple citizenships, migration, terrorists Borders not distinct Neomedievalism– multiple S International law prevails → limitation of sovereignty. States cannot act unilaterally but have to act in a multilateral way. State-centrists S flexible + never absolute => limitations not new Main actor in IR = state States can regulate and manage globalization processes Globalization can enhance S International law voluntary/non-binding + domestic roots (HR) The difference between the beginning of the 21st century and now: 1st Globalist view → the idea of global governance started to appear, the idea of structuring a strong global, international community Now we don’t see the same approach→ nationalist sentiments, protection of sovereignty started to reappear again. Responsibility to protect HUMAN RIGHTS Limits on the authority of governments Charter of the UN, Universal Declaration of Human Rights Individual human rights and the rights of groups to self-determination vs territorial integrity Conventions on genocide, torture, children rights… Regional organizations EU – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Council of Europe– European Convention on Human Rights… Non-governmental organizations Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Transparency International… Watchdogs ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION Multinational corporations and free flow of capital, goods and services Intensification of global competition States´ impact on TNC´ s differs INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Many organizations are state-based  Intergovernmental ○ Examples? Supranational Examples? Beneficial to cede authority to international organizations? OTHER FACTORS Fight against transnational terrorist groups Iraq, Afghanistan, Siria… Environment Austria vs Czech Republic, Kuwait vs Iran… Humanitarian interventions Somalia, Ruanda, Bosnia, Kosovo… STATE IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS? globalization transnational processes (political, economic and social) liberalization, world economy without borders the spread of rationalism and westernism universalization of subjects and experiences narrowing of the maneuvering space of the state (economic relations) growing importance of regimes, standards, organizations, multilevel governance Is it really taking place at the expense of the states ??? RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT? Prevention requires apportioning responsibility to and promoting collaboration between concerned States and the international community. The duty to prevent and halt genocide and mass atrocities lies first and foremost with the State, but the international community has a role that cannot be blocked by the invocation of sovereignty. Sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility where States are accountable for the welfare of their people. This principle is enshrined in article 1 of the Genocide Convention and embodied in the principle of “sovereignty as responsibility” and in the concept of the Responsibility to Protect. http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml 3 PILLARS OF RTP 1. The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement; 2. The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility; 3. The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. WEEK 6: STATES AND OTHER ACTORS IN WORLD POLITICS Terms to Remember State: Defined by the elements of STATEHOOD: territory, population, and institutions; the main actor in traditional IR. National Interest: The guiding principle in a state’s foreign policy, focusing on security, prosperity, and influence. Westphalian System: Based on the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, establishing state sovereignty. Cuius regio, eius religio: Concept of regional sovereignty, where rulers determine the official religion. State Sovereignty: Internal Dimension: Control over domestic affairs. External Dimension: Independence from external interference. Krasner’s “Sovereignty” concept discusses how global interactions challenge absolute sovereignty. Globalist vs. State-Centrist: Globalists see sovereignty as adaptable in a connected world, while state-centrists view sovereignty as inviolable. State centered (realist): States are the only actors Globalist view: non-state actors. Factors Influencing Sovereignty: Non-State Actors: NGOs, Transnational Corporations (TNCs), and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) → influence state sovereignty by shaping policy, providing services, or exerting economic power. Transnational Terrorism: Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria illustrate how non-state terrorist groups impact state sovereignty. Environmental Conflicts: Disputes like Austria vs. Czech Republic or Kuwait vs Iran (nuclear energy) show how environmental concerns cross borders. Human Rights: Humanitarian interventions (e.g., in Somalia, Rwanda) highlight how state sovereignty is sometimes overridden to protect human welfare → R2P RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (R2P): “Prevention requires apportioning responsibility to and promoting collaboration between concerned States and the international community. The duty to prevent and halt genocide and mass atrocities lies first and foremost with the State, BUT the international community has a role that cannot be blocked by the invocation of sovereignty. Sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility where States are accountable for the welfare of their people. This principle is enshrined in article 1 of the Genocide Convention and embodied in the principle of “sovereignty as responsibility” and in the concept of the Responsibility to Protect” Concept: Emphasizes that sovereignty is a responsibility. States must protect citizens from genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. If they fail, the international community has a duty to intervene. Three Pillars of R2P: 1. State responsibility to protect its population: The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement. 