IR Intro Lecture - International Relations Traditions

Traditions and changing agenda of International Relations: An introductory lecture Dr. Jovanie Camacho Espesor Department of Political Science Mindanao State University - General Santos City  What is International Re...

Traditions and changing agenda of International Relations: An introductory lecture Dr. Jovanie Camacho Espesor Department of Political Science Mindanao State University - General Santos City  What is International Relations? The adjective ‘international’ was coined by the English political philosopher Jeremy Bentham, in 1780. The neologism’s purpose was to capture in an single word relations among nations. Although ‘international’ literally means relations among nations, it has for most of its existence referred to relations among sovereign states. In Bentham’s time ‘nation’ and ‘state’ were often used interchangeably, so his meaning was closer to what we should probably call ’interstate’ relations. Ian Clark and the Great Divide Distinguishing international and domestic politics  The Great Divide Kenneth Waltz (1979:103): the difference between national and international politics lies not in the use of force but in different modes of organisation for doing something about it. Modes of organisation? Waltz offers 2 and only 2 organising principles: hierarchy and anarchy. Relations between units (or actors) are either hierarchical, involving clear lines of authority and obedience, or they are anarchical involving no such lines of authority and obedience. There would be no other possibilities. The key, according to Waltz, is governance; is there a supreme authority with the right to lay down and enforce the law? If the answer is ‘yes’ then we must be in the hierarchical realm of domestic politics – politics within the state. If the answer is ‘no’, then we must be in the anarchical realm of international relations – politics between states. Martin Wight (1966): ‘international politics as the untidy fringe of domestic politics.  The Great Divide Domestic International Inside Outside Hierarchy Anarchy Monopoly over instruments of violence Decentralised instruments of violence Lawful authority Self-help Security Insecurity/Security dilemma Justice Power Community Friends and enemies Peace and order War  The Great Divide Domestic politics is what takes place on the inside of states whereas international relations is what takes place on the outside, as if they mutually exclusive realms. Domestic politics is premised on the presence of a central authority or government that has monopoly control over the instruments of violence, that can lay down and enforce law, that establishes and maintains order and security, and that permits justice and peace to be delivered to the community of citizens.  The Great Divide International relations is the negative image of domestic politics. By contrast with the domestic realm, the international is premised on the absence of an overarching authority or government that can lay down and enforce the law because the instruments of violence are dispersed and decentralised. This establishes ripe conditions for insecurity, where injustice and war are permanent potentials and regular actualities for states. It is a world of friends and enemies where power rather than justice will determine international outcomes, and where states cannot afford to put their trust or security in others. States are trapped in a ‘security dilemma’ where measures taken are to enhance their security lead others to take similar counter-measures and in the process generate further mistrust and insecurity. Anarchy problematique (Richard Ashley, 1989)  Tradition of thoughts in IR Dominant classificatory scheme: Idealism or liberalism Realism Revised form: neoliberalism and neorealism  Realist thought states exist in a condition of anarchy that compels them to seek and to balance power to ensure their survival and security. They paint international relations as to a tragic realm of ‘power politics’ where ‘national interests’ clash and moral claims hold little sway. The character of international relations remains unchanged throughout the history. Kenneth Waltz (1979:66) calls ‘a dismaying persistence’ of war. Wight (1966:26): ‘the realm of recurrence and repetition.’ Canonical names in Realism  Liberal thought Emphasise humanity’s capacity to improve: they are committed to ideals of technological and economic as well as moral, legal and political progress. That the world is anarchical and war-prone is a true for liberals as it is for realists, but the former believe it is possible and necessary for humankind to escape the Hobbesian ‘state of war’ – a condition in which states are insecure and constantly preparing for war. Strategies of ‘peace through law’ and ‘peace through commerce’ are the dominant liberal approaches. In international relations they see the gradual development and strengthening of international trade, international law and international organisations as the key to world order. Names in liberal pantheon  Marxist thought This tradition shifted emphasis away from states to the historical development of the capitalist system and the class conflict it generated. It redirected the focus to an examination of how the twin logics of capitalist development and geopolitical rivalry interacted. Marxism played a vital role in stimulating the Critical Theory, because Marx critically analysed the tensions between hopes of universal freedom and concrete realities of inequality and oppression. Martin Wight labels Marxism as revolutionism that is associated with the perpetual peace of liberal internationalism and the revolutionary internationalism of Marxism – the subversion and liberation and missionary men. Discussion points: Was Thucydides a realist? The Island of Melos and Melian Dialogue Part 2: Changing agendas of theory and practice in International Relations Dr. Jovanie Camacho Espesor Department of Political Science Mindanao State University - General Santos Part 2: Changing agendas of theory and practice in International Relations Dr. Jovanie Camacho Espesor Department of Political Science Mindanao State University - General Santos City Changing political circumstances The ‘critical turn’ against the ‘Great Divide’ ‘Traditional’ agenda: shaped by realism and liberalism  Realism and liberalism tend to accept the terms of the ‘Great Divide’, and to naturalise the ‘anarchy problematique’ tend to take the state for granted as a form of political community  Realists and liberals: Questions of war and law Realists Liberals war as an inevitable and institutional change at the level of the ineradicable part of state and the international system will release potentials for eradicating, or international relations at the very least considerably limiting, insofar as the condition war of anarchy prevails key to achieving perpetual peace is to sceptical that transform the international realm so that it comes to resemble the international anarchy domestic realm can be transformed into spread of liberal democracy will an international result in the strengthening of hierarchy where some international organisations and the kind of global sovereign rule of international law, which will mitigate the worst aspects of anarchy exercises power and and continue to the ‘domestication’ of authority the global system ‘Critical turn’ in IR posed challenge to realism and liberalism Robert Cox identified liberalism and realism (especially in their ‘neo’ versions) with ‘problem- solving theory.’ Problem solving theories work within the present limits of the system to smooth over instabilities or problems; they tend to work in favour of stabilising prevailing structures of world order and their accompanying inequalities of wealth and power. Cox’s main point is that problem-solving theories like realism and liberalism fail to reflect on the prior framework within which they theorise. The upshot is that they tend to be conservative, notwithstanding their claims to objective or value- free analysis.  Marxism, feminism, postmodernism, Critical Theory and sometimes constructivism Cox (1981) ‘theory is always for someone and for some purpose’ All knowledge, according to critical theorists, coloured by social, cultural and ideological The rise of influence, and it is vital to reveal the effect of this conditioning. critical Critical theories of international relations, then, seek to bring to consciousness latent theories assumptions, interests or purpose that give rise to and orient thinking about international relations. Refusing to take the present system as normal or natural, they explore the possibilities of emancipation by forming more inclusionary political communities committed to principles of dialogue and procedural justice.  There is broad agreement among Marxism, Critical Theory, feminism, constructivism, postmodernism and global justice theories that the distinction between inside and outside, hierarchy and anarchy is by no means natural or necessary. It is, rather, a The rise of socially and historically constructed devise for organising political life in a particular way; one that, in empowering critical sovereign states to pursue self-interest through power politics, disempowers and theories renders invisible social classes, women and the excluded in general. The ‘Great Divide’ also functions to reproduce the logics of self-help and power politics in international relations. Alexander Wendt (1992): ‘anarchy is what states make of it’. Changing agenda: From states, war and law to globalisation and global governance Traditional agenda of high politics The ‘Great Divide’ sets up the study of international relations in a particular way – it points us towards certain issues and assumptions, and away from others. It points us towards the ‘traditional’ agenda of ‘high politics’ where diplomatic and strategic issues take centre stage. States becomes the principal actors and focus is concentrated on issues pertaining to their external relations: issues of nationalism, security, arms control, war, diplomacy and great power relations.  What is excluded from the traditional agenda is everything associated with ‘domestic’ or ‘low politics’, everything that does not fit neatly into the agenda of states, war and law. Issues relegated to the margins include economics and the environment, morality and religion, and a range of non-state actors from refugees to terrorists, from multinational corporations (MNCs) to non- governmental organisations (NGOs). Domestic agenda Incorporating such issues and actors into the traditional agenda would effectively collapse the ‘Great of low politics Divide’; it would dissolve international relations into world politics.  New agenda: Globalisation and global governance As a multidimensional phenomenon, globalisation holds different, sometimes contradictory, implications for international relations. At the same time as it promises global interconnectedness, cosmopolitan community and secular modernity, it results in the fracturing of states and the rise of virulent forms of ethno- nationalism and religious fundamentalism. Globalisation has also given rise to actors and institutions concerned to regulate world politics through a combination of ‘public’ and ‘private’ organisations.  Refers to a global system of rule that rests on a blend of formal and informal authorities, officially sanctioned laws and tacit norms. On the formal side we have Global international organisations like the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade governance Organization. On the informal side we have ‘private’ authorities (such as credit- rating agencies), which operate at the global level to monitor and regulate financial activities of states, and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs), which also operate at the global level in assisting states and international organisations in the provision of ‘global public goods.’  Crucial elements in the contemporary architecture of global governance are global economic institutions (GEIs) like the World Bank, IMF and World Trade Organization, which generally lie outside the traditional parameters of realist theories of international relations Architecture of because they are thought to be marginal to the ‘high politics’ issues of strategy global and diplomacy. Yet GEIs continue to exercise, controversially, a great deal of governance influence over countries of the global South. Debate continues about the power of these institutions to regulate the global economy and in whose interests they do so. These debates feed into more general discontent with globalisation.  Power of ideas and norms rising prominence of religion, human rights, refugees and the environment on the agenda of global politics; all are issues of global scope (transnational issues that cross state borders), all are irreducible to material sources of power. humanitarianism has flourished Since the 1990s arguments have even been made that humanitarianism must be prepared to use force if suffering strangers are to be saved.  Change: prominent feature of IR war are equally disposed to change as actors (other than states’ armed forces) engage in organised violence, adopting tactics of guerrilla warfare and terrorism, and applying new technologies that can transform war ‘new wars’ had arisen in places like the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone which did not fit the usual understanding. In the context of the global ‘war on terror’ the US has argued for changes to international law and laws of war in order to fight terrorism more effectively.  Why states are trapped in security dilemma? Can you give examples of scenario that may generate mistrusts and insecurity among countries? How do you understand anarchy problematique? What was the world during Thucydides time? What is high politics? And low politics