STATES: political-territorial units.

They are generally considered to be main actors in

international relations and that they have been such actors at least since the Peace of
Westphalia. Since the end of the WWI, the prevailing model is Nation-State, in which the
imagined political community defined as Nation is set in an independent legal-territorial unit
(state: estado en el sentido de pas) with an administrative apparatus (state: Estado en el
sentido de la Administracin).

The two main schools of theoretical thought in the IR, realism and liberalism, give a great
importance to states. According to these schools of thought, the states behave like rational
actors pursuing their interests. Their main interests are their survival and maximisation of
power. Both theories assume that the states are independent units that interact in a system of
international anarchy. This means that the interaction of the states in the sphere of
International Politics is not regulated by any external authority or law. The liberals maintain
that states can build an international regime or organization that then takes a life on its own,
imposing patterns of behaviour on the states. Realists see international organisations mainly
as tools of the states and/or as arenas for their competition.

Self-help
Balance of Power
Alliances in case of relative advantage (realists) or absolute advantage (liberals).

You can find this in the book in the chapters on Realism, Liberalism, and the Neo-Neo debate,
so no need for me to explain it here.

The Marxists see the states as part of superstructure, as more or less efficient tools of
economic structures and their interests. Social constructivists and post-structuralists both
understand the states as specific historical constructs. As such, they may tend to behave in a
particular way when inserted in a specific structure or system of meanings. They may agree
that in specific historical settings, the states may indeed behave as the realists and liberals say
they do. However, social constructivists and post-structuralists would argue that the states
behaviour is not a law of nature or an essential characteristics of the states, but it can change
due to human action, change in structures or shifts in the system of meanings. They point to
the fact that states as such have undergone impressive historical changes and their importance
for the organisation of human communities has varied greatly.

Post-structuralists point to the fact that states are actually just one of many ways of organising
political communities. You may learn about the historical changes regarding nation-states and
other political communities in the chapter Globalisation and the Transformation of Political
Community (p. 617-631 of the book Patricia has sent you a link to). You can use this for the
exam.

If we look at international politics from the state perspective, we can identify several
configurations. We may have a multipolar system in which several important powers
exercise power at geopolitical level. The examples would be Europe in the second half of the
nineteenth century (France, UK, Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire)
and it seems that the world is now heading towards a similar arrangement (USA, China,
Russia, Japan and to less extend the EU and Brazil). We may have a bipolar system: the most
typical example would be the USA and the USSR in 1945-1989. This means that there are two
rival superpowers in the system, and the other countries are allies of one or another or stay at
the margins of the competition of the two. Then there may be a monopolar or unipolar
system: one hegemonic superpower exercising military and political (and economic)
influence all over the world, forcing the rivals to negotiate and/or to be content with
exercising mainly regional influence. The example would be the Roman Empire in the
Euromediterranean region in 100 BC 250 AD or the USA in 1990s-2000s.

For a country to be a global power, the country should have both means/capacities (number of
inhabitants, territory, economy, military power, diplomatic skills, cultural influence or at
least some of these) and will to exercise power beyond its frontiers.

When we say: China thinks, Russia wantsetc. we have to be aware of the implications. We
may think, like the realists, that the leaders and governments tend to push for the basic
interests of their states (survival and maximisation of power). But we may also be inspired by
Marxists by questioning whose interests the leaders and governments actually promote. We
may also see how governments are not coherent, but composed bodies of several bureaucratic
and economic structures and these divisions and interminglings may shape their actions.
Furthermore, we should not assume that there is an accord between the interests of the
individual the nation the government the state. We should also listen to social
constructivists that point to the fact that what we consider our interests depends greatly on our
values and norms.