Lecture 2.pdf

Common Course Introduction to International Relations BAES 2023/2024 Lecture 2 History of IR theoretical approaches and debates 14 November 2023 Dr Clara della Valle 1 Why do we need IR theories? Ø What are the prospects for war and peace, conflict and cooperation? Ø Why are some people rich an...

Common Course Introduction to International Relations BAES 2023/2024 Lecture 2 History of IR theoretical approaches and debates 14 November 2023 Dr Clara della Valle 1 Why do we need IR theories? Ø What are the prospects for war and peace, conflict and cooperation? Ø Why are some people rich and others poor? Who benefits from the way the international system is structured today? Ø How is it possible to understand the strategies and tactics followed by political leaders? Ø Is it justifiable for sovereign states to care first and foremost about themselves and their own people? Or should they be more concerned with the destinies of humanity as a whole? Theories systematise reality; they focus on what is important and neglect what is not 2 Theoretical models help us to organise our knowledge on what we consider the most important issues, thus facilitating the search for adequate answers There is no neutral system to make a choice among theories: the decision will always depend on the analyst’s personal values and political priorities IR theories: a preliminary overview Theories Focus REALISM SECURITY Power politics, conflict and war LIBERALISM FREEDOM Cooperation, peace and progress INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY (ENGLISH SCHOOL) ORDER AND JUSTICE Interests, rules and institutions shared INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY (IPE) WELFARE Wealth, poverty and equality SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM IDEATIONAL FACTORS Ideas, norms, intersubjective consciousness POST-POSITIVIST APPROACHES REPRESENTATIONS OF THE WORLD Power, emancipation, discourse and speech acts “[T]he main schools of general theory of international relations are not proven in any scientific sense: rather they constitute ways of perceiving international relations, metaphors or models which appeal to their adherents because that is the way they prefer to view the world” Wilkinson (2007: 2) 3 IR as an academic discipline v Initially/primarily study of international politics as politics between states à focus on issues of war and peace; gradually accommodates more and more research topics (e.g. economic interdependence, HR, environment, gender inequalities etc.). v Debate influenced by other disciplines and history/current affairs. v Four ‘ Great Debates’ 1. Utopian Liberalism vs. Realism (‘20s-‘50s) 2. Traditional approaches vs. Behaviourism (‘50s-‘60s) 3. Neo-realism/Neo-liberalism vs. Neo-Marxism (‘60s-‘80s) 4. Established traditions vs. Post-positivist alternatives (post-‘89) 4 I Debate: Utopian Liberalism vs. Realism 5 5 Utopian Liberalism or Idealism v WWI (1914-1918): occasion to create a separate academic subject of IR à never to allow human suffering on such a scale to happen again. v The answers that the new discipline of IR came up with were profoundly influenced by liberal ideas. v For liberal thinkers, WWI was attributable to the egoistic and short-sighted calculations and miscalculations of autocratic leaders in the heavily militarized countries involved, especially Germany and Austria. v US President Woodrow Wilson à only bringing liberal democratic values to Europe and the rest of the world could another great war be prevented. v Academic IR developed first and most strongly in the two leading liberal-democratic states: the US and Great Britain. 6 Utopian Liberalism or Idealism Address to the Congress, January 1918 7 1. Promotion of democracy and selfdetermination: democratic governments do not and will not go to war against each other. 2. Creation of an international organization that would put relations between states on a firmer institutional foundation: international institutions can promote peaceful cooperation among states [see Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace (1795)] à League of Nations (Paris Peace Conference, 1919) Norman Angell, The Great Illusion (1909) Ø Illusion: war serves profitable purposes. Ø In modern times territorial conquest is extremely expensive and politically divisive because it severely disrupts international commerce à modernization demands that states have a growing need of things ‘from outside’ - interdependence à international law regulates interdependence = harmful war. Liberal view of human beings and human society: human beings are rational, and when they apply reason to IR, they can set up organizations for the benefit of all. Public opinion: constructing force à removing secret diplomacy à successful ideas in the ‘20s. Why, then, “utopian liberalism”/ “idealism” / “wishful thinking”? v v v v 8 Fascist dictatorship in Italy and Spain; Nazism in Germany (1920-1930) Authoritarianism in many of the new states of Central and Eastern Europe US isolationism: failure of the League of Nations Crash of Wall Street (1929): failure of modernization and interdependence à economic protectionism Realism response to the ‘20 years crisis E. H. Carr, The Ywenty Years’ Crisis (1964 [1939]) Ø Liberal thinkers profoundly misread the facts of history and misunderstood the nature of IR à there is no harmony of interests between countries. Ø Some countries are better off than others and want to defend their privileged positions; the others, the ‘have-nots’, will struggle to change the situation à conflict is unavoidable. