INTA Midterm Notes PDF

Intro to International Relations Lecture: Change in the International System - Early Development Ancient Greece and Rome 4 key contributions to define the primary actor, the state: ○ 1) Territory ○ 2) Sovereignty- there is legitimate “authority”? issue continues...

Intro to International Relations Lecture: Change in the International System - Early Development Ancient Greece and Rome 4 key contributions to define the primary actor, the state: ○ 1) Territory ○ 2) Sovereignty- there is legitimate “authority”? issue continues to evolve ○ 3) Nationalism- feel connection because you are a part of it ○ 4) Democracy- (to some degree), citizens play a role in determining outcome of the state - First Historical “Turning Point” 1) Peace of Westphalia, 1648: - Change from religious struggle to geopolitical - Beginning of modern state system - Anarchical political system - No higher authority, horizontal authority structure - 18th and 19th Century Development Westernization of International System ○ Rapid industrialization ○ Colonialism… bloodshed and long term effects With excess capital, states chose to go out and get more capital “Winners and losers” of international affairs, who’s going to be successful and who’s not ○ Set the course of development Path dependency… (Back to the Future) Winners become “power poles” Creation of the multipolar international system ○ Defined by: fluidity and uncertainty ○ Dangerous, a system right for war - Second Historical “Turning Point” 2) End of World War II (1945), Cold War begins (1947) Why WW2? ○ True systems changing war ○ Nature of the bi-polar system it created U.S. and Soviet Union come out on top, location matters Polarizes the world, creates a stable/predictable world Beginning of nuclear age International conflict had little benefit - Third Historical “Turning Point” 3) End of Cold War, 1989-91 Fall of Berlin Wall End of Warsaw Pact Soviet Union disintegration, Russia plus 14 states End of USSR as superpower (only USA left) -> created a unipolar world for a bit - Complications to IR that we have developed since end of Cold War 1) Increase in number and kinds of actors 2) Globalization of the international system a) Spread of ideas/transmitting information 3) Technological change 4) Economic changes a) Disparity in global wealth, problems in stability, reduction of middle class - Some Takeaway Points Key historical turning points + system development (18th & 19th century) = context of world politics today An Introduction to Theory and Levels of Analysis Theoretical Approaches or Paradigms: A set of assumptions about how the world works ○ First step to any research, defines the direction and boundaries Polarizes the field ○ Belief system with a high level of conviction ○ Not like Rep/Dem, more like Con/Lib Two Types of Theory 1. Normative - How things “ought” to be based on some kind of ethics, morals, or value judgment 2. Empirical (causal) - How things are the way they are, what causes certain behaviors and outcomes, based on rigorous tests and “proof” - ** #1 predictor of 2 states going to war with each other is : if they’re next to each other Levels of Analysis or Image of Analysis First expressed by Kenneth Waltz in 1954 (Man, State & War)- dissertation can be used to analyze almost any topic 1. Individual Level Waltz, “the nature and behavior of man”, “the elimination of war must come through uplifting and enlightening men or securing their psychi-social readjustment ->> both are impossibility ○ Cannot rely just on this level bc it doesn’t tell us enough 2. The State Level Analytical approach to study of world politics ○ Emphasizes how the internal attributes of states influence their foreign policy behavior Waltz, “The idea that defects in the states cause wars among them” ○ Warns that only relying on the 1st and 2nd images is fault logic… you need the 3RD (need to look at external elements) 3. Systems Level Emphasizes impact of international structures & processes on behavior on global actors Anarchy is the one constant ○ No legitimate higher authority exists in order to hand out justice ***The Importance of Time Time guards against single factor explanations Patterns that often reoccur… a “when” can be critical for prediction and prescription Time as category 1) Permissive causes - Deep, undenying factors whose impact develops over a lengthy time span 2) Efficient causes - Those with more immediate effects - Catalysts- the match that starts the fire ** You need both to occur (one is system, one is individual) REALISM Likely still the dominant approach ○ Why? Because most theories are attempts to counter it Doyle and Ikenberry- “Realists hold in varying degrees that the best description of world politics is a “state of war” - not a single continuous war but the constant possibility of war among states Realism “united” but diverse Insight into Classical Realism Over 2500 years of work (oldest one to exist) Starting point is always questions of order, justice and change Community promotes stability but are fragile and easily undermined History is cyclical and bound to repeat itself Key is a lack of effective central authority Great powers are their own worst enemies Morgenthau- Six Principles (Classical Realism) 1) Politics governed by objective rules found in human nature 2) Leaders “think and act” in terms of power 3) What is power/interests are dynamic 4) Separate out the individual from state 5) Moral as a binding obligation for states? a) Doesn’t mean states act morally all the time 6) Autonomy of the political sphere Three choices for leaders: keep