1

Hello, and thank you for joining this course. My name is

Tim Khatkevich from the National Research University
Higher School of Economics in Moscow, and today, we'll
start our conversation about the Theory of International
Relations. The Theory of International Relations is one of
the central, one of the most important disciplines among
all the humanities. But why is it so important, you can
ask. The importance of International Relations Theory is
explained by the fact that the main question, which is in
a very very heart of our discipline, is the question of
peace and war. Every international situation represents a
choice between conflict or cooperation. In other words
again peace and war. Every practical decision of politician
is a choice between conflict and cooperation, in other
words, about between peace and war. And every
academic advice is a choice between conflict and
cooperation. One way of writing our academic papers or
analytical papers, we always address to a certain
audience and we advise this audience based on our
theoretical approaches. We advise these audience to
make a certain choice, and this choice is always about
peace and war, conflict, and cooperation. This makes our
discipline one of the most important among all the
humanities. The other reason which explains the
 2

importance of IR Theory, is because it deals with the

highest units of the human organization, the social
organization, the states. There is nothing bigger than a
state in the modern world, and IR Theory is analyzing
correlations trips between those unions which are on the
very very top of social organization. But we also call
International Relations Theory a science. But what is a
science, and why international relations theory is a
science? As it is widely known that in the broadest sense,
science is any systematic knowledge that is capable of
resulting in the correct prediction or reliable outcome.
International Relations Science focuses on a certain field
of social relationships, as they have said, the highest field
of social relationships, relationships between nations and
states. A scientific method seeks to explain the events of
nature in the reproducible way and to use these findings
to make useful predictions which can be later
implemented and used by the policymakers and other
practitioners. Scientific thinking is one of the ways to find
answers, besides, of course, practical thinking,
professional thinking, religious thinking, ideological
thinking. Scientific thinking represents a very very special
approach to the things, and it revolves creation of a
grand concept to explain very general patterns of social
 3

activities and theory. What is International Relations

Theory? In a scientific sense, theory means general set of
propositions. These propositions allow us to generalize,
thus, provide an explanation, establishing a casual
relationship between the variable, serving as a sort of
explanatory concepts or a source of ways of evaluating
the point we use well meaning of such concepts- Austin
Harrington, Modern Social Theory: An Introduction.
International Relations Theory aims to find special
patterns and explain the highest level of social
interaction, relationships between sovereign states.
What is the field of International Relations? Theorists
discuss about it. From the very beginnings of our science
as an academic discipline one hundred years ago, there is
a big discussion on what we define, what is the subject
with which the International Relations Theory is dealing.
Some theories define International Relations very
narrowly. They define it as simply relations between
units states in the international system. Some theories
are more inclusive in terms of both actors, units, states,
other actors and relations, what actually the
Internationalist theory is analyzing, we're sort of the
relationships. Those theories are also theories also
focused on the inter-state, inter-society, and state
 4

society relations. And while during our course, we will

look at the different theoretical paradigms, the different
theories. We will see that each of them is choosing the
most important actors, sort of forms of relations. Each of
them focuses on the special inter-state, inter-society, or
state-society relations, and for each theory, the special
relation is the most important. For example, for the
realists, there is no question about which sort of
relations is most important, the relations between the
states. But for the Liberal Theory of International
Relations, the most important relations are not within
the states but between the society and the states, and
the internal politics are directly influencing the foreign
policy of any country. For the Marxist Theory and the
other theories derived from the Marxist school, the most
important relations are not between the states, but
between the social classes. But also some theories
include it into the IR Theory into original relations, and
also relations between states, international
organizations, or economic relations, this approach of a
special use nowadays when the number of international
organization has been growing for nearly a century, and
the economic relations, economic factors become more
and more important in how the relationship between the
 5

states establish and how they developed. There are two

general traditions within the theory of International
Relations, because there is no any general or joint IR
Theory. The two traditions are finding their roots in the
very very beginnings of the human civilization. The first is
called ancient, a classic tradition. And because of its
name, we see that it is derived from the theories, from
ideas and from the philosophy of the Ancient Greece.
This tradition assumes that the logic of international
politics is driven by the human nature. And what is most
important, this approach thinks that human nature is
unchangeable. This approach thinks that human nature
has been always not good, that people have been always
trying to maximize their benefits at the expense of the
other people. And this consequently makes the conflict
the normal state operations between people and as a
normal state of relationships between the states. See,
International Relations. Those who belonged to ancient
or classic tradition, those who belong to the theories,
which are derived from the ancient or classic tradition,
believe that there is no way to advance the nature of
international politics in any fundamental way, nor to
bring eternal peace. Another tradition is much more
optimistic. It finds its roots in the Christian tradition in
 6

the Bible and the Christian philosophy, but also in the

other monotheistic religions. It is leaner, meaning that
the history is trying to achieve a certain point or
perfectness and when it achieves a certain point of
perfectness, the relations between people and between
the states are going to be just peaceful and calm. They
also won't happen again, and in order to arrive to such a
great state of the affairs, we need to work on how to
improve the relations between the states, how to make
the institutions between them, how to make the most
civilized, because those who believe to the Christian
tradition, liberals, there are also Marxist and some other.
Theories of International Relations, genuinely believe
that these relations can be better and can be good. So
this idea is based on the Christian idea of Dynamic
History, which develops to a certain catharsis, "Kingdom
of Heavens". In IR Theory, it means eternal peace. As a
manual concept, whom I am going to discuss during our
second lecture, the eternal peace means the end of
interstate wars, and the end of the history of violence.
These two traditions together make up three major
paradigms in the IR Theory. First of all, let us ask the
question what is a paradigm? To understand the
meaning of the word is very important, in order to use it
 7

properly. Paradigm is understood as a distinct set of

concepts or thought patterns, which includes theories,
research methods, postulates, and standards for what
constitutes legitimate contribution to the field. So, these
two traditions make up three major paradigms in the
Theory of International Relations. But, first of all, we
need to ask the question, "What is a paradigm?". We
need to understand the meaning of the word in order to
use it properly. Paradigm is usually understood as a
distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including
theories, research methods, postulates, and standards
for what constitutes legitimate contribution to your field.
So, in order to be a legitimate contributor to our science,
we need to operate with the correct theories, research
methods, postulates, and standards which belong to
something purely for international relations, and this is
important of our discipline. The International Relations
Theory thus, includes three major paradigms. One
paradigm is co-paradigm of pessimism or realism. This
paradigm belongs to both mentioned classical tradition
and it is based on the concept of eternal and
unchangeable nature of international politics as a
consequence of eternal and unchangeable nature of
human beings. The other two paradigms are much more
 8

optimistic. They believe that things can become better.

Liberalism and Marxism belonged to the Christian
tradition and they assume the development of
international relations should unavoidably come to a
certain point of perfectness so the end of history, and we
should work to make this way through them to achieve
this end of history and to achieve the perpetual peace
faster. But, to begin with, let us address to the very very
origins of the Classical Realist Tradition.2. International
relations theory is both very young and very old
discipline. It is a very young because the first chair of
international relations theory was established nearly 100
years ago after the first world war. Why it is very old?
Because the very origins of classical realist tradition we
find in the work of the Thucydides, the ancient Greek
historian, philosopher and general, author of a History of
Peloponnesian War. Thucydides himself was fighting on
the side of the Athens in this war. He was the Athenian
general. But later, he retired and he had a chance to
conceptualize, to think about the reasons of this war,
about why this ancient Greek states started this war
between them, which finally destroyed their greatness.
And he managed to make the first conclusions, the first
general observations about the reasons and causality in
 9

their international relations and regarding the most

important problems such as problem of the actress, who
is the main actor, that's a problem of the reasons for war
and reasons for peace and many others. Unlike
Herodotus and another great ancient Greek and many
other historians of that time, Thucydides aimed to study
fundamental laws of history and politics rather than just
describe the past as the others did. So when we look at
his work, the History of Peloponnesian War, we will find
that it consists of the two major sections. The first
content of this work, he is describing the sequence of the
events of the Peloponnesian war. And the other, are his
own editorials, are his explanations of why the things
happen in a certain way and don't happen in another
way. So, his essential task and the most important
purpose of his work, first of all was to understand origins
of war. Thucydides said, history is philosophy teaching by
examples. And this quotation we can still use as one of
the main characteristic of our discipline. We never say
that theory of international relations is disconnected
with the practice. Theory of international relations is one
of the most connected to the practice disciplines as it has
started by Thucydides. But first of all, let us say several
words about the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides was not
 10

young when Peloponnesian war started. We all know

from history that for many years, the ancient Greek
democracies have been fighting for their liberty against
their invasions from Persia. We all, many of us seen the
movies about the 300 Spartans and the continuation
movies. We all know how difficult and how cruel this
war. But finally, Greeks won the war, and two major
powers emerge in the ancient Greece. One power was
their naval union led by the Athens. And the other one
was a land-based union led by Sparta. And so,
Peloponnesian war occurred between two major powers
of the ancient Greece, Athens and Sparta, both leading
broad coalitions of city states. By that time ancient
Greece didn't know these states in our modern
contemporary understanding. That time it was divided to
the small, the time was very very tiny. City states based
either on the islands or on the continent. So the
international system of Peloponnesian peninsula and
ancient Greece before the war and during the war,
represented a model of bipolar order, and Thucydides
was the first to describe the patterns, driven, such
international structure and reasons why the two major
parts of this bipolar order finally ended into the cruel war
between them. Peloponnesian war was a very very big
 11

conflict. Many people has been fighting many people

died, and the outcome of the conflict reshaped the
ancient Greek war entirely. Athens, the strongest city-
state in Greece prior to the war, whereas beginning, lost
its power, while Sparta became the leading power of
Greece. Therefore, a bipolar system was transformed
into the unipolar one. But we should not also forget that
soon after the end of the Peloponnesian war, the
Macedonian invaders came from the north and they
have taken over both the Sparta and Athens. So, the final
consequence of this war was the weakening of both
fighting parties and taking them over by the third party.
Well, we can find many other examples in the human
history when the stupidity of the war leads us to these
sorts of consequences. So, the Peloponnesian war, as we
can see on the map, was the most grand scale and
devastating conflict between Greek city-states of that
time, emphasized necessity of understanding the nature
of war and peace. Main purpose of the work of
Thucydides was to explain the war. And he explained in
the perfect way which seems very well known and used.
And his explanation is used by their theories and called,
Thucydides trap. We can vote for Thucydides. He wrote,
the real cause I consider to be one which was formerly
 12

most kept out of sight. The growth of the power of

Athens and the alarm which this inspired in Sparta made
war inevitable. According to Thucydides, beginning of the
war was driven by fear associated with a shift in the
balance of power. Sparta was afraid of losing its pre-
eminent role in the Hellenic world. Thus, took counter
measures to build up its military strength. We can see
that Thucydides trap can be applied to the many
situations in the history of international relations. And he
points out that the main reason for war is fear because
we never know the intentions of our partners, he wrotes.
We always assume that our partner is getting stronger
not because of any other reason but because he is going
to attack us, and we always fear. And fear, according to
Thucydides, is a main driving force which brings nations
to the war. Thucydides emphasizes the limited room for
maneuver available to the statesmen. When leaders
perceive the balance of power is shifting to their disfavor,
they have to control it, and they have no other options.
They cannot respond to this shift in the balance of power
by decreasing their strength. They can only respond by
increasing their strength. But when they do it, the other
countries perceived that these measures are of offensive
nature. And they also start to increase their strength and
 13

that drives nations to the conflict. Therefore, concludes

Thucydides, international politics, politics between the
states, is driven not by individuals but by laws of history.
And this is a very important observation because many
times you can see in the newspapers that a certain
conflict seldom were emerges because somebody is
guilty, because somebody is pushing a policy which is bad
but not always like this more, never like this.
International policy is driven not by individuals but by
laws of history and on many examples in the future, in
the many many other works of which belongs to the
classical and realist tradition of international relations
theory, we will see the examples and the useful
explanations of this. Fear, concludes Thucydides, makes
states suspect others of betrayal and power themselves
for self-defense. Whenever power ourselves for offence,
we always think about self-defense but consequently it
brings us to the conflict. That is the driving pattern of
international politics which also explains emergence of
an alliance-based bipolar system before the war.3. So,
reading his work, we see that Thucydides has been one
who found the reasons for war, first among all schools of
international relations. But besides addressing to the
question of reasons of war, Thucydides also explored
 14

some other important issues which deal directly with the

theory of international relations, even nowadays. First of
all, he addressed the question of morals and
international politics. He is explaining, and he is
addressing and studying the question of morals in the
international politics, by the example of the collision
which has happened between Athens and the small
island Melos, which is led by its party union. Athens
invaded Melos back in 416 BC, and demanded that
Melians, the people who lived there, surrender and pay
tribute to Athens and join their alliance or face
annihilation. The proud Melians refused, and after the
siege, the Athenians captured the city and slaughtered
most of the population. The Melian Dialogue, the
negotiations between the two sides before the battle,
which we can find in the book of Thucydides, represents
one of the most ancient icons of the morals and power in
international politics. Melian dialogue is a discussion
between the delegations of Athens and Melos. People
from Athens insist on their right to do what they want,
and demand that Melos surrenders. People from Melos
said that they are not going to fight against Athens, they
want to keep a certain neutrality, but the Athenians are
very very persistent. Athenian perspective on the issue of
 15

morals is the following, the Athenians say, right as the

world goes is only in question between equals and
power, while the strong do what they can, and the weak
suffer what they must. So we see that according to the
first statements or the classical religious tradition, their
moral and their right and the justice, can exist only
between equals and power. But when we deal with the
relationship between the stronger countries and the
weak countries, according to the realist tradition, we do
not speak any more about justice and about morals.
According to Thucydides, the standards of justice
depends on the equality of power, and we will find the
same ideas in many works of those scholars who belong
to the realist tradition even much later on. For example,
in the work of Edward Hallet Carr, which has been
written back in 1939, we find the same idea. Edward
Hallet Carr writes that, morality and politics is not
derived from the normal morality of the relationship
between people, the morality in politics is a very special
morality which is typical only for this very special sort of
relationships. But after the greatest findings of
Thucydides, the classical tradition experienced its
decline. The decline has several reasons. First, and the
most important reason, was the rise of the Roman
 16