2. International community’s duty to assist states 3. International responsibility to act if a state fails to protect its people, using diplomatic or, if necessary, military intervention: If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. NON-STATE ACTORS: Civil Society: Includes public opinion, NGOs, and lobbyists, influencing policies and advocating for change. TNCs (Transnational Corporations): Operate across borders, impacting economies, politics, and sometimes policies. They may promote Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) through initiatives like the UN Global Compact. International Organizations (IOs): Such as the UN, coordinate global efforts on issues like peace, health, and climate. Media and Social Media: Shape global perceptions and influence public opinion, sometimes driving policy changes. State Sovereignty in Modern Times Post-Westphalian vs. Westphalian World: The traditional idea of absolute sovereignty is challenged by globalization, interdependence, and issues that transcend national borders. Post-historical vs historical world (Fukuyama) Complex Interdependence (Keohane and Nye): Proposes that states are interconnected in multiple areas (economic, environmental) and cannot rely solely on hard power ○ Transgovernmental relations ○ Transnational relations ○ Hard power, soft power, smart power CIVIL SOCIETY Role and Definition: (Mary Kaldor): Civil society allows people to engage in public affairs outside government structures, playing a significant role in political change in the global era. Characteristics: It “serves as a voice, not a vote”, advocating for issues like human rights, environmental protection, and democracy.  Impact of Technology: Information technology accelerates awareness, facilitates activism, and sometimes fosters extremism (e.g., via social media). GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY: Idea of civil society “We the people“, dates back to Preamble of the Constitution, US First Amendment´is freedom of association Definition: defined as The “Third Sector” after government and market economy, comprising Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and NGOs that work on international issues. Role: Independently addresses issues such as environmental protection, human rights, and humanitarian aid, often funded by both private and public sources. Can be: Non-profit→ with a capacity to receive non-taxable donations Non-governmental organizations→ NGOs usually operating internationally. Global Civil Society operates independently of both government and intergovernmental organizations, but is closely involved with both of them It includes other interest groups or even pressure groups for the role they play in lobbying governments on issues of concern. ○ Issues: environment, women, children and other human rights and humanitarian issues ○ often receive not only private donations, but also government and IGO funding and resources to carry out functions like humanitarian assistance, health, development, and democracy promotion activities. INGOs (International NGOs)** Post-WWII Role: INGOs such as Amnesty International and Greenpeace work on specific issues, often functioning as watchdogs on human rights, environment, and development. Challenges: Limited resources compared to TNCs, but influential due to their focus and advocacy. NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) Global Influence: NGOs influence policies on international issues like human rights and environment. Accountability Debate: As NGOs are unelected, there’s a debate about their accountability, despite their influence in global governance. TNCs (Transnational Corporations) Characteristics: Operate in multiple countries, with activities focused on economic goals. They play a significant role in global trade and impact local economies. CSR Initiatives: Many TNCs follow CSR principles, adhering to the UN Global Compact on human rights, labor standards, and environmental practices. UN Global Compact Purpose: Encourages businesses worldwide to adopt sustainable and socially responsible policies based on 10 principles covering: 1. Human Rights: Promote respect and prevent complicity in abuses. 2. Labor: Support workers’ rights, abolish forced labor, and eliminate discrimination. 3. Environment: Adopt eco-friendly practices and promote sustainability. 