power, increase power, demonstrate power Why Classical Realism is Important 1) Power is nuanced, not just capabilities 2) Means no objective measurement for power 3) “Wisdom and moral strength” 4) “Ethical” norms indicate “limits” to state behavior or provide exception 5) More room for morality 6) State actions/int. politics about constraining the “will of man” Neorealism -> Structure is the primary concern General Systems Level System- any set of variables in interaction with each other and that interaction is patterned, recurring and interdependent Changes in one part of the system impact other parts Three Defining Factors of any System (Waltz) 1) Ordering Principles (Organization of authority) a) Vertical vs. Horizontal authority structures 2) Character of the units a) Primary actor determines behavior for the system (states in int. system) 3) Attributes of the Actors a) (Distribution of capabilities) Present System… Neorealist view - Horizontal Authority System, with states as the primary actor, competing for limited resources and power that ultimately creates a hierarchy of control or order (Waltz’s view) - 2 ways to change - 1) System instability - 2) Rule changes Central Assumptions of Neorealism 1) Structure determines behavior 2) Subnational characteristics unimportant - Leaves aside ideas like culture, political, leadership, social and economic institutions within states 3) Generalizable characteristics only 4) Position is all that matters 5) Importance of anarchy (if you’re not in power, you don’t matter in international politics) Neorealism and its Faults (easy to criticize over time) 1) State as a unified actor 2) Rationality assumption 3) Too restrictive 4) Tough to develop a “foreign policy” 5) Only a great power theory? Neoclassical Realism Has emerged post Cold War Combination approach 1) Importance of context (systems*) 2) Relative power (system) 3) Importance of state power (state level)- efficiency argument 4) Theory informs foreign policy (state and individual) ->> Environment creates a goal of survival but gives no guidance of best practices, system constrains choices but get translated through domestic variables - What makes up the state: 1) Elite consensus - Elites are those that run government/influence policy - ex) No consensus during WW2 about Japan - FDR and treasury did not agree-> led to bombing 2) Government/regime vulnerability 3) Social cohesion - How the population is united around politics (usually govt. goes against country’s social cohesion when they take risks) 4) Elite cohesion - How elites see policy choices in relation to the threat Neoclassical Rationality: states attempt to act with ordered preferences with security at the top but… - Based on how they perceive the situation and situation around them (perception determines reality for neoclassical realism) Key Assumptions of all Realists 1) Power is the focus 2) States are primary actors 3) Anarchy = conflict 4) Capabilities determines hierarchy 5) States are rational actors Domestic vs. International politics ->> Vertical authority structure ->> Horizontal authority structure LIBERALISM, INSTITUTIONS and PUBLIC GOOD Liberalism is exact opposite of realism You cannot be a liberal-realist or realist-liberal bc… ○ Keohane- “International relations are gradually becoming transformed such that they promote greater human freedom by establishing conditions of peace, prosperity and justice, faith in the “possibility of cumulative progress” Differences from Realism 1) Such a thing as progression (changing for the better) 2) A particular view of human nature 3) A higher/moral purpose exists (realists do not believe this) 4) Optimism (belief that things can be better) - Ultimately believes a better collective outcome exists - How do we increase progress and cooperation? Importance of Institutions** “Institutions” are the solution A set of rules that stipulate the ways in which states should cooperate and compete with each other Why are Institutions needed? - Cooperation has increased over time - Both facilitator and necessary result The Specifically Institutions accomplish: 1) Increase # of transactions- discourages cheating, builds reputations trust 2) Issue-Linkage - If you cheat in one area, you might retaliate in another (or if you have a bad reputation) 3) Increased information - Improves monitoring: cheaters more likely to get caught, provides early warning signs 4) Reduces transaction costs - Costs spread out over the collective, addresses distribution of cost vs. benefit What Institutions do we build? 1) Institutions domestically - Democracy and the ideas of Kant: - Belief in republicanism, Right of Nations 2) Institutional organizations - Specifically free trade, but others too 3) International Law and Norms - Importance of “hard law” vs. “soft law” - Hard law: things that are actually written down - Soft law: based on custom, traditions, relatable between 2 states but not others 4) International Institutions more generally (regimes) Neoliberal Case: - Kay points out institutions will not matter in all cases - Normally only low politics, but this case deals in high politics - Institutions do not work separate from the distribution of power (they are a reflection of power) - Sometimes they can “backfire as policy prescriptions” - In actuality, failure can raise costs and reduce national security What the Kay Case shows: Institutions (UN in this case) provide legitimacy and information Contributed to a low-cost disarmament and containment of Iraq in 1990s ○ But shows how uncertainty in crisis lead states (U.S.) to be skeptical of institutions