Empire which brought the idea of universal state

civilization, Pax Romana. Roman empire developed itself
from the very small republic on the West Coast of Italian
Peninsula, to the huge empire which basically
embarrassed all contemporary Europe, North Africa and
the Middle East, stretched from the British islands to the
Palestine, and from the Morocco to the German forests.
It was a superpower of that period. Another superpower
was the Chinese empire in the east. But those two
countries have never interacted, and the history doesn't
have any experience of the relationships between the
two first superpowers. Pax Romana did not leave a place
for the balance of power concept, as there were no any
other states to challenge their own. Relationships with
Barbarians and the Romans called everybody who
surrounded them, Barbarians, were never considered by
the Romans as an interaction of equals. It was an eternal
war between the civilized world and uncivilized
periphery. What made the Romans viewed this
relationships as a moral conflict of the two societies
where one had a more advanced domestic order, while
the second put a threat towards it. The same situation by
the way, we find in the east, where the Chinese Empire
has never considered its neighbors as equals. And this is
 17

the reason why the theory of international relations has

never developed in China. And today our, Chinese
colleagues need to accept the international relations
theory, which has been developed in Europe, where
other nations for many centuries experienced the
relationships between the equals, after Roman Empire
collapsed. The other reason for the decline of classical
tradition, was the emergence of Christian Universalism.
After the Roman empire collapse,a new idea came from
the Middle East, the idea of Christian religion. It emerged
and dominated in Europe till the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. Christianity suggested that a new
idealistic interpretation of history, which hardly
correlated with the classic tradition. While Thucydides
considered international system as a static system,
christian doctrine viewed history as a permanent
transformation from one condition to another. Final
destination of the man kind is the End of History,
Kingdom of Heavens. The return of classical tradition
appeared only in the end of the fifteenth, beginning of
the sixteenth century. Renaissance returned the classic
tradition of international relations in the center of
intellectual life. It was partly driven by emerging interest
in the Ancient legacy, in Literature and philosophy.
 18

However, more importantly, the Renaissance became a

birth time for the first centralized states, which formed
the first post-feudal balance of power in Europe and
especially, in the Eponym peninsula, during the Italian
Wars of 1494-1559. So, exactly in the end of the fifteenth
century and beginning of the sixteenth century, the first
states emerged, and those states started to treat each
other as equals, and that's why they needed again the
ideas about how to treat each other. And that's why the
thinkers of that age started to develop the new general
approach to the theory of international relations, and
one of the most important authors here, is Niccolo
Machiavelli.
4.Well, before we talk about Niccolo Machiavelli, let us
look at the map of Italy during the Italian wars. We see
that the two major European powers have been present,
Kingdom of France, and Spanish Empire. Those empires
have been related to is a very close links, but at the same
time they are very, very strong rivalries and their arrival
was mainly about Italy. In one of his letters, actually the
emperor of the Holy Roman empire Charles V wrote,
"The interest of myself and of my cousin French king
Francois Premier, are basically the same, we both want
Northern Italy." And this quotation gives us a perfect
 19

example of how the political thoughts of the Renaissance

supports us to understand the causes of the conflict. The
conflict emerges not when the interests are different, but
when the two powers want the same. Like now, many
countries want their own, their same neighbors to be
friendly nations, but it means for everybody different.
Besides two great countries, France and Spanish Empire
and Holy Roman Empire, we see that their territory of
Italy consists of the several small states, among them the
Holy state, Papal state, is only one. The other important
factor of the emergence of this unique international
system was the decline of the authority of the Roman
Pope. The states and the food of, the lords of the newly
emerging little states, they did not have any respect to
the Rome which it has deserved for many, many
centuries before. And this disrespect and the emergent
equality of the relationships becomes one of the most
inspiring reasons for their political thought of the
Renaissance. And among those thinkers, Machiavelli is
definitely one of the brightest. Classical tradition during
Italian Wars was developed in his book "The Prince" - an
influential political ecce, written by Niccolo Machiavelli
for Lorenzo de Medici in 1513. It was first published
however, only in 1532, because the Roman church did
 20

not like it very much. The Roman church thought and

said that "The Prince" represents the very immoral, non-
Christian unfortunately international relations. Why?
Because basically Niccolo Machiavelli addressed to the
very beginnings of classical tradition, nearly for the
Fukudidas and other predecessors. He brought the ideas
from the ancient Greece, from the previous thinkings,
and he adopted these ideas to his time, and he used
these ideas as an advise for political practice. So, what
Machiavelli wrote and why it is important for the
understanding of international relations? Let us take
several quotations, the first, the Machiavelli writes, "War
should be the only study of a prince". By saying this,
Machiavelli defines what is the main form of interaction
between the states. For him, as for any classic realist, the
war is the normal condition, not the peace. Why?
Because the states are always competing, because the
states can never get in terms, they can be never a final
solution. Every solution, every victory, or every
compromise is only the preparation of another conflict,
of another war. And that's why war should be the only
study of a prince. The other quotations, "The promise
given was a necessity of the past: the world broken is a
necessity of the present." This sounds very cynical
 21

indeed. But for Machiavelli, it was obvious that any

politician, any prince responsible for his country, for his
state, must give any promises to the other countries and
has no moral responsibility with regard to the others, he
has only one more responsibility is to protect his power,
and is to protect the people who live in his country. And
in the works of Machiavelli, we find the another
maximum. Machiavelli writes that the prince who is
favorable to theirs those who live in the other states is
unfavorable and is moral towards his own subordinates.
The other quotation, "Politics have no relation to
morals", is a very, very straightforward, and it is also
related to what Fukudida said many 100 years before
Machiavelli and nearly 2000 years before Machiavelli.
And what will be said by the classics and by the others of
offers of realist tradition in international relations. But to
understand that better, we should not look at the ideas
of Machiavelli very primitively. Machiavelli was not a
simple cynical offer by saying politics have no relation to
morals. He wanted to say only one thing that the politics
are so important that one cannot approach politics with
a normal human attitude to the questions like morals,
justice, humanism, and the other important things which
exist between the people within the society. So, in work
 22

of Machiavelli, we find one of the most important

concepts of the international relations and the approach
to the international relations from the school of classical
realism, the straight division between the internal and
international, what is permittable, what is possible
internationally, does not exist inside of the society, and
what is a normal inside of the society like morals or
justice, does not exist in international relations where as
Fukudida wrote 2000 years before Machiavelli that only
strength matters. Machiavelli understanding of politics
was based on the three major ideas, one has been
already mentioned, "War should be the only study of
prince". The main responsibility of the rulers is always to
defend the interests of the state and ensure its survival.
"The promise given was in the necessity of the past: the
word broken is a necessity of the present." So, if
necessary others have said already, a ruler must be
ruthless and deceptive while defending self-interest. So,
in today's politics we see many times when countries
complain that they were not explained before what are
intentions of their partners. But we should also
understand that it is always the work or the maximum
explained by Machiavelli several 100 years ago. And the
third one, "Politics have no relation to morals". A
 23

responsible ruler should not follow Christian ethics, if

states follow these values, they will disappear in the end.
Thus, for Machiavelli and the likes, the morality and
ethics is an indicator of that a certain ruler is
irresponsible with regard to his power, his legitimacy,
and people whom he is governing. Another great
representative of the classic realist tradition was a British
philosopher, Thomas Hobbes which lived in the end of
the 16th and beginning of the 17th, and the middle of
the 17th century. It was a very, very difficult time for
Europe. The wars happened here and there. The great 30
years war was taking place in the very, very heart of
Europe around the Holy Roman Empire. The other wars
happen on periphery, Russia arrived to the European
politics with invasion of the Baltics by the wars of the
Ivan the Terrible. So, Thomas Hobbes, based on this
intellectual and practical background offered a
justification of states by envisaging a state-less state of
nature. In this state human beings lived in the condition
of "war everyone against everyone". For Thomas
Hobbes, this condition was the very initial and was
threatening the very existence of humans. And according
to that Thomas Hobbes people seek to escape the state
of nature to achieve personal security and to find a
 24

solution, and the solution is to establish state. In order to

escape from this situation, Hobbes suggested placing old
power to a certain sovereign state, which he calls
Leviathan, a state authority or supreme ruler, that would
maintain order and end anarchy. Without order, no
economic development, art, knowledge is possible. It
leads to establishment of a social contract. However
unlike a liberal tradition, Hobbes supposes that such
contract was conducted not between individuals, but
between individuals and the government. And this is a
very important difference between liberal and realist
tradition. For the realist, the most important unit is the
state under the government, for the liberals, this is the
individual.
5. [MUSIC] In his work, Thomas Hobbes deals directly
with one of the most important problems, one of most
important paradox and dilemmas in international
relations. The dilemma between internal order and
international anarchy. And according to the Thomas
Hobbes, these two are related between them. The
internal order is the reason for international anarchy.
And international anarchy is a consequence of the states
able and the people able to establish this internal order.
Thomas Hobbes writes in his work, in all times kings, and
 25

persons of sovereign authority, because of their

independence, are in continued jealousies, and in the
state and posture of gladiators, having their weapons
pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another. That their
forts, garrisons, and guns upon the frontiers of their
kingdoms, and continual spies upon their neighbors,
which is a posture of war. So according to the Thomas
Hobbes, as we can see in this quotation, one of the main
reasons of rivalry and competition between the states is
their independence. More the states are independent,
more they are capable to compete with the others. The
other reason of the conflict is a continual jealousness.
The states are jealous towards each other, and they're
always in the state of posture of gladiators. The ancient
Roman fighters who have entertained rich people
fighting with swords and other means in the theaters and
on the other arenas. So and for the state's own
instruments, which they have in their disposal, are
applied in order to compete, and in order to threat, and
in order to, potentially, fight the other states. So we see
that already in the works of Thomas Hobbes, the main
reason and the main purpose of the state policy,
according to the realist tradition, is survival, because the
states are the gladiators. They need to survive, and they
 26

need to use all means in order to survive. How Leviathan,

the biggest work of Thomas Hobbes, explains the
international politics? But, first of all, let us ask the
question, what is a Leviathan? Leviathan is a Bible beast,
a beast from the Bible, the biggest book of the Christian
tradition. And Leviathan, his particularity, is that
Leviathan is the strongest. There is nobody, no any other
beast which can beat Leviathan, which is stronger than
Leviathan. And it was important for Thomas Hobbes to
choose exactly this definition for the state. Because for
him, the Leviathan, the state, is the highest authority,
which can be never beaten by the other more strong
authority. So, according to the Thomas Hobbes,
achievement of personal security and domestic security
for the creation of a state leads to international
insecurity, which is rooted in the anarchy of the state
system. Leviathans are doomed to fight a war with
everyone against everyone, as people have been doing
before, because they feel of insecurity, and eager for
power, wealth, and glory. So their relationships, which
are, fortunately, not anymore exist on the internal level
within the society, this fight more of everyone against
everyone. They automatically transfer to the
relationships between the state. And according to the
 27