4. Anti-Corruption: Oppose corruption in all forms. GLOBAL GOVERNANCE → is it = World Government? Definition: The coordination of efforts by governments, IGOs, NGOs, and other groups to manage global issues, without forming a world government. Challenges: Coordination is difficult due to differing interests and decision-making failures, Examples: ○ tragedy of the commons ○ “Public goods” nature of many global issues Examples: International conventions, treaties, and initiatives like the G8 and G20 serve as platforms for addressing issues collectively. Key Players in Global Issues: Include countries, the UN, International Financial Institutions, INGOs, TNCs, foundations, and global citizens. They address various issues from economic stability to climate change and security… Mechanisms for Addressing Global Issues International Conventions: Legally binding treaties (e.g., Paris Agreement on climate). Intergovernmental Conferences: Forums for diplomacy and negotiation. Global Partnerships: Alliances among governments, the private sector, and civil society organizations to tackle complex global challenges. R2P paper: Main Argument: Nuruzzaman critiques the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which was initially celebrated for its humanitarian intentions but has been questioned after its application in Libya and failure in Syria. He argues that R2P's practical application has revealed deep theoretical, practical, and ethical issues, suggesting it is a concept likely to fade from global politics. Theoretical Foundations and Criticisms of R2P:  Origins and Liberal Idealism: R2P emerged from liberal ideas aimed at addressing severe human rights violations, such as those witnessed in Rwanda and Kosovo. It reframes sovereignty, asserting that state sovereignty includes a responsibility to protect citizens and that failure to do so justifies international intervention. Partial Protection: The R2P doctrine primarily targets crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, neglecting broader human rights (e.g., political, social, economic) enshrined in international agreements. This narrow focus leaves it vulnerable to criticism for failing to address the root causes of conflict. Inequality in Application: R2P disproportionately affects weaker states while sparing powerful ones. The United Nations Security Council’s five permanent members (P5) are exempt from R2P intervention, allowing them to act with impunity. This double standard undermines the doctrine’s legitimacy and universal applicability. Implementation Challenges: Libya and Syria Libya Intervention: Libya marked the first instance of R2P-based intervention. While advocates justified it to prevent a potential massacre in Benghazi, Nuruzzaman argues the intervention was more about regime change than protecting civilians. The Western powers misinterpreted threats from Gaddafi, creating a narrative that justified intervention but did not align with the R2P’s humanitarian claims. Post-intervention, Libya experienced heightened instability, with civilian casualties rising during NATO’s campaign, showing the doctrine’s counterproductive effects. Syria's Inaction: Despite a severe humanitarian crisis in Syria, R2P was not applied. The P3 (US, UK, and France) were hesitant to intervene due to the high costs and strategic risks, especially given Russia’s and Iran’s strong support for Syria. This selective approach emphasizes that R2P is often contingent on strategic interests rather than humanitarian needs. Strategic Interests vs. Moral Responsibility Nuruzzaman asserts that strategic interests, not moral imperatives, drive R2P interventions. In Libya, Western nations pursued regime change to secure oil interests and limit Chinese influence. In Syria, the P3’s actions were similarly influenced by broader geopolitical strategies, like weakening Iran’s regional influence, rather than purely humanitarian concerns. Critiques of the R2P Doctrine Post-Libya Media Manipulation: R2P’s success often depends on a favorable media portrayal. Western media supported intervention narratives in Libya but faced increasing competition from global media outlets, challenging their influence over public opinion. Loss of US Credibility: The Iraq invasion under false pretenses damaged American credibility. The inconsistent application of R2P, coupled with alliances with unsavory groups in Libya, further erodes the US’s image as a humanitarian actor.  Erosion of Support and Global Power Shifts: As emerging powers like BRICS grow, they challenge the West’s dominance in humanitarian interventions, weakening R2P’s implementation framework. Conclusion: R2P's Decline Nuruzzaman concludes that R2P is nearing its end. The doctrine’s selective application, moral contradictions, and susceptibility to misuse for strategic gains compromise its legitimacy. As global power becomes more multipolar, the feasibility of future R2P actions appears doubtful. Emanuele Tomeo Prague, 07/10/24 (Exchange Student) [email protected] Case Study I Liberal 1. What does a non-zero-sum game mean? How does it relate to the tragedy of commons? A non-zero-sum game is a situation where multiple actors might profit at the same time and one actor’s gain does not always come at the expense of another. In contrast to zero-sum games, in which the gain of one actor equals the loss of another, non-zero-sum games encourage cooperation because all players can win. One kind of non-zero-sum situation is the tragedy of the commons, in which people take advantage of shared resources for their personal gain. In the tragedy of the commons, everyone would want to save the resource in the long run, but each person or state has an incentive to maximize their own use. Everyone suffers because of the resource being spent. In the context of international relations, a dilemma arises when states refuse to work together to prevent global public goods that ultimately harm everyone, such as pandemics or climate change. 