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1948) Ø Human nature is at the base of IR à humans are self-interested and power-seeking (Niebuhr’s theological view) à aggression. Ø ‘International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power’. There is no world government à international anarchy. Ø Cyclical view of history: continuity and repetition (each new generation tends to make the same sort of mistakes as previous generations) à no possibility of progress. This view appeared to capture the essentials of European politics in the ‘30s and world politics in the ‘40s far better than liberal optimism à The first major debate was clearly won by realist thinkers. 9 I Debate: synthesis 10 UTOPIAN LIBERALISM / IDEALISM (CLASSICAL) REALISM HISTORICAL TRAUMA WWI WWII / CW KEY PROBLEM How to eliminate war? How to manage war? PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Trade, world governance, collective security, democratisation Distribution of (military) power, national security, politics-war relationship IMAGE OF HISTORY Progressive Circular KEY-WORDS International law, international organisations, interdependence, cooperation, peace Power politics, (in)security, zero-sum game, competition, war II Debate: Traditional approaches vs. Behaviourism 11 II Debate: Traditional approaches vs. Behaviourism 12 Methodological debate Traditional/Classical approach v v v v First generation of IR scholars: historians, lawyers, diplomats, journalists. Historical and humanistic approach to the study of IR à holistic approach. Theorist inside the subject of study. ‘Judgment’ (Bull, 1969): each action involves normative considerations. Behaviourist approach v Second generation of IR scholars: trained in political science, economics, natural sciences, mathematics. v Rigorous methodological approaches à objective and verifiable laws to explain the world of IR, by collecting large amounts of data, which can then be used for measurement, classification, generalization, and, ultimately, the validation of hypotheses. v Theorist outside the subject of study. v Facts are separate from values à unlike facts, values cannot be explained scientifically. Nobody won, but Behaviourism dominated the discipline after WWII in the US and during the CW 13 II Debate: synthesis TRADITIONAL APPROACHES BEHAVIOURISM Epistemological and methodological approach Understanding norms and values Evaluation of historical knowledge Scholar within the subject Few case studies Often deductive 14 Explaining hypotheses Scientific-positivist knowledge Scholar outside the subject Many cases - many data Often inductive III Debate: “neo-neo-neo” 15 Neo-liberalism v Much influenced by Behaviourism. v In the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s, a good deal of IR consisted of trade, investment, travel, communication etc. à new attempt by liberals to formulate an alternative to realist thinking that would avoid the utopian excesses of earlier liberalism. § § § § 1950s: process of EU integration (strong cooperation, possibly to measure scientifically). From the growth of cross-border activities to the creation of common values and identities à sociological liberalism (Deutsch). 1970s: “complex interdependence” in many sectors and between many actors à interdependence liberalism (Keohane and Nye). collective problems (providing information and reducing transaction costs) à institutional liberalism (Keohane). expansion of the democratisation process after CW: more democracies increase the prospects for peace à republican liberalism (Doyle). …but the East–West confrontation remained a stubborn feature of IR in the ‘70s and ‘80s à realist response! 16 Neo-realism Neorealism Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (1979) v Attempt to formulate “law-like statements” of IR. v No interest in ethics and moral dilemmas of foreign policy. v Focus on the “structure’ of the international system and its consequences: anarchy - no world government. States (units) implement the same functions but differ in relative power. v This explains “a few big and important things”: 1. 2. Great powers tend to balance each other. Weaker states tend to align themselves with the great powers in order to preserve their maximum autonomy. v Power politics is pursued not because human nature is ‘plain bad’, but because it is the only one possible in the anarchic international system. v Possibilities of cooperation are not to be excluded but only arise when power remains constant. 17 “The neo-neo synthesis” Ø In the 80s, neorealism succeeded in putting neoliberalism on the defensive (significance of Waltz theoretical arguments + historical events: intensification of arms race between the US and the Soviet Union). Ø Some neorealists and neoliberals came close to sharing a common analytical starting point that is basically neorealist in character; i.e., states are the main actors in what is still an international anarchy and they constantly look after their own best interests. Ø Neoliberals still argued that institutions, interdependence, and democracy led to more thoroughgoing cooperation than is predicted by neorealists. But many current versions of neorealism and neoliberalism were no longer diametrically opposed. Ø The debate between neorealism and neoliberalism can be seen as a continuation of the first major debate in IR. But unlike the earlier debate, this one resulted in most neoliberals accepting most of the neorealist assumptions as starting points for analysis: “neo-neo-synthesis”. 