Limits of institutional rules and procedures were exposed… meaning better rules and procedures are needed Thus, Iraq shows benefits of institutions but high costs when states fail to use them Shifting to Public Goods (We are all in this together..) Public Goods Theory: - Provision of commodities that are joint and nonexcludable.. good or bad - Jointness- consumption by one does not reduce total - Nonexcludability- once available no one party can be barred  - Most goods (private or public) lack “purity” Provision of Public Goods 1) Best Shot- Willingness of a single actor 2) Summation Approach- High degree of common interest a) Collective problem- more likely it is that people come together to solve issue 3) Weakest Link- measurement based on weakest coalition member a) Trying to satisfy as many actors, no incentive for weakest link if they get no benefit (*** We want to avoid this) Butler and Boyer Case 1. Regional Peace and Stability - Broadest level (economic downturn) - Fundamental level (human cost) 2. WMD Proliferation - Elimination of a public bad (states having WMD) 3. Links to Terrorist Organizations - Weakest empirical link but… - Attractive to key coalition members - 13 UN conventions in support (of idea of stopping terrorism- global crime) but not much agreement on what terrorism is Provision came in phases Phase 1) Summation approach (March 2003-April 2004) - 49 for 15% ->> is this really summation? - WMD counterproliferation - Some terrorism, some bandwagoning Phase 2) Weakest Link Phase (April 2004-December 2006) - Defections by key members (Spanish precedence) - Only counterterrorism in Iraq as a possible public good/bad Phase II Best Shot Approach (January 2007-January 2009) - Full shift to US provision of costs Transforming Coalition caused by: 1) Movement away from broadly accepted public goods 2) Perceptions to the shifts from public to private goods Limitations of LIberalism, Liberal Institutionalism, and Public Goods: 1) Idealistic heritage 1. Provision of public goods/bads 2. Collective security- will all states see threats the same way? 3. Ignores balance-of-power-politics logic 2) Area of Impact 1. Low politics vs. high politics CONSTRUCTIVISM The 6 Assumptions of Constructivism 1) Ideas, beliefs and identities of individuals are the key understanding to international relations 2) These are “constructed” a) Importance of “intersubjective meanings” 1. Created by “Social act” (Wendt) -> signaling, interpreting, responding (PHYSICAL) 2. “Hermeneutic circle” … which is what? -> Verbal study of language, we can’t learn language successfully until we know how it’s being interpreted 3) Greater emphasis on social factors than on material factors - People create reality, not military and economic power - Student-teacher relationship - Context matters 4) Agent vs. structure debate… What is this? - Where power is actually held in the relationship (difficult to determine which is more powerful) 5) Conflict or cooperation can both occur… no such thing as immutable structure 6) The importance of change - You can have change Social Constructivism as a Powerful tool - They exam a “norm” or idea “life cycle”, which occurs in 3 stages: 1. Emergence - “Norm entrepreneurs” - New idea/ counter norm gets talked about, norm entrepreneurs take ownership and try to spread it in the marketplace of ideas 2. Cascade - “Critical mass”? 3. Internalization - Conformance no longer a question - Allows you to look at two things: 1) Norm convergence and divergence 2) Norm contestation Constructivism Take Away Powerful and popular ○ But perhaps not a paradigm, but an analytical tool Used to show liberal and realist ideas But does that make it any less useful? Lecture: Soft Power - What is soft power? What is it not - Soft Power: the use of attraction and persuasion to influence other states and to achieve foreign policy objectives  - vs - Hard Power: the use of force or coercion to get other states to act in ways that they are against their preferences - Coerce with threats or induce with payments (Carrot & the Stick) - Smart Power: Balance between both soft and hard power - Who holds these different powers? - Systems vs. states vs. individuals Elements of Soft Power: - According to Nye, soft power can be wielded through: - Culture, political values & foreign policy More Examples: - Facemask diplomacy: China’s attempt to protect their image during COVID-19 - Olympics: 3.6 billion peop;e watched opening ceremonies in 2016 Rio - Cold War: was this really soft power? -> more “smart” power Can we measure Soft Power? - BrandFinance - Global Soft Power Index Where does it fall in IR theory? Nye relies heavily on neoliberalism when conceptualization soft power ○ Complex Interdependence: According to Keohane and Nye, “a world in which security and force matter less and countries are connected by multiple social and political relationships” ○ Cooperation > Conflict: How can war be avoided according to Liberalism? - Democracy, economic interdependence, international institutions Does this make sense in today’s context? Why or Why not? Systems, States and Individuals - Why has soft power moved away from systems and states, and toward individuals? - Nye first conceptualized and wrote about soft power in 1990 - Since then, most countries have less and less control over their brand/reputation - Should soft power even be an IR concept??? Possible Critiques/Limitations Do countries really react to soft power? To what extent can governments control their country’s soft power? Is there a clear line between attraction/persuasion and coercion/manipulation?