2. What are the factors through which liberals argue that the tragedy of commons can be overcome? Give at least three. Liberals propose various remedies to address the tragedy of the commons, including: A). Economic Interdependence: Countries with strong economic ties are less likely to violate cooperative agreements. Because the short-term benefits of breaking an agreement are outweighed by the potential disadvantages, long-term cooperation is encouraged by the trade and commerce that binds state economies together. B). International Organizations: These groups increase the chance of cooperation by encouraging greater transparency and ensuring that rule breakers face penalties, which reduces the probability of disloyalty. C). Repeated Interactions: States are more inclined to cooperate when they anticipate having to deal with one another on a regular basis since cooperation has longer-term advantages than cheating has short-term advantages. This is sometimes called the "shadow of the future," when cooperative behaviour is encouraged by the expectation of future transactions. 3. Why don’t zombies eat each other, what pushes them to cooperate (taken from the liberal angle)? Liberals argue that since devouring human flesh is their shared objective, zombies do not consume one another. Their mutual interest keeps them from becoming furious with one another. Liberals are also suggesting that the zombies participate in implicit cooperation to some extent. Despite being “stupid animals”, their long-term motivation to cooperate with one another assures their survival against humans. They work together to maximize their chances of successfully consuming humans as a group because of their insatiable appetite for flesh, which is their shadow of the future. Because of this, the zombies’ long-term objectives and common aim motivate them to stick together rather than engage in conflict.st 4. A). What are the author’s predictions on the fight against zombies on a global scale? B). What are the limits or possible challenges of the predicted scenario? C). Would there be another possibility of how to fight zombies if the first scenario fails? A). As is common in liberal international relations theory, Drezner anticipates that governments will cooperate on a multilateral basis in the worldwide war against zombies. In order to fight the zombies, he advises states to band together, cooperate through international organizations, and exchange information. For instance, the public health organizations would probably be crucial in monitoring illnesses and organizing countermeasures. B). This framework has limitations or challenges, such as the free-rider issue, which arises when certain states profit from the joint efforts of others without making any contributions of their own. Cooperation may also be challenging due to conflicting interests and the unequal distribution of resources between wealthy and impoverished states. The liberal international order may also face difficulties if certain nations put their own national interests ahead of those of the group, which would result in dispersed responses. C). If the first scenario doesn't work out, smaller, regional state coalitions or individual nations implementing self-help initiatives could be the next course of action. Geographically isolated or militarily powerful states may try to defend themselves instead of depending on international assistance, which could result in more pragmatic tactics like erecting walls, fortifying borders, or taking a more assertive stand against affected areas. 5. Is the permanent eradication of zombies a possible and acceptable outcome for liberals? Prepare some arguments to defend your thesis. Liberals believe that it is both feasible and acceptable to completely eradicate zombies, so long as this is done with global collaboration, in accordance with international law, and taking ethical issues into account. These are three arguments: A). Multilateral Cooperation: Liberals contend that international organizations and several governments must work together to address global challenges, such as a zombie pandemic. Zombies can be eradicated if states can come to an all-encompassing agreement. The creation of vaccinations or military reactions, the enforcing of quarantine laws, and the coordination of resources would all be under the control of international bodies. 2 B). Global Public Goods: Since the abolition of zombies will benefit all of humanity, it would be considered a global public good. Working together, governments can accomplish a common objective that upholds a fundamental liberal value: improving international security and stability. C). Ethical Considerations: Liberals stress that any eradication initiatives need to be accepted by international rules and standards. It would probably be discouraged to use drastic tactics like nuclear weapons or widespread bombing in favour of more compassionate techniques like confinement, immunization, or focused military operations. 3