Thomas Hobbes, it is impossible to establish a Leviathan

over Leviathans. States will never give up their
sovereignty. Therefore, anarchy is a normal and eternal
state of the international system. But there is another
reason for their eternal anarchy in international systems.
Leviathan over Leviathans, or the war of the government,
cannot be established, because the ordinary people, like
me and you, we give up our rights in order to achieve
security and safety to the state. We cannot give our
freedoms to the world government. We can give our
freedoms only to the national government, which we
elect and which we legitimize by our own decision. We
want our security, that's why we create the state. And if
this state, which we create between us, according to the
realist tradition, we'll, together with the other states,
established a certain world government, or the world
state. It will not be any more elected by us, thus it will
not be legitimate in our eyes. Thus the relationships
between the people will come back to the very
beginnings, to the original nature of war of everyone
against everyone. Do we want this situation? I don't think
so. The work of Thomas Hobbes was inspired by the
tragic events, which has happened in Europe in the first
half of the 17th century, the Thirty-year War, which
 28

lasted from 1618 to 1644. The House of Habsburg was

one of the most important royal houses of Europe, and is
best known for being an origin of all the formally elected
Holy Roman Emperors between 1438 and 1740, as well
as rulers of the Austrian and Spanish domains and
several other countries. The Habsburg family
represented the idea of universalism, unification of the
whole world, at that time, Europe, under one Christian
ruler. The alternative was represented by the emerging
national states. In Germany, but not only the France,
which was a Catholic country, was a national state as
well. So the Thirty-years War was not just a war about
the religion. It was a war against the Habsburg
hegemony, rather than a religious conflict caused by the
religious means. The most illustrative example,
participation of Catholic France in the Anti-Habsburg
coalition. The Thirty-years War was unique by the
number of the countries and the states involved. The
Habsburgs and their allies were composed by the Holy
Roman Empire, so-called Catholic League of the small
German states, Spain, Hungary, Kingdom of Croatia,
Denmark-Norway fora certain time, but also Poland.
Anti-Habsburg Coalition was much wider. The France was
one of the main participants, United Provinces, Sweden,
 29

Spain, Denmark-Norway, Saxony, England, the Palatinate,

and Germany, Prussia, Brunswick-Luneburg, and some
other teeny German states were fighting on the sides of
their Anti-Hasburg Coalition. The First World War, though
it was fought only on the European grounds, this war has
taken lots of victims. The population of many European
countries decreased significantly, especially in Germany,
which suffered most. But as every war, this war ended,
and it is ended with the Peace of Westphalia, so far the
biggest achievement of international diplomacy and the
main foundation of the international law. So what is a
uniqueness of Peace of Westphalia? We are going to deal
with and talk about in our next episode. [MUSIC] As it has
been already said, one of the most important
characteristics of the Thirty Years' War was its extreme
brutality. Not only armies have been fighting each other,
but also the numerous gangs of the mercenaries, former
soldiers, and other illegal individuals have been crowding
the roads of Europe and have been destroying European
cities and towns, mainly in Germany. But what was the
biggest shock for the people is that all parties who have
been fighting this war, they were Christians. The brutality
is known in European history. For example, European
crusaders have been extremely brutal when they
 30

traveled to the Middle East during the crusades. The fight

with the Ottoman Empire was a very cruel fight. But
during the Thirty Years' War, was the first after the
beginning of Renaissance case when the Christian
nations have been fighting each other and destroying the
population of another states almost completely. Thus,
the people of that age, as Thomas Hobbes and many
others, started to think of what can be the substantial
replacement for the Christian morality which has been
dominating the international politics before the
Reformation in Germany and before the Thirty Years'
War. The war was also very exhausting. European nations
have been fighting 30 years. They lost so many human
lives. So, they were prepared to any decision just to end
it. Here, we can use the quotation from the book, "World
Politics", of one of the most famous, nowadays,
practitioners and intellectuals in international relations,
the former American Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.
Henry Kissinger writes in his book, "Paradoxically, these
genuine exhaustion and cynicism allow the participants
of the Westphalian Congress to transform the practical
means of ending a particular war into general concepts
of world order." There was no Peace of Westphalia or
Westphalian Congress as a one event. There were several
 31

negotiations conducted in two German cities. One of

basically populated by the Catholics, another one by the
Protestants. Entirely, the participants of these
negotiations have mounted up in numbers up to the 400,
450. None of them was as most important was the state
leader or the king because all of them have been lawyers
and representatives of the communities. They were
bureaucrats, and this is particularity over the
Westphalian order and Westphalian peace. It is not a
decision of the heads of the states. It is a decision of
lawyers. That's why it is so important, and this is why the
Westphalian system and Westphalian order continues
nowadays. But let us look at the three principle of
Westphalian sovereignty. The Westphalian Treaty gave a
birth to three essential principles, which became a
foundation of Westphalian sovereignty and Westphalian
order on the relationships between the states. So,
nowadays, when we use a word "order", when we speak
international relations, we always, and first of all, were
effort of the Westphalian order which was established
after the brutal Thirty Years' War. The first principle is,
"Whose realm, his religion." A sovereign defines religion
in a certain area. It was very important to say that days
after Europe has been fighting the religious war for
 32

almost nearly a century. So, with the Westphalian peace,

the European nations managed to come to the
conclusion that their religion must be exclusively internal
affairs of each of them and the wars, what is most
important, should not be fought because of the religious
reasons. So, fighting for religion, fighting for values, not
interests, was forbidden by the Westphalian peace. The
other principle is not less simple. "Every king is the
emperor in his own kingdom", all states are independent
and equal to each other. So, by this principle with the
Westphalian peace, the sovereign equality of the states
was introduced. And now, if you look to the United
Nations Charter, we see that these principles exist there.
The United Nations Charter says that every nation, every
state is equal and independent to each other. The third
principle says that no one can be stronger than others,
and this principle represents the one of the most
important principles of the European politics for several
centuries after, balance of power as the key principle of
international politics. If we look at the international
relations during the several centuries after the
Westphalian peace was concluded back in 1648, we will
find that these principles were rarely damaged or abused
by the European states only at times. And we can see
 33

that most of the big European wars were fought because

one European country tried to become stronger than the
others. The Napoleonic Wars, the First World War, the
Second World War was provoked by one nation trying to
dominate the others. And if we look at the international
relations nowadays after the end of the Cold War, we will
find that when one nation tried to become stronger and
become dominant over the others, the others resisted.
And the reason for the anarchy in international relations,
the reason of the decrease of the order in international
relations is exactly because of the conflict around the
terms of one power to become the strongest and
dominant and resistance of the others. So, by the
Westphalian order, the new international order, the new
international way of doing things, of organizing the
relationships between the states emerges. Here, we can
quote Henry Kissinger again. He writes, "The genius of
the system, Westphalian system, and the reason it
spread across the world, was that its provisions were
procedural, not substantive. If a state would accept these
basic requirements, it could be recognized as an
international citizen able to maintain its own culture,
politics, religion, and internal policies, shielded by the
international system from outside intervention." I think
 34

this is a very genius observation. So, first of all, it points

out that the difference between Westphalian system and
any other international arrangement is that Westphalian
arrangement was not about the substance. It was not
about which territory belongs to each state. It was not
about which sovereign is the stronger and more
important than the other sovereigns. It is about the
procedure. It is about how the states should treat each
other. It is about the rules. It is about the order, and it is
about, after all, law. The three principles of Westphalian
systems are the basic three principles of international
communication between the states even nowadays. And
Henry Kissinger else underlines that if a state would
accept these basic requirements, it will be recognized as
an international citizen. So, the basic requirement for the
state to be treated as equal and to be treated as a
reliable member of international community is to accept
these basic requirements. Do not intervene into the
internal affairs of others. Do not impose your views, do
not impose your values, do not impose your culture,
politics, religion on the others. Not trying to become the
strongest. Not trying to dominate the others. Not trying
to limit the sovereign rights and the quality of the others.
These are requirements for one state to become a
 35

reliable part of the international community. With having

said that, we end our section about the classic realist
theory. And further, you can find some readings which
can help you to understand these basics of our theory.
Next time, we go to the antagonist of the realist
approach. We go to the liberal tradition in the theory of
international relations, and we start with a Christian
tradition. Thank you.2.1 Hello, and thank you for joining
back our course on International Relations Theory. My
name is Timofey Bordachev from the Higher School of
Economics in Moscow. During our previous conversation,
we have touched on the beginnings of the realist
tradition in IR theory. We learned that the traces of
realist tradition go very, very deep into the history, to the
ancient Greece. We learned about the work of the
Fukuda's, and about other philosophers who belong to
the Realist tradition in International Relations. We
learned about Thomas Gob's, we learned about the idea
of liberalform, a certain superstate to which people
surrounded part of their freedoms, in order to achieve
security. And we learned that, for a very very significant
part of the history, realist tradition has dominated the
thinking about international relations. Well, there always
has been alternative to the realist tradition, and this
 36

alternative has been called Liberal Brush International

Relations. Our lecture today, is about the very beginnings
of liberal tradition, which goes from the Christian
philosophy, to the ideas of the early Renaissance, and
early enlightenment in Europe. So, the beginnings of
liberal tradition, we find in the Christian books. The
Christian roots are very important social development for
the liberal tradition. Christianity, which emerged as the
religion in the Middle East nearly 2000 years ago
developed, and spread all over the world. But it has
started in Europe, and the first important thinkers about
what Christians think about international relations, lived
in Europe, where we'll learn their names today.
Christianity gave birth to fundamentally different morals
and ideals, comparing with the ancient tradition. But first
of all, what is most important, is generative, broad and
moral doctrine, proposing peace and humility as a
fundamental virtue. So for ancient philosophers and
thinkers like Fukuda for example, the morality in
international relations, as well as morality as a factor of
the relations between individuals, actually did not exist.
For the Christians, the situation changed completely. For
them, the morality, the obedience of the rules proposed
and brought by the Jesus Christ and by the Christian
 37

religion. This obedience was the most important virtue of

the individual. And they believed this, exactly this
obedience must be the guiding principle for the policy of
the states. Moreover, the Christian doctrine assumes the
existence of ideal state of human soil, and therefore of
society. Christians as liberals after them believed that
each individual can be changed, each individual can
become better because of his beliefs, the society can
become better, and that makes sense working on
improvement of the society. And if the society can be
better, the international relations can be better, because
better societies will better interact between them. If the
states are good, they don't need to fight between them.
And then we foresee the ideas of Immanuel Kant as a
continuation of the very beginnings, or the liberal
tradition into Christian doctrine. Moreover, Christianity
may be considered as a spiritual founder of a new
intellectual movement, which brought a strong
alternative to the classical tradition. I must add, it was
also the first alternative. Christian historiosophy brought
the idea of dynamic history, which develops from a
certain beginning, creation of the World, to its end.
Liberal paradigm thus, as a continuation of the Christian
philosophy, is based on the linear idea of permanent
 38

advancing of international relations, in attempt to

achieve an eternal peace. This view, the views of
Christian philosophers, influenced medieval and modern
political thinkers, making them to develop their own
models of Kingdom of heavens in domestic and
international realms. So, the message of early
approaches, early liberal and Christian approaches to the
international relations, was mainly making the kingdom
of heavens on the earth, changing life on the earth
because it can be changed according to the Christian
approaches, and it should be changed as something
which is important to do in order to please God. One of
the first thinkers from the Christian tradition who is
interesting for us when we touch upon the beginnings of
the liberal paradigm in international relations, was a
famous priest Saint Augustine, who lived in the fourth
century nearly 1,600 years ago. He was a Christian
philosopher and theologians, so it means that he did not
only stop the study of the Bible with the other Christian
sources, he was also thinking about it, he was trying to
develop a generalized idea about how the society, at
how relationships between societies must be constructed
based exactly on one of the ideas he brings from the
Christian religion, and from his Christian theology. He is
 39

considered to be one of the father founders of the

church, but also one of the first important thinkers in
politics and international relations. First of all, he applied
the Christian doctrine towards explaining the behavior of
individuals. Later, he did it towards the behavior of the
states. Saint Augustine wrote in his work, the city of God,
published in 1470. He wrote, they who have waged war
in obedience to the divine command or in conformity
with His laws, meaning God, have represented in their
persons the public justice or the wisdom of government,
and in this capacity have put to death wicked men. Such
persons, St.Augustine writes, have by no means violated
the commandment, you should not kill. So for him, the
just reason for war, the just reason for killing was the
obedience to the commandments of God. So St.
Augustine was in very beginning of the Christian and later
liberal explanation, and the concept of the Just War.
Christianity gave birth to doctrine of just wars. Unlike
modern assumption of just conflict as, we know it now
based on law, christian thinkers considered a just war to
be based on morals and the God's commandments. Let
us not forget that in the classical tradition in ancient
Greece, the war did not need any ideological
explanation. The conflict of interests, the conflict for the
 40

land for women, like it has happened during war, wan't

very good enough explanation for war. Christians went
much farther. They wanted to have a moral ideological
explanation of any violent action, which one people put
upon the other people. St. Augustine in his work, The City
of God wrote, but say they, the wise man will wage just
wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the
necessity of just wars if he remembers that he's a man,
for if they were not just he would not wage them, and
would therefore be delivered from all wars. The
continuation of this thinking, the continuation of the
Christian concept, we find in the work of Erasmus of
Rotterdam. Well, we see that he lived more than 1000
years after Saint Augustine. But there is a good
explanation for this gap. So basically, the Christian
tradition as the Christian Europe proposed a universal
tradition which did not presume that equality of their
lords, and equality of the Kings between them, but also it
did presume that absolute inequality was a result of the
Roman pope. So this doctrine could not hope to establish
that philosophy although relationships based on the
equality in political and ideological and in power terms.
So, Erasmus of Rotterdam lived in the Netherlands, that
time still the colony of the Spanish Empire. He was a
 41