18 Neo-Marxim v Decolonization à ‘70s: developing countries started to press for changes in the international system to improve their economic position in relation to developed countries. v Neo-Marxism: attempt to theorize about economic underdevelopment in developing countries. v International Political Economy (IPE): who gets what, when and how (Lasswell 1936) in the international economic and political system. v III Debate: a neo-Marxist critique of the capitalist world economy together with liberal IPE and realist IPE. v Neo-Marxist view of IPE § § § 19 ‘Dependence’ (Karl Marx): countries in the developing world are not poor because they are inherently backward or undeveloped, but because they have been actively underdeveloped by the rich countries of the developed world. Developing countries are subject to unequal exchange à in order to participate in the global capitalist economy they must sell their raw materials at cheap prices, and have to buy finished goods at high prices. In marked contrast, rich countries can buy low and sell high. Immanuel Wallerstein, the Modern World System (1974). v Liberal view of IPE § Free markets together with private property and individual freedom create the basis for selfsustaining economic progress for everybody involved (Adam Smith, David Ricardo) v Realist view of IPE (Mercantilism) § Economic activity should be put into the service of building a strong state and supporting the national interest (Friederich List). § The smooth functioning of a free market depends on political power. Without a dominant or hegemonic power, there can be no liberal world economy (Robert Gilpin). There was no clear winner in the third debate. 20 III Debate: synthesis TRADITIONAL APPROACHES HISTORICAL TRAUMA Decolonisation KEY PROBLEM How to break dependance? PROPOSED SOLUTIONS IMAGE OF HISTORY KEY-WORDS 21 NEO-MARXISM See Neo-realism / Neo-liberalism Revolution and disengagement Blocks World capitalist system, dependency, (under)development, North-South divide International Society: the English School v Rejection of behaviouralism: historical and situational approach to IR § § § § deep historical, philosophical, legal analysis no causal theory; no statistical analysis strength = reception empirical complexity of IR; deep understanding of regulatory dilemmas, foreign policy and diplomatic relations weakness = complexity and thus risk of inconsistency v Rejection of firm distinction between a strict realist and a strict liberal view of human nature § no realist pessimism: animus dominandi, survival and self-defence, system, immutability à raison de système = “belief that it is convenient to make the system work” (Watson 1992) § no liberal optimism: individuals, cosmopolitanism, cooperation and perpetual peace à more state-centric approach and different view of institutions English school as ‘middle way’ 22 International Society: the English School v IR can best be interpreted as a society of interacting sovereign states - and not as a system only. “anarchic society” = world social order of independent states (Bull 1995). There is no hierarchical authority/world government (= Realism) BUT this does not necessarily imply the absence of order: common interests exist; institutions, organisations are created to serve them (= Liberalism) IR as “formally anarchic but essentially ordered environment” (Linklater & Suganami 2006) v Two leading International Society theorists: Martin Wight and Hedley Bull. v Two key dimensions of such anarchic society: order and justice. Order is underpinned/enabled by “primary institutions” (Bull) = legitimate standards of behaviour, shared among states and constitutive of international society à Sovereignty; Balance of power; International law; Diplomacy; War; Great Powers. 23 IV Debate: Established traditions vs. Post-positivist alternatives 24 Dissident voices: alternative approaches to IR v End of the CW – today a) new issues on IR agenda (disintegration, civil war, terrorism, democratization, mass migration and refugee problems, gender inequality, environmental security etc.). b) dissatisfaction with the dominant Cold War approach to IR: Waltz neorealism. v Social constructivism is an approach that has grown in importance since the 1980s. Constructivists emphasize the role of human agency and the importance of ideas in international relations. v In recent years, the ‘dissident voices’ in IR have increased in number. They pointed away from the theoretical convictions of neorealism and challenged the great optimism of many liberal views. New perspectives have emerged, both as regards theory; that is, how to best approach the study of IR, and as regards substantial issues; that is, which issues should be considered the most important ones for IR to study. v There is now a diverse group of approaches that question the established traditions in more fundamental ways (IR perspectives from the ‘Global South’; ‘green theory’; feminist and gender studies etc.) 25 IV Debate: synthesis 26 CONSOLIDATED APPROACHES POST-MODERN ALTERNATIVES See Neo-realism, neo-liberalism, Neo-Marxism, English School Post-positivist issues Post-positivist methodologies Constructivism Emancipation Conclusions Ø Facts cannot explain themselves: per se, mere facts do not provide answers to the more complex questions of social reality. Ø IR theories = conceptual lenses through which to interpret the facts of international politics and relate them in a structured way. Ø There is no IR theory that is the absolute best: this is because each theory starts from a priori assumptions (therefore always questionable), focuses on different dynamics, and therefore has inherent limitations; moreover, social reality is ‘pluri-determined’. Ø There are minimum criteria (coherence; clarity of exposition ; unbiased ; scope ; depth ) by which to evaluate a theory but this does not resolve the issue. Ø IR has traditionally operated at different levels of analysis (Waltz three images, 1958; Singer, 1961). In recent decades, strong voices within IR have called for explanations that combine levels, or cut across images à Problem: we gain a more comprehensive understanding of empirical developments but we risk losing theoretical clarity. No single theoretical approach has clearly won the day in the IR à pluralism of IR scholarship. 27 Thank you for your attention! Any question? Dr. Clara della Valle 28