Christian thinker, and at the same time, Renaissance

humanist. And his difference from St. Augustine was very
simple, he considered to be any war in the natural act or
behavior between countries. Famous as one of the first
intellectual or just of pacifism, Erasmus of Rotterdam
went for the concept which declares any war not good,
any war not be in favor of the God. And he wrote, war is
delightful to those who have had no experience of it. And
this idea is one of the basic idea of liberal approach to
the international relations, which we'll launch our next
conversation. 2.2 Let us go farther. After we learned the
very initials of the philosophy, which is in the basis of the
liberal tradition, the Christian philosophy, we can go
farther and speak about the Renaissance and Protestant
Reformation in Europe. The importance of individual, is a
center in the Liberal tradition after that. When you speak
about the Realist Approach to the International
Relations, we first speak about states, and the relations
between the states. In the Liberal tradition, the states
are also important, of course. Nobody can undermine the
central role of the state in structuring the international
relations, but the other important question, maybe not
less important, is the relationships between state and
individual. So, Liberals from the very beginning of this
 42

tradition in early 16th, 17th century, looked at the model

of the relationships between state and individual. And
they judged on how Liberal state, and how state can be
responsible actor with their relationships with the other
states, on how it structures their relations with
individual. More freedoms have individuals, more believe
liberal thinkers put in the idea that the states can
cooperate peacefully. So, the Renaissance gave rebirth of
classical tradition, bringing back the individual-centered
thinking. The Reformation on its side, reflected the belief
that faith, in the rationality of the individual was more
important than the hierarchical concentration of
religious power within the Roman Catholic Church. And
here, beyond the individual, we find that rationality
becomes one of the most important factor of human's
behavior. And after that, rationality moved from the
analysis of the individual behavior, to the analysis of the
relationships and behavior of the state. Since
Reformation, and since the Liberal tradition developed,
thinkers and international relation scholars started to
believe that the state behaved rational. Origins of
Classical Liberalism. We find in the Europe of a
Renaissance and early enlightenment in the 16th, 17th
century. By that time, Europe feudal economic order
 43

broke down as cities grew, and people expanded trade

overseas. The cities became more important. The power
of the Roman Pope declined. Emergence of a wealthy
middle class that saw the beginning of the eroding of the
aristocracy, whose wealth had been primarily based on
agriculture, is another indicator of the new age. And as a
result, the new class, this bourgeoisie, supports the new
political doctrines, seeking for revision of both domestic
order and international politics. When we speak about
Liberal theory, we can identify three stages of its
development. Liberal internationalism, Liberal idealism,
and Liberal institutionalism. And to each of these
periods, the certain characteristics can be identified.
Historically, Liberal internationalism starts from the
enlightenment and ends before the beginning of the First
World War. Liberal idealism followed and emerged after
the Great War of the 1914, 1918. Liberal institutionalism
is a contemporary stage of Liberal theory development.
Liberal institutionalism, as we can see from its name, has
changed the previous ideas and brought the idea of
institution. But we will speak about this later. On this
picture, you can see the evolution of Liberal theory. And
each stage is different according to the key subject of
consideration, reason of war, and conditions for peace.
 44

We remember that the main question of the

international relations theory, is a question about war
and peace. So, for every theory, and for every paradigm,
and micro theory within these big theory, answering to
the question of prisoner of war and conditions for peace
was the most important. For Liberal internationalists, for
the early enlightenment until the end of the 19th
century, the key subject, as I have said was the
individual. The reason of war was the intervention of a
state, both domestic and international. So, early Liberals
believed that less state intervenes in the relationships
between the people, less state intervenes into the life of
the ordinary people, less reasons of war exist, and the
condition of peace is the increase of the individual
liberty. We will see later that early Liberals from
Immanuel Kant and the other liberal thinkers, believed
that more individual freedom is brought into the life.
That's reasons for war exist. The next period, the Liberal
idealism in the beginning of the 20th century, changed
the subject. Liberal idealists understood that the
individual freedom was not enough, that we need to do
something with the state. But what to do with the state?
We need to change the nature. We need to change the
way how the states interact between them. And Liberal
 45

idealists, and would reveal soon first of all, believed the

main reason of war is unjust nature of balance of power
policy. Balance of power was the most significant feature
of the European politics in the 19th century, when
everything was decided by the group of the strong
powers like Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Austria,
Hungary, and only these countries mattered. And only
these countries- huge powers constructed the balance of
power between them, while giving the others much less
role, and giving the others basically no say in European
politics. So, Liberal idealists believe that the state is
central, but every state. That the states are equal and the
states must be treated as equal, and equally contribute
into the development of the international relations.
What was the condition of peace? For the Liberal
idealists, the condition of peace was national self-
determination, public opinion, and collective security. So,
they believed that if more nations get their own states, if
the public opinion plays more important role in
international relations, and can influence the politicians,
and if the collective security institutions fought for the
first time the world institution arrives here, these
institutions can play a role of stopping states from
entering to the war. The next period, which we will also
 46

study later on, Liberal institutionalism, the second half of

the 20th century, and even nowadays. It also has
changed a little bit the key subjects. Unlike earlier, when
the authors of Liberal Tradition addressed either
individual or stede, Liberal institutionalist started to
study and to look at the system of internationalism.
System composed by the state. And what is the most
essential? The structure of the system. They needed to
understand that we need to change the structure, we
need to make it more stable, and we need to envision it
with institutions, and that's why we have this name
Liberal institutionalism. The reason of war. Liberal
institutionalists believe that the balance of power as it is,
as such is the reason of war. Because they believe that in
order to avoid the war, we need to go much beyond the
power calculation. We need to think differently about
international relations, and we need to structure the
system of international relations differently. And the
ideal condition of peace for the Liberal institutionalists, is
the world government. Something what we really is
believe is absolutely impossible. But something at the
same time, which institutionalists believe, can happen
and is actually functioning Liberal internationalism. The
very beginning of the Liberal theory, as a theory, as a
 47

science, was an attempt to study how the cooperation

among Republican States, free trade, and mutual
interdependence lead to perpetual peace and
international harmony. Liberal internationalism focused
on individual, rationality, progressive history, and
positivist science. It was very, very, very positivist
approach to international relations. At that time,
bourgeoisie emerged as a new class and supported the
ideals of the enlightenment, such as the autonomy of the
individual, equality, tolerance, freedom, and property.
But the other essential part of the Liberal approach is
International Law, and we'll later on talk about it. 2.3 The
emergence of international law was also a part of the
liberal tradition in its very early stages during the
Renaissance and Enlightenment. But why international
law emerged exactly at that time? The reason is simple.
There was no law and there was no morality in
international relations. After the Christian religion
became dominant in Europe, it was a Roman pope who
decided how people should treat each other and how
people should behave when they go to war. In other
words, the Christian morality dominated the behavior of
people, and it was up to the church decide do people
behave or they misbehave? In the 16th century, the
 48

Christian Rome has been undergoing very very deep

changes and very, very deep corrosion of its power.
People actually lost any respect to the Rome, well, with
the exception of some Southern European regions like
Spain or Italy, for example. The other Europeans did not
have any respect and the Rome after Reformation didn't
have any power to impose the rules of behavior, the
rules of morality, upon the people. And result of this was
very, very clear during the Thirty Years' War, which we
have already discussed during our previous conversation.
Thirty Years' War in Europe was an example of
unprecedented brutality of the conflict. Around eight
million people died during the war. Big territories and
lands became absolutely devastated. The cities was
destroyed. Christian world, and we should not forget that
for the Europeans the Christian world was a synonym of
the world, there was no any civilization beyond these
borders. So, Christian world was shaken by the religious
wars and especially by the Thirty Years' War. Christians
eliminated and brutally killed Christians. What was the
reason? There was absolute lack of norms of behavior.
The Christian morals were not able to stop
unprecedented violence because people did not have
any respect to them, and there was no any other laws of
 49

behavior, any other morals to replace them in the

beginning of the 17th century. So, people needed to
invent these laws. And the first inventor was a Dutch
philosopher and jurist, Hugo Grotius, who actually lived
during this terrible Thirty Years' War and became one of
the fathers of the international law and modern
international law. So, exactly to Hugo Grotius, we must
be very thankful for the existence of the documents like
Charter of the United Nations, Declaration of Human
Rights. During the Thirty Years' War, Hugo Grotius
proposed to establish certain rules and norms of
interstate relations to decrease number of casualties
coming from international conflict. We should not forget
that Hugo Grotius did not go to eliminate the war's
effect. He understood that the wars between the states
are inevitable because interests are different. Material
interests are different and political interests are
different. But he wanted to bring law, so he wanted to
bring rules into the international conflicts and make
these international conflicts to be conducted not
accordingly to the brutality of the human nature, but
accordingly to the certain law. But the biggest problem
was that the Christian morality had a source in a God as
Christians believe. But what can be the source of the new
 50

law? And so, the cornerstone of Grotius' philosophy is

the concept of natural law. The law which is a part of the
nature as such, which is not invented by people, which is
not from God but which belongs to nature, to everything,
what is around us. The concept of natural law is a
doctrine which asserts that fundamental rights such as
property rights, personal security, and some others are
inherent by the virtue of human nature and inseparable
from human being. In other words, Hugo Grotius wanted
to replace the religious morality with the universal
morality of human nature, and then bring this morality
and bring this law to the interrelations between the
states. Hugo Grotius wrote in his most famous pamphlet
the Law of War and Peace published in 1625. He wrote,
"The law of nature is a dictate of right reason, which
points out that an act, according as it is, not in
conformity with rational nature, has in it a quality of
moral baseness or moral necessity, and that, in
consequence, such an act is either forbidden or enjoined
by the author of nature, God." So, for him, the author of
nature, God, and nature as such, and the morality and
the law in relationships between individuals, we're all
inseparable and common. Let us look further on the
genesis of international law under its first and most
 51

prominent author, Hugo Grotius. Based on his concept of

natural law, which governs relations between individuals,
Hugo Grotius developed a complex doctrine of
international law. Just like Thucydides developed his
concept of interstate relations from assumption about
human's nature, Grotius pointed out that creation and
maintenance of laws and rules are also natural for
human beings, and therefore, for the states. But, for
Thucydides and those who followed him in the classic
realist tradition, this nature was not good and could not
be changed. But for Hugo Grotius, this nature was much
better and could have been changed. Hugo Grotius wrote
the law of nations is based on the law of nature, which
has received its obligatory force from the will of all
nations or of many nations. Beyond the idea of natural
law, Hugo Grotius developed the concept of just war and
formulated three cases of such a conflict. Self-defense. If
one nation is attacked by the other nation, it has just
reasons to go for war. The second reason, protection of
property. If the property of a certain nation is taken by
the other nation without compensation, this nation must
go to war in order to defend its property. And the third
case is a revenge or compensation. If one nation has
been deprived of something, it has right to go to war to
 52

revenge or to get a reasonable compensation from the

others. Beyond these, Hugo Grotius did not believe that
nations have any reasons to go for the military conflict.
The other great humanist and the other great thinkers of
the classic liberal tradition. John Locke lived in England
and he emphasized that all individuals have rights.
Freedom, right of property, and right for living. Do you
remember our first paragraph about the liberal tradition?
The early liberals believed in the individual, as John Locke
did. A government, according to him, appears only as a
result of a social contract, aiming to establish an
institution to protect personal security and property. So,
the government is only the instrument of protection of
the individual freedoms, security and property. A
government is responsible, John Locke wrote, for
protecting these rights and have to serve its citizens
rather than suppress their will. So, in the beginnings of
liberal tradition, as John Locke wrote, the government is
a servant of citizens, not the other way. In this sense,
Locke is opposite to Hobbes, whom we studied during
our first lecture on the classic realist tradition. Despite
both Hobbes and Locke lived in England, despite both
thinkers based their concepts on the idea of social
contract, origins, form, and aims of these contracts were
 53

fundamentally different for them. Hobbes believed in

Leviathan. Hobbes assumed that the contract between
people and the contract between people and
omnipotent government that Leviathan was made. The
only aim of this agreement, according to the Thomas
Hobbes, was the survival of the nation. Only purpose as a
whole, to some extent, even if lives of some individuals
may be sacrificed to fulfill this goal. Because perhaps, the
Leviathan was more important for the nation to survive.
But for Locke, the most important purpose was the
survival of individual, and according to him, the social
contract aims to protect individuals and property, while
the government could be constructed in a way
convenient for the citizens, and must be convenient for
the citizens.2.4 To understand the difference between
approaches of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes is the
most important thing to understand the difference
between realists and liberals. For the realist, the state is
the guarantee of survival. For the liberals, the individual
and his freedom is the guarantee of survival. If the
individual has a freedom, he can survive, and if he is not
oppressed by the state, he can survive, and he can find
the ways to live better and to make international peace.
For Thomas Hobbes, it was the opposite. The only
 54

survival of the state is a guarantee and only the state can

construct international peace. That's why we see the
liberal explanation of many revolutions, interventions,
removal of the governments can be very, very simple.
What has changed for the individual if this or that
government does not exist anymore? If the individual
freedom increased, it is always better. Despite the fact
that maybe the state is in the state of the chaos, if the
gangs are riding on the streets and did this, the individual
is better. The individual is safer because individual has a
right and possibility to defend himself or herself. The
next great author on the liberal concept and the liberal
theory and approach, liberal philosophy of international
relations was a German philosopher and political thinker,
Immanuel Kant, who lived in the second part of the 18th,
beginning of the 19th century. His most famous book is
called Perpetual Peace. So, we see that this name of the
book, it reflects as a very liberal approach to the
international relations and a very liberal approach to the
future of international relations. Liberals, starting from
Kant, believe that perpetual peace among the nations
can be achieved. In his work, Immanuel Kant proposed to
establish a peace federation between the states based
on the rational individual and the Republican political
 55

order. Immanuel Kant had certain examples in European

and even international political practice. First of all, he
lived in Germany, and even by that time, little German
states were actually ruled by the law, and the courts
were very important, and the relationships between
small German states were based not on the violence or
power of some of them, but they were based on the
certain way of the government within the Holy Roman
Empire. The other factor was establishment of the Swiss
Confederation. When the several previously independent
little states made up together in the new states and
basically created the first Swiss federation. The other
example was the American Revolution when the
independent states, after they liberated themselves from
Britain, they created again in new states a federation
based on the rational individual choice and the
Republican political order. So, for Immanuel Kant, the
peace federation was based on the three main aspects.
First of them is the freedom of all humans, the
construction of all feudal hierarchical institutions, the
absolute individual freedom. In Kant's view, a war is in
many respects a product of feudal relations and tyranny.
Lords are finding, seeking within new lands and wealth.
Common man has no interest in the military conflict. So
 56

liberation of a common man, was a way to respond to

the question about peace and war. How can we achieve
peace and avoid the war to liberate people? Unlike
Hobbes and all other pessimists, Kant believes in the
good nature of human. Liberation of this good nature
should advance social relationships between people and
therefore advance the relationships between the states.
If the liberation of the individual can make relations
between him or her and the other individuals better, why
we should not apply this to the relationships between
the states? This was actually the question which
Immanuel Kant asked. The other important aspect of
Immanuel Kant's political philosophy and another
argument for the perpetual peace in favor of this
doctrine was a human rationality. Kant actually believed
that rational individuals having moral values can create
peaceful society. Thus it is worth that conflict is
irrational, that for people it is much more profitable to
cooperate between them than to go for the conflict.
According to Kant, peaceful relationship between people
and people's community will prevail in a free society, as
the conflict is considered to be more costly and even
dangerous for lives of human beings. Personal safety,
Kant believed, and property are more valuable assets
 57

than prestige and in some way even the very existence of

a state they live in. The third part of the Immanuel Kant
argument for the perpetual peace was the Constitution-
based Republican state. As all individuals are rational,
they know that they will bear the cost of war. But in the
Republican state, they can prevent their leaders from
going to war. They can vote against the war unlike they
cannot do the same in the feudal Europe, in the feudal
state. The rule of law, separation of legislation,
executive, and judiciary are the important conditions of
peaceful behavior over a certain state. Respecting each
other's rights and freedoms are essential for social peace
and for the peace between the states. Spreading the new
political institutions, free trade, and the idea of
Republicanism worldwide won't occur to only Immanuel
Kant, lead to perpetual peace. The next offer that we
need to know in order to understand the beginnings and
origins of the liberal tradition was a French philosopher
Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He was specifically interested in
one important thing: the common good. He believed that
individuals are inherently good but have been corrupted
by civilization and society. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who
wrote his works in France over the very, very
authoritarian monarchy, believed that humans are
 58

naturally free, and they're equal in principle. One of his

great citations is "Man is born free and everywhere he is
in chains", and this idea lies in the very heart of the
liberal Western order. Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of
the founders of liberal political thinking and liberal
approach to the international relations. But, unlike John
Locke, he was opposed to the idea of representative
democracy. Representative democracy is a system where
a small group of politicians are elected by a larger group
of citizens. In most of our states, the situation is like this.
We all go to elections, we vote for the parliament, and
then our parliament, who is elected by us, elects our
government. So, Jean-Jacques Rousseau did not believe
that this is a good idea. Instead, he felt the citizens
themselves should make the laws directly by the direct
vote for every low, every time organizing the
referendum. His ideal state was one where the general
will of the people or the volonté générale in French, in
his native language, was the absolute authority.
According to Rousseau, international politics will be
improved, and the stable peace will be established after
spreading the freedom to all European states. So by the
examples of John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, we can see that in the very beginnings
 59

or the liberal tradition, the main discussion was about

the nature of humans, the place of the morality, and the
role of the individual freedoms. But we should not also
forget that by this time in Europe, the new economic
order that capitalism and market had started to develop
and of course those who have been thinking about the
economy and about the rules from which the economy
was functioning also contributed to the study of
international relations and among them, the first
important, was Adam Smith. 2.5 Adam Smith. Adam
Smith was a British economist and philosopher, author of
a famous book, Wealth of Nations. And the very name of
this book points out to what was the most important for
Adam Smith, and what was for him underlies the
reasons, the instruments to achieve the peace among
nations, the wealth. For Adam Smith, wealth was the
most important. Wealthy people don't go to war.
Wealthy people don't fight each other, because it does
not support the increase of their wealth. In his work,
Adam Smith formulated the key points of the classical
economic liberalism. The most important of which is non-
involvement of the government and freedom of market
forces, so-called invisible hand of the market. So we see
that as any other early liberals, Adam Smith believed that
 60

less government is better for economy and consequently,

less government is better for the politics, because it
doesn't prevent people from generating their incomes
and their wealth from the market forces. Adam Smith
believed that free trade can support the improvement of
international politics, and that free trade is one of the
most important and most promising instruments to make
relations between the nations peaceful, and to show to
all people that war is not the best way to resolve the
problems. Adam Smith believed that free trade brings
people from different race, religion and language
together in their pursuit of wealth. Adam Smith believed
that protectionist economic policies lead to insecurity
and also low level of interaction among the states. So the
instrument to achieve the peace and avoid the war
accordingly to the Adam Smith and the likes was to
decrease the protectionist and to increase the openness
of the markets and free trade. Adam Smith also believed
that the borders that separate states should be
transcended and common values should be created. Free
trade is a value for him, and it is essential in creating
these common values because it can bring all individuals
together regardless as it has been already said of their
race, religion, nationality, or even the language. It is
 61

believed that market societies are against the war by the

liberal thinkers and Adam Smith was in very beginning of
these beliefs. The other prominent author from the
liberal tradition was also the British economist, David
Ricardo, who formulated the theory of comparative
advantages. According to Ricardo, division of labor is
mutually beneficial for all parties, and after requisite of
division is that everybody produces where their
comparative advantages are greater. All these
advantages are smaller. And this production and this
comparative advantages can help nations to cooperate
because they can join the trade chains and the
production chains. And thus, the nations become more
interconnected and more interdependent and this is also
good for the peace. Ricardo believed in free trade, in
international politics. He thought that for creating wealth
for the world, there should be increase in production.
This will satisfy human needs and prevent evil intentions
of individuals. There was also a strong belief that
international distribution of wealth can be equal if
individuals freely pursuit interest all around the world
with free trade and free market openness. And also, the
increase in production and equal distribution of wealth
depends on the free international trade. So, the main
 62

instrument which lead to peace is a free trade, and if all

states try to maximize their economic interests, then the
whole world will benefit from it. Global wealth will lead
to global peace, and that the answer to the question
between war and peace will be found accordingly to the
earlier representatives of the liberal tradition. The early
liberals were very lucky. They were lucky because their
advice, their ideas, and their concept have been
implemented in several political project. And among
those political project, the first one was American
Revolution and American Declaration of Independence of
1776. In the Declaration of Independence, we can read
the following. "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that
to secure these rights governments are instituted by
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed." So, the United States Declaration of
Independence is one of the earliest political
embodiments of the liberal thought. And that's why in
this citation we can see the importance of individual
freedom, and we can see that governments are
instituted by men, that governments are only the
 63

servants of men and not their lords. So, we see that

theory and approach and the political practice which is
absolutely opposite to the good old classic realist hopes
like approach to the relationships between state and
individual. The other particularity of American Revolution
and its consequences was that American Revolution gave
an example of a working republicanism. The founding
fathers of the United States were able to construct
domestic institutions which still exist today. Successful
construction of these domestic institutions put an idea
that international institutions and policy generally also
may be reconstructed by the rational mind. And after the
World War I, this idea emerged as Wilsonianism, which
became the core concept of the second stage of the
liberal paradigm. The other important political event in
the history of Europe, which should also be viewed for
the liberal approach to the politics and to the
international relations was the French Revolution, one of
the consequence of the liberal ideas, liberal philosophy
of the 18th century. The Declaration of the Rights of Man
which was adopted during the French Revolution has the
following ideas. The end of all political associations is the
preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of
men; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and
 64

the resistance of oppression. So we see that two very

important political events or the end of 18th, beginning
of 19th century, American Revolution and French
Revolution brought to the life the liberal ideas of
individual freedom and wellness. At the same time,
bloody and contradictory consequences of the French
Revolution stimulated rise of conservatism and counter
revolution reaction in Europe. Destruction of the old
order by the French Revolution and liberation of
individuals did not bring peace but drove Europe into the
bloodiest conflict since the 30 years war, and this is
another paradox. During the Congress of Vienna which
ended the Napoleonic Wars, which Europe suffered for
several decades, the great powers during the Congress of
Vienna proclaimed return to the principle of Westphalia
and established a new balance of power in Europe. 3.1
Hello, and welcome back to our conversations about the
theory of international relations. However, it was better
to say philosophy of international relations because as a
science, as an academic discipline, IR theory did not
emerge until the beginning of the 20th century. Before
that, as we know, we learn the basics, the basic ideas,
the basic generalized concepts of how people have been
thinking about the international relations, the relations
 65

between the states and the role of the states and role of
the individuals. We learn about this from the works of
philosophers, more than academicians in the
contemporary science of this work. But today our lecture
is going to be devoted to the new episode new age in the
development of our science. After the First World War,
the IR theory becomes a genuine academic discipline, as
we know it now, as we study it in universities, and as we
will study it during our conversations. So our today's
lecture is about the beginnings, the two world wars
which have shaken the world in the first part of the 20th
century and the genesis of IR theory. From our previous
conversations, we already know that war has been
always a driver of IR science. There isn't this rather
simple, the main question of our discipline, but is a
matter of fact a main question for everybody of us is a
good question of war and peace, is a question of survival.
The question of survival of individual and the question of
survival state and society. So as a science seeking out to
find the fundamental patterns of conflicts, the IR theory,
IR science often sparkles during the great wars. We know
that the first of these great wars, was a Peloponnesian
War fought between Athens and Sparta in ancient
Greece. And to this war, we must be grateful because we
 66

received a great work of Thucydides' History of

Peloponnesian War. And from the history of
Peloponnesian War, we learned the first generalized
concepts of the classical realist theory. The other great
war, 30-Years War, which has been taking place in
Europe in the first part of the 17th century and was one
of the most brutal conflicts of the human history, gave us
new concepts, the concepts of Thomas Hobbes, the
concept of Hugo Grotius, the very birth of the liberalist
and liberal approach to the philosophy of international
relations as we know it now. And we must be also
grateful to this tragic episode in human history because
of the creation of Peace of Westphalia, and three
principles of the Westphalian peace, which still govern
the international relations, noninterference into internal
affairs, sovereign equality of the states, and absence of
the dominance in international relations. The other great
wars, the Napoleonic wars, which have been taking place
in Europe after the French Revolution and until 1815,
gave us the third great wars, Napoleonic wars, which had
been taking place in Europe in the end of the 18th
century, beginning of the 19th century, gave us the
works of Alexis de Tocqueville and diplomacy of Klemens
von Metternich, the great thinkers of the 19th century.
 67

And last but not least, the Great War of 1914, 1918
hugely accelerated further development of IR concepts
and in many respects driven creation of IR as a science.
What were the origins of that great war, which actually
brought to the battlefields millions of people from
everywhere in Europe and from many other countries in
the world, like United States, Latin American countries,
Japan, people from Australia, people from Africa,
everybody was fighting. There were two opposite camps,
the group or the Holy Alliance with the United Kingdom,
France, Russia, later joined by Italy, Japan and the United
States, and the alliance of Germany and Austria,
Hungary, later joined by Bulgaria and Turkey. Origins of
the First World War were very different. The strategic
free body of the great nations, the long contradictions
between the major European countries. But, however,
not only the head of the German state emperor, but also
every German starting from the nobility and the generals
and ending it was a very ordinary people on the ground,
believed that the neighbors don't give them enough
respect. People in Germany also believed that during the
colonial distribution of the territories in the world,
Germany did not receive enough that old countries like
Britain especially, but also France, but also Russia, but
 68

also America received too much and Germany received

nothing. And in order to change this unfair situation,
Germany wanted to be stronger in terms of military and
in terms of economy. But the United Kingdom, a
hegemonic power of that time, and Germany, a rapid
riser, found themselves in the perfect Thucydides' trap.
During our first conversation, we learned about
Thucydides, and we learnt what is Thucydides' trap. And
we know that the reasons for war according to the
Thucydides is that one nation is afraid or the other nation
measures to increase its military capacity or economical
political capacities because we never know the
intentions. We always tend to believe that if our
neighbor becomes stronger, he does it because it wants
to take something from us, and that's what was the logic
of the United Kingdom. They saw Germany rising, and
they became more and more afraid and started
themselves to prepare for war. What were the
consequences of the Great War? In terms of humanity,
the consequences of the Great War were truly
catastrophic. First of all, almost 8 million people died.
Only military personnel and 7 more million were
permanently disabled among the military personnel.
Germany, for example, who actually started the war by
 69

declaring it on the first of August to Russia, and then to

France, Germany lost more than 15 percent of active
male population, 15 percent. Every eighth German man
was killed during the war or died by any reason. While
France, another hugely suffered nation lost about 10.5
percent of population. In every French family after the
Arab of the Great War lost one member, and in every
little French town or village, if you go there, you will see
the monument to those who fought and died during the
Great War. France and Germany were exhausted. Three
European empires, Russia, Austria-Hungary and Ottoman
Empire, collapsed as a result of the war. Dissolution of
the Russian Empire caused a three-year-long civil war,
which also took from 5-10 million lives and then terrible
dictatorship of the communist, who also killed about
several million of their compatriots. Results of the Great
War, in many respects, suppressed even the catastrophic
of the 30-Years War. One became a strong driver for the
farther development of international relations, history
and, of course, international relations theory. And the
most important consequence was that Europe has
forever lost its central role in world affairs. But the
experience of First World War gave a lot to the academic
knowledge, of the academic understanding of the rules
 70

of the game of how nations interacted between them.

The First World War challenged some assumptions or
that IR thinking of that term. We know that one of the
most popular books and concepts of times before the
Great War, ''The Great Illusion'' of a prominent thinker
Norman Angel argued that stronger economic links may
weaken aggressive intentions of nations. For instance, as
we know, trade between the United Kingdom and
Germany in 1913 was biggest in the world. According to
Angel and other liberal thinkers, such strong
interdependence granted peace between the two
nations, but it did not work out. The Great War showed
that economic interdependence cannot stop the states
from beginning of war. In economic sense, Europe was
critical interdependent, though it did not stop European
powers from military actions because they wanted to
fight for their pride. Moreover, paradoxically, economic
interdependence even triggered the beginning of the
conflict. Counting on strong economic ties with the
United Kingdom, German generals believed that the
United Kingdom will actually not to join France in fighting
Germany because it might be unprofitable for Brits.
However, the behavior of Britain was completely
different. Therefore, according to liberals, to avoid
 71

network conflict, it is necessary to create certain political

conditions, which allow to weaken political tensions just
like at work in domestic level within democratic
institutions and procedures. These considerations after
the First World War caused the rise of liberal idealism in
the 1920s, 1930s. And the new science emerged
originally as the liberal science and on the basis of the
liberal concepts of individual freedom, economic
interdependence but with ending something, the ending
of institutions and special rules of the game, special
understanding and agreement between the states. So,
consequently, the field of the new science was quite
broad and strongly connected with moral and political
philosophy. It was a task to ship its all subject and
develop special methods for the IR studies. Last but not
least, citation from Alfred Zimmern, first Professor of
International Relations in University College of Wales. His
definition of the study of international relations was the
following. He wrote, ''The study of international relations
extends from the natural science to one end to moral
philosophy... at other. These discipline is a bundle of
subjects... viewed from a common angle.'' So let us look
what are the bundle of the sentence. 3.2 [MUSIC] As
soon as international relations theory emerged as a
 72

discipline as a part of the academic thinking, the

researchers started to publish many articles and books.
And in these articles and books, they formulated the
basic questions which must be addressed by everybody
who thinks and who speaks about the nature of
international relations. The reasons of international
conflict and instruments to make peace. There were
several fundamental questions formulated almost
already in the very beginning of our science in the 20s,
30s years of the 20th century. The first of these questions
was what were the main reasons of the Great War, First
World War? And why the pre-First World War
international order collapsed, destroying empires and
taking millions of lives? It was the most important
question to answer how the humanity with all the
achievements of human genius, with all economic
interdependence arrived to such a poor condition. The
other question was what are the lessons of the Great
War? Is it possible to prevent a new catastrophe? What
must be understood by the scorers from the reasons of
this war and from how this first started in order to
develop a comprehensive concept, which can help
politicians to prevent a new catastrophe. To create a sort
of international system which might be less vulnerable to
 73

the challenges of individual of the states. To the

challenges of their mutual fear. To the challenges of their
mutual suspicion. In other words, what can help nations
not to get trapped again in the trap? The third question
was one of the most important. It sounded like on what
foundation a new international order can be constructed.
What must be in the very, very background of this order
in order to make it self-sustainable? How international
institutions, first of all, the League of Nations which was
created can strengthen post-war order and bring stability
to interstate relations. What is the role of international
institutions? Why this question was important? Because
it was the international institution which was chosen by
the politicians in order to facilitate cooperation between
the states. International institutions have been taken as
the most reliable instruments, which can eliminate some
of the reasons which bring nations to and bring nations
to the conflict. The international institutions have been
chosen as an instrument to decrease the level of mutual
suspicion. To understand the intentions of each other
better or better say, to make the intentions more
predictable. Because the intentions genuinely never
known, but their predictability can be achieved by.
People believe that time within certain international
 74

institutions, which increase transparency which increase

exchange of information between the states about what
they really want. People said, if Germany, before the
First World War could have been a member of certain
international institutions, it could have demanded
something. It could have discussed something with the
other states not directly, but within the framework of
this international discussion platform. This could have
helped. Now before the new science emerged, even
before the Great War, there were actually two types of
institutions. Systematically focusing on international
relation status. First, military institutions. Military always
needed to understand the nature of the relationships
and the driving forces behind these relationships better,
because military needed to be ready for war. And
military people needed to know how to predict the
intentions of the other states, how the other states
might behave. So already back in 1831, the Royal United
Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies was
established in London. The arrogant organizations
focused on peace promotion. The Fabian Society in 1884,
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1910,
Carnegie Corporation of New York. Some other
institutions both supported by the states and by the
 75

private individuals, by the big companies. After the First

World War in 1919, Woodrow Wilson, Chair of
International Politics at University College of Wales was
established. And what is very interesting in the first
paper of this chair, it was written clearly and precisely.
This chair is established in order to make researchers
understand how to avoid the war and how to achieve the
peace. So we can see that even formerly in the very
beginning of our science, the question of war and peace
exists. And this question has been addressed from the
very beginning unsurprisingly, because the science
emerged by the time the most brutal one terrible war in
human history. The same year, the chair for history and
theory of international relations was established in
Oxford University and Hudson Institute in the United
States. One year later, Royal Institute for International
Affairs which we know as Chatham House and New York
Council on Foreign Policy. All these institutions in Britain
and in America have been devoted to thinking about the
international relations, about the promotion of peace.
And a promotion of the instruments to achieve the goals
of the states, to defend the goals of the states and the
national interest by the peaceful means without falling to
the next great war. So in the following years,
 76

international relation studies divided into two branches

which still drive the development of international
relation science. Basically, academic and policy-oriented.
Academic studies, which I do belong as many of you will
possibly belong focus on fundamental status. As did, as
and other great philosophers. The focus on the
development of IR theory and bringing up new concepts,
and research methods. This is unavailable contribution,
because it helps up to understand the general principles
and general rules by which the international nations
developed. The other branch policy-oriented research
focus on making actual recommendations for the
government's decision makers, advancing foreign foreign
policy and diplomacy of their resident states. So now,
when you see a certain paper, when you see a certain
study, you can always know is it academic study or policy
oriented research? Academic study is the superior to the
very actual political debate. It is superior to their
everyday policy making, but policy-oriented research is
concentrated more on the resolving of the very practical
questions and defining the national interests. So from the
very beginning of our science, development of it was
shaped by a number of so-called great debates. The
academicians and policy diverse people divided into the
 77

big camps. Generally, realists and liberals and they

debated between them. And every time the issue of the
debate, the question under consideration differed. So the
First Great Debate between realists and idealists took
place between the two Great Wars before the Second
World War. Developed around the question of post-First
World War international order. And in many respects,
how to deal with the emerging Germany, Nazi Germany
at the time. The Second Great Debate took place already
after the Second World War in 1960s, 1970s. The parties
of these debates argued about scientification of IR
theory. Or in a more simple way, if it is possible to
integrate standard scientific matters which we know
from economy, from mathematics, international relation
status. This debate brought many, many available
contribution and it ended with the emergence of
structural realism in 1970s. The Third Great Debate was
the later debates between the old paradigms
represented by neo theories such as neoliberalism,
neorealism and some radical IR There are theories on the
other side. The Fourth Great Debate was as debate
between positivists and post-positivist theories of
international relations, which has emerged since the end
of the 1980s. But every round of the Great Debates was
 78

caused by absence of any general theory of international

relations. And paradoxically by this, the means aimed to
create it just like physics aims to come up with so-called
theory of everything. However, we should understand,
nor should we ever forget that complexity of human
society just like complexity of the universe in natural
science does not allow to explain everything with one
theory or concept. As a prominent international relation
scholar, Stephen Walt describes our field. One world, but
many theories. [MUSIC] 3.3The first and the most
influential great theory which emerged after the end of
the First World War, was the liberal idealism. Liberal
idealism was defined by its critiques as Utopianism, an
assumption, that a state should base its foreign policy
only to internal political morals, and that international
system could be advanced through such approach. The
basic idea was that, to liberate the individual, to make
economic interdependence is not enough. We need
more action by the state. But, the Utopian approach was
in changing of the nature of state. The first liberals in the
twentieth Century, the liberal idealists believed that
states, after such a great tragedy as the First World War,
can reflect upon themselves, and can deliberately change
their politics, can deliberately and intentionally become
 79

less egoistic, and more cooperative with regard to the

others. There were several bright key personalities of
that age of our science development, Alfred Zimmen,
Norman Angell, James Showell, and of course, Woodrow
Wilson. The post World War first Utopianism, was
defined by Hedley Butt, the Professor of International
Relations in Oxford University, later on of course, as
following, he wrote that, the distinctive characteristic of
these writers, which I have just mentioned, was their
belief in progress, the belief, in particular, that the
system of international relations that had given rise to
the First World War was capable of being transformed
into a fundamentally, more peaceful and just World
order, that under the impact on the winkling of
democracy, the growth of the International mind, the
development of the League of Nations, the good works
of men of peace or the enlightenment spread by their
own teaching. I think that this is the greatest
characteristic of how the early liberals approached the
international relations. They approached it, was nearly a
religious belief, that people by their own will can
understand the tragedies and mistakes of the past, and
can make this world better. And among them, among
these idealists, and number one, was the President of
 80

Princeton University, and that time, President of the

United States of America Woodrow Wilson, the founder
of liberal idealism. He was the president of the United
States during the wars of the First World War. It was
actually his decision to change American foreign policy,
to leave the long strategy of isolationism, and to
intervene into European affairs on the side of France,
Britain and Russia. And he was the key apologist of the
liberal idealism. What is more important, he was not only
a science man, he was not only his color, he was also a
politician. And by this, he had a unique chance to
transfer his approach, his theoretical vision of
international relations, to the political practice. So, he
was a very lucky man because he wrote the ideas, he
wrote his ideal world and ideal way for nations to
interact. And he tried to implement it, in international
reality. In his famous 14 points speech, he presented the
plan of post World War One peace settlement, which
included the creation of an international organization, for
promotion of peaceful cooperation among nations state,
League of Nations, so, it was Woodrow Wilson who was
the first, who suggested for all nations of this world, to
establish a universal gathering, universal international
organization, where everybody should be represented on
 81

the equal basis. Where all nations, regardless of their

power, regardless of their size, are going to be equally
represented. And this was one of the greatest
achievements of the liberal political theory and Liberal
paradigm in international relations science. In 1918,
Woodrow Wilson articulated his famous 14 points. His
own project which became a U.S Project actually, to
reconstruct the post-war international order. These 14
points included the most essential practical ideas derived
from their liberal idealist approach to the international
relations, as following. First, the establishment a new
international organization, the League of Nations, which
should have strengthened international peace and
security. Second, assure the principle of collective
security, a system where each state considers security of
a neighbor as its own concern, and agrees to take part in
collective response to aggressive actions. This is very
important to understand. The idea of collective security
was first introduced into active political practice by
Woodrow Wilson. Because now, for us, the organizations
such as, organizational APSO Security and Cooperation in
Europe, United Nations are something very common. We
always lived with these organizations. We don't know the
world without these organizations of collective security.
 82

But only 100 years ago, the humanity didn't know what is
the universal institution. The next group of the 14 points,
was about the disarmament, as a tool to weaken
tensions between states, and possibility of the new war.
Woodrow Wilson believed that, and he was correct
believing this, he believed that, the armament, the rise of
the arms was the reason over the First World War. And
he suggested that the nations should voluntarily go for
disarmament themselves, to decrease the tensions, to
decrease the threat and fear in their mutual
relationships. Next important part of his 14 points, was
about the self-determination of nations. For Woodrow
Wilson, it was very important not to liberate just an
individual, by that time the slavery did not exist, and the
individuals were primarily free in this world. But not all
nations used to have their own states. The big empires
existed. Like Russian Empire, Austrian Empire, Turkish
Empire, well, even British Empire, French Colonial
Empire. And many people in Europe and not only in
Europe, like in India, in China, in Africa, in Eastern
Europe, they had been fighting to establish their own
states. So, Woodrow Wilson believed, that giving them
such a chance was a unique possibility to establish the
world of the nations where everybody is going to be
 83

represented, and where everybody is going to be equal.

And the other important part of these 14 points, was the
refuse from so-called secret diplomacy. Secret diplomacy
was very very common the European Empires and
nations before the First World War. And Woodrow
Wilson believed that existence of so-called secret
diplomacy, was the reason why this war emerged,
because people did not know what is going on in
diplomatic relations. Ordinary people, newspapers did
not know what is happening between the capitals. And
that has allowed capitals to bring the world to the war.
Woodrow Wilson believed, if people know about the
diplomatic relationships, if people know what their
governments are talking about between them, the
people would never allow them to go for war. Liberal
idealism was a theory which influenced international
relations very much. Generally, liberals shared belief in
progress, and assumed that democratic institutions,
parliamentary procedures, rule for law may be effectively
implemented on the international level, as on the
national level, to regulate relations between the states.
So, they believed that these relations must be regulated
as they regulated their relationships between us, within
our own societies. Therefore in 1920's-1930's, during the
 84

second stage of liberal paradigm, idealists paid such a big

attention on the establishment of international
organization, and development of international law. The
cornerstone of liberal agenda toward construction of the
post-world war one international order, was creation of
the League of Nations. However, unfortunately, further
events revealed that just an establishment of an
international institution was not enough to prevent a
new war. That's why the representatives of the realist
school of international relations, sharply criticized the
academicians from the liberal idealist school. According
to a realist, idealist, or as they say, Utopianist idea, that
moral principle was superior to practical, and pragmatic
consideration is wrong, while perception of international
politics based on such thoughts, is naive, and can't serve
as a guide for policymakers. The main task for idealist
theory, is to find a way for a deal preconditions free and
peaceful international order, in which Wilson really
believed. Therefore, idealists concepts are looking into
the future, but can hardly help to deal with the political
problems, here and now.3.4 The liberal idealist approach
to the international relations and the recipes which
liberal idealists proposed were basically ideal, and might
be an ideal solution for the international community. But
 85

most unfortunately, these bright ideas faced the very

very harsh reality of international politics. States, by that
time, have never been so idealistic as something else.
Statesman of France, Britain, some other nations, have
not been thinking about their humanity, have not been
thinking about how to make the peace prominent and
permanent, they have been thinking about how to
maximalize the achievements and the gains they could
receive after the victory against Germany, and allies of
Germany. However, the Treaty of Versailles was
considered to become liberal triumph. Formally, it was
based on the 14 points. It has encouraged the
independence of new nations. It has endorsed the
establishment of the League of Nations and many many
other very good things. But, however, during the
negotiations in Paris, most of Wilson's proposals were
hugely revised or even rejected. European powers, first
of all France and Britain, were less interested in
establishing of an ideal international order, but focused
on their national interests and security considerations.
British and French politicians, as well as their smallest
supporters in Greece, Yugoslavia, and some Eastern
European countries, they have not been thinking about
how to make this world better. They have been thinking
 86

about how to get more land. They have been thinking

about how to get more concessions from those who
started the Great War and lost the Great War, they have
been thinking about the territories. Unlike those who
created the Versaillian order, those who made the Treaty
of Versailles, have been concerned with the rules of the
game, but even unlike those who made a piece of
[inaudible] one century before, in 1815, they have not
been thinking about how to create the new rules which
will govern their relationships, which will structure the
relationships. They have been thinking about very very
simplistic things, primarily, territories and money.
Moreover, in the end, Wilson was defeated even at
home, in his native, United States of America, the
Congress, American Parliament, refused to ratify the
treaty. As a result, the United States, the victorious party
of the war did not become a member of League of
Nations, nor of the post war European order. The final
agreement went far away from the idealist program,
combining interests of great powers with some liberal
minor adjustments. First of all, German army was
reduced to 100,000 of personnel. German navy was
allowed to have only six ships, and no submarines. It was
decided to demilitarize Rhineland, the territory between
 87

France and Germany, and the major economic and

industrial part of Germany. Later on, France even
intervened, even sent the troops to some parts of the
Rhineland when Germany was not physically capable to
pay all their enormous reparations. These war
reparations amounted to about 30 billion of U.S Dollars,
and remember that time, US dollars had much more
value than it has now. The other territorial transfers
primarily in eastern Europe, were also supported by the
Versailles order and by the Versailles treaty. The several
new countries emerged like Czechoslovakia, New
Yugoslavia, Poland, Finland, on the ruins of Austria-
Hungary, German Empire, and the Russian Empire. The
other point was, there were distribution of colonial
possessions. France and Britain have taken over all
colonial possessions, all those territories which they have
considered to be colonies, from Turkey, Germany,
Austria-Hungary. Well, Austria-Hungary did not have
actually enough, or it didn't have at all, any colonial
possessions, but still. So, but all the territories of Turkey
and Germany had been taken by the winners of this war.
In some cases, they have taken these territories directly
as their new colonies to France, Britain, or even Tiny
Belgium. In other cases, they declared the sort of the
 88

independence dominance of states under their

protection. But of course, everybody understood, that it
means nothing. It means that the winners take what
belonged to the losers. And the last but not least,
Versailles order and Versailles treaty established the
League of Nations. The decline of Versailles order arrived
very very soon after it had emerged. As a result of these
decisions, the post World War one international order
from the very beginning, had several critical weak points.
First weak point, mis-balance of power. Some countries,
first of all France and Britain, have been very very
powerful. They managed to keep, and they increased
their military strength after the First World War, as some
countries were terribly deprived, like Germany, but also
communist Russia and Italy, which was the winner of the
First World War, but still did not receive what it has been
thinking it's due to receive. One of the results, was the
rise of the German revanchism. During 1920s, Germany
suffered terrible economic disaster. German economy
was ruined. German people suffered from the
consequences of the defeat. Germany paid terribly big
reparations to the winners. And German revanchism and
German desire to reconsider the results of the First
World War, have been also the natural consequence of
 89

the unfair decisions within their assigned international

border. Two major powers, USSR and United States of
America were not involved in the established order.
Because first of fall, the Western European countries did
not recognize USSR for a long time, and the United States
just wanted to join it by their own will. As we remember,
the US Congress did not vote to join the League of
Nations. As a result, League of Nations, this presumably
ideal international body has been paralyzed. Decline of
the Versailles order consisted the several other very
important characteristics. The main reason for this
decline was again, change in distribution of power and
numerous miscalculations of political leaders. First of all,
defeated Germany was not integrated into the new
international order. For example, like France after
Napoleonic War, or the Holy Roman Empire after the
thirty years war, it was a major mistake. Germany was
integrated into western international order by the way,
after the Second World War, but in Paris in 1919, the
allies, France and Britain first of all, made this terrible
mistake. Germany was robbed, put under huge
reparations and left aside, but at the same time,
Germany was not fully eliminated and Germany kept all
potential for the rise and for the revanchism. And the
 90

contradictions which gave a way to the First World War,

emerged again in even more brutal and dangerous form.
It allows some researchers to consider the two world
wars as one long conflict with the same origins, but with
a short interruption of 20 years. And ineffectiveness of
idealist approach towards post First World War security
order, was in many respects proved by inability of
political leaders to construct a so-called collective
security. The end of 1930s, as a consequence, was
marked by a number of diplomatic maneuvers made by
both sides, and which in many aspects, triggered the
beginning of the new terrible conflict, the Second World
War, the most terrible conflict so far in the human
history. These two diplomatic maneuvers were the
Munich Agreement of 1939, and the equally bad,
Molotov-Ribbentrop Act of 1939. Decline of the
Versailles order and the establishment of emergence of
the German revanchism is represented on this map,
where you can see, the distribution of territories and
power in Europe just before the beginning of the Second
World War. And so, the greatest war started because
Germany felt absolutely humiliated, and the German
revanchism lost. Here we quote one very bad man, Adolf
Hitler. He wrote, Germany has faithfully fulfilled the
 91

obligations imposed upon her, in spite of all the intrinsic

lack of reason and the obviously social consequences of
this fulfillment. This judgment, though made by the very
very bad person, a very real criminal, is correct in a way.
The reason for the Second World War was the mistakes
made after the First World War, and then we need to
learn them.3.5 The decline of the post-First World War
system and order in international relations, was clear
already by the middle of 1930s. And from that time,
when revanchist Germany started to increase very
rapidly its military force, and revanchist Italy started to
expand its colonial policy, very aggressive colonial policy.
Already by that time, the scholars of international
relations started to ask the question, what went wrong
after their First World War international arrangements?
And among the scholars, the most prominent, the
greatest one, was the British historian and political
scientist, Edward Hallett Carr. He is known as one of the
fathers of modern international relations science. In his
book, The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939:, An
Introduction to the Study of International Relations, he
criticized Utopian approach and studied the origins of the
Second World War outbreak, which lied, as he assumed,
in fundamental mis-balances of the proposed First World
 92

War international order. Even the name of this book is

very very telling, The Twenty Years' Crisis. So accordingly,
to Edward Hallett Carr, the very period between the First
World War and the Second World War, was a continued
crisis. He believed that international arrangement in their
side after the First World War was so unfair, was so
unbalanced, that it has led to the beginning of the new
crisis, almost immediately, without any interruption.
Edward Hallett Carr provides us with some very
important words which make up the narrative of the
realist critique of the liberal idealism. But not only, his
narrative helps us to understand what were the major
mistakes made after the First World War. It helps us to
understand the general rules of international theory. I
must even say that it was Edward Hallett Carr who has
created our discipline and who developed the ideas, the
thoughts, which must be known and understood by
every scholar of international relations. And if you want
to call yourself a scholar for international relations, as
somebody who is analyzing the international relations,
you should follow the ideas of Edward Hallett Carr about
the structure of our discipline. Let us consider some
quotations. First, Edward Hallett Carr in his famous book
wrote, I quote, when the passions of war are aroused, it
 93

becomes almost fatally easy to attribute the catastrophe

solely to the ambitions and the arrogance of a small
group of man, and seek to further explanation. The idea
of this thought, the idea of this quotation is simple, and
at the same time very important. We should never rely
on the individuals, and on the mistakes of the individuals,
when we speak and when we think about the reasons of
major international events. Major international events
such as wars, are never the result of the individual
miscalculation or individual mistrust, it is a result of the
systematic reasons, of the general reasons created by the
very international order which existed at this time. So, if
you want to call yourself scholar of international
relations, never say that the relations between, say,
Russia and the United States are bad because we don't
understand each other, or because our politicians don't
know too much about each other. The reason of conflict
is always very objective. The contradiction of interests,
for example, as well as contradiction of economic
interest, but also geopolitical, is the reason of conflict
between the United States and China, for example.
Though these countries have very huge trade turnover,
and very huge economic interdependence. The other
idea of Edward Hallett Carr is also very important for our
 94

science. He wrote, in so far, therefore, as the alleged

natural harmony of interest has any reality, it is created
by the overwhelming power of privileged group, and is
an excellent illustration of the Machiavellian maxim, that
morality is the product of power. We understand this
quotation as very good explanation of why those who
say, that the morality or harmony can't exist in
international relations as such. Edward Carr believes that
harmony of interests can only be maintained to exist.
And in order to maintain it, we need a certain power
because otherwise, others will not respect this harmony
of interest, but power is a tribute of a certain state or a
group of states. So, harmony of interest is actually the
harmony of interest of those who provide this power,
otherwise, it will not exist. And this is of course an
excellent illustration of the Machiavellian maxim, that
morality and politics is not connected to their usual
morality, it is the product of power because, to support
this morality, to make others to obey this morality, we
need a power. And it means that this morality is morality
of those who provide the power. The other key ideas of
Edward Carr are equally important. First of all, he
prioritized power relations in international relations.
Suddenly, the role of power balance in ensuring stability,
 95

proceeding from the fact that universal moral norms are

not applicable to international politics. That international
morality can only be relative, he wrote, ethics must be
interpreted in terms of politics and the search for an
ethical norm outside politics is doomed to failure. So we
need to look at the ethics and politics comprehensively,
understand the internal relationships between the ethics
and politics, and never separate them, never believe that
ethics can exist without political considerations, and
being disconnected with them. Edward Carr also believed
that the state, as the main actor in international
relations, and then, it does not attach special importance
to other actors, with the exception of intergovernmental
organisations. The other great thinker of international
relations after the Second World War, was American
scholar of German origin, Hans Morgenthau. He was
credited for having systematized the classical Realism.
His Politics Among Nations became the standard
textbook, and continued to be reprinted many times
after his death. As a matter of fact, Hans Morgenthau's
contribution was not that he has invented something
especially new, like Edward Carr did before him or other
scholars did after, he systematized classical Realism. So,
in other words, by making his six principles, Hans
 96

Morgenthau brought together all the ideas which realist

tradition in international relations, realist paradigm
developed during more than 2000 years since the times
of Fukididas, and up to the end of the Second World War.
So, he collected all these ideas and he managed to
summarize them, and explain the logics of how the
realist approach to international relations explains the
nature of politics among nations, in the six simple to
understand principles. Now, we will look, what are the
six principles of Morgenthau about? 3.6 [MUSIC] So
Hans Morgenthau did a great work. He systematized the
basics of classic realism in one comprehensive theory.
Equally easy to understand and equally easy to use
applied to the concrete political situations and
international processes. First of these principles says that
politics, like society in general, is governed by objective
laws that have their roots in human nature, which is
unchanging. Therefore, it is possible to develop a rational
theory that reflects these objective laws. You must
remember from our first conversation that idea that
politics have their roots in human nature has been
already developed by Thucydides. And his idea that
human nature is not changing and thus politics and
international politics also do not change was also
 97

developed already by that time. So Hans Morgenthau

brought these very, very ancient concepts to the
contemporary reality and he applied this concept to the
reality. But based on this conclusion of the existence of
these objective laws, he said, that it is possible to
develop a rational theory that reflects these objective
laws. This principle is one of the greatest achievements in
our science because it points out that if it is possible to
generalize, that international relations do not consist of
the many, many, many little teeny issues. That they
consist of the very general principles and objective laws
which can be rationally reflected by the theory. The
second principle of classic realism says the main sign post
of political realism is the concept of national interest
defined in terms of power, which infuses rational order
into the subject matter of politics and thus makes the
theoretical understanding of politics possible. Political
realism stresses the rational, objective and unemotional
reasons of state actions. National interest, not individual
interest, not interest of king or the president. The
national interest is the most important. And in the very
heart of these national interests, according to the realist
paradigm, we find security and survival of the nation. If
every foreign policy nation is under is only an instrument
 98

to achieve this survival, to defend the survival of the

nation. And thus, the idea allows us to judge the
potential action of our partner in international affairs
because we always know that his main goal is to survive.
Third principle says that the realism assumes that
interest defined as power is an objective category, which
always exists. Which is universally valid but not with a
meaning that it is fixed once and for all. Power, for
Morgenthau, is the control of man over man, but not and
never government. Here we arrive, thanks to Hans
Morgenthau, to the very difference between political
science and international relations. Essentially political
science, politology is about the government. Thinkers of
political science reflect about how the politicians get to
the power, how they exercise power, how they keep
power or lose power. Power means direct government. I
say what you must do. In international relations it is
absolutely different. Power is the control of man over
man. Nations in international relations don't tell directly
to the others what they should do. Nations do not make
laws for the others. Nations make other nations to
behave in a certain way they like better, so this is
important difference. And this is why international
relations is part of general political science, but it's not
 99

political science in the traditional meaning of the sense.

Political realism and this is a fourth principle of Hans
Morgenthau, is aware of the moral significance of
political action. Political realism doesn't deny the
existence of moral significance of political action. It is
also aware of the tension between moral command and
the requirements ofsuccessful political action. So Hans
Morgenthau incorporates morality into the realist theory
of international relations in order to avoid this
misunderstanding when some people think that realists
don't think about morality at all. Morality exists even
within the realist theory as Hans Morgenthau help us to
understand. Fifth principle of political realism according
to Hans Morgenthau says, that political realism refuses
to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation
with the moral rules that govern the universe. It is the
concept of interest defined in terms of power that saves
us from moral excess and political folly. So the interest,
the objective category of political helps us from being not
vulnerable by the stupidities caused by the individual
moral principles and preferences. And the political folly
or. The six principle of Hans Morgenthau says that the
political realist maintains the autonomy of the political
sphere. He asks, how does this policy affect the power of
 100

the nation? Political reason is based on the pluralistic

conception of human nature. A man who is nothing but
political man, would be a beast, for he would be
completely lacking in moral restraints. But in order to
develop an autonomous theory of political behavior,
political man must be abstracted from other aspects of
human nature. And this is very important in order to
understand the nature of realist approach to the
international relations. Three s of political realism, easy
to understand, must be derived from the ideas of Hans
Morgenthau and from the first comprehensive concept
of the realist approach to the international relation. First
s is a statism, concentration on the state. Realists believe
that by its nature, international relations is a state
centered social structure. What it means that a state a
sovereign unit dominates in international politics. And
remains the only true actor, though other actors can
exist, but they don't influence their political life,
international political life essentially. Second s, survival,
indicates that the main task of every state is to survive in
an aggressive anarchic international environment. And
with this S we see the main purpose of state. We see why
people create the state in the international environment.
From the times of Thomas Hobbes, we know why people
 101

create state for themselves on their own level, on the

community level. And from Hans Morgenthau, we know
why people need the state internationally. Because
international environment is as well anarchic as it has
been in their community environment before. And last
but not least, third S of political realism, self-help. Points
out that in an anarchic environment, nobody can help.
There is no global government. Nor to save a state for
external threats, every single alliance remains temporary
and depends on balance of power. So the states
according to the classics of political realism should do
like, only on their own power in order to achieve the
second s to survive. This becomes important and this
becomes actually the reality of international affairs
according to the realists because of the anarchy has the
most permanent characteristic of international relations.
Then the context of action of any state in international
politics is the anarchy. States coexist in the context of
international anarchy, which refers to the absence of a
centralized authority to protect states from one another.
Each state has to survive on its own. Thus states are by
definition self-help agents. They assume that within the
hierarchy of international relations issues, national
security tops the list. For them, military and related
 102

political issues dominate world politics. The other key

assumptions of political realism say that there is no
authority above states capable of regulating their
interactions. States must arrive at relations with other
states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them
by some high controlling entities. It also says that the
sovereign states are the principal actors in the
international system. International institutions, non-
government organizations, multinational corporations,
individuals and other sub-state and trans-state actors are
important. But they are viewed as having little
independent inference. Having multinational
corporation, even if it's tremendously rich, is always
dependent on the state where its headquarters are. And
this is one of the maxims of classical realist approach.
Realist also believes that states are rational unitary
actors each moving towards their own national interests.
There is a genuine distrust of long-term cooperation of
alliance. States according to realists are rational unitary
actors. So according to the realist approach, there are no
different interests within our state. But even though
some people in the states or in the government look at
the international priorities differently, outside, the state
is always represented as one partner. And that helps us
 103

to understand, that helps us to predict the state

behavior. So now, we can see that during the first part of
the 20th Century, the international relations theory
moved from a philosophy to a genuine science. The first
round of great debates, the one between idealists and
realists, finished with the outbreak of the second World
War, defeat of the League of Nations and the concepts of
Edward Hallett Carr and Hans Morgenthau. In many
respects due to these debates, after the end of the
second World War, international relations theory
emerged from a philosophical concept to a science with
its own objectives, theories and research methods.
Further development of internationalrelations science
would play a critical role in preventing the new
confrontation between United States and Soviet Union.
From emerging to a new World War. So here you can
find some readings which will help you navigate better
within the very huge amount of knowledge and very
huge amount of intellectual literature connected to the
emergence of our science. Next time we will speak about
the further developments of international relations
theory. Thank you. [SOUND] 4.1 Hello and welcome back
to the course on international relations theory, prepared
by the professors of National Research University Higher
 104

School of Economics in Moscow. Today, we will speak

about relatively new theory of international relations,
structural realism or neorealism. And as you can see
from the title of today's presentation, this theory is very,
very much connected to the distinguished American
scholar, Kenneth Waltz, which has been at the same time
absolutely distinguished personality, the man who was
born not long before the Second World War. However,
he managed to go to war in Korea. And after that, he
joined the academy. So, I will talk more about his theory
and his individual projects a little bit later. But let us now
have a look at why and in what time the structural theory
of international relations emerged in the second part of
the 20th century. As we know, from the basics of our
science, every theoretical paradigm in the theory of
international relations emerges because of the certain
historical preconditions which help the academicians and
which encourage us to think about why the things go in
one way or another and to develop certain hypotheses
and certain theories. So, structural realism or neorealism
as well, it emerged in the very unique historical
conditions of the Second World War. And the major
factors which influenced transformation of the released
approach, neorealism, as you can see it from the name, is
 105

a continuation of the realist approach in a certain way.

There were three major historical factors. First, relatively
non-flexible structure of international relations after the
Second World War. This relatively non-flexible structure
of international relations was connected to the
emergence of military blocs, which have been
confronting each other. There were two blocs. We will go
into detail a little bit later. The third important fact, the
strategic deterrence. The nuclear weapons emerged
soon after the Second World War. And two major
superpowers, and later on, also France, United Kingdom,
and China, have been able to deter each other with
ultimate weapons. And this strategic deterrence also
helped to understand international relation system in a
more structured way. But in the same time, the theory of
structural realism or neorealism is also called a status-
quo theory. That means that it has connected to the
social status-quo situation, very stable in traditional
environment. And as a result of these three factors,
reactive, defensive strategies, and acceptance of status-
quo, rather than pro-active struggle for power and glory,
policies of the key actors emerged and have been
dominated international relations during the all second
part of the 20th century. One of the most important
 106

historic preconditions were the unique character of the

relationships between two strongest powers, the Soviet
Union and its allies and the United States with their
respective allies. Emergence of the two camps after the
Second World War, capitalist and socialist within two
military blocs, NATO and Warsaw Pact, as the
cornerstones led to relative decrease of international
flexibility. For the centuries before, the states had been
able to form the different coalitions to fight entirely
because of the certain particular reasons. But already
after the Second World War, the international system
was stabilized by the two cornerstones, by the two
confronting military blocs, which did not permit their
participants to take action on their own. However, the
peaceful coexistence of the two massive military and
political alliances demanded a theoretical explanations
and understanding of its potential developments. You
can see these two gentlemen, both are sitting on the
nuclear bombs. That means that there are contradictions
between them and their ability to destroy each other
have been ultimate. But at the same time, both parties,
Soviet Union and the United States, did understand that
they don't want to do it. And thus, they have developed a
certain strategic culture. The other important historic
 107

precondition, as I said, was deterrence. Let us speak

more in detail about this important factor. First of all,
appearance of nuclear weapons, as a factor of the
international politics, strongly influenced the
international relations theories. Never before, nations
possessed such strong weapons and never before, these
weapons have been threatening the existence of entire
humanity. It was called mutually assured destruction or
MAD. Mutually assured destruction emerged as the basic
concept of the Cold War coexistence. In a strategic
situation, when any aggressive actions may lead to
catastrophic consequences, the logic of classical political
realism was hardly reliable. The states have been seeking
for domination still, but seeking for domination as a
survival strategy gave a way to keeping a status-quo. In
other words, the major powers understood that they can
not dominate in order to survive but in order to survive,
they need to maintain a status-quo. That's why structural
realism is also called status-quo theory. In some way, the
new structural theory emerged as a representation of
this political logic of the Cold War. But beyond the
historical preconditions, the unique international
environment of the Cold War, there were also several
conceptual preconditions. These conceptual
 108

preconditions emerged as a result of what is called, in

international relations history and history of the theory
of international relations, the great debates. What are
the great debates generally? The great debates are the
discussions between bigger group of the scholars.
Usually, these groups of the scholars, they share certain
approaches, but they diverge ultimately on the other
approaches, and they discuss it. They publish academic
articles and books, where they argue in defense of their
approach, of their vision of a certain international
phenomenon. So, these conceptual preconditions were
of no less importance than historical preconditions
because, well, their history moves the political practice
and challenged the academicians with the challenges of
the everyday practice and the everyday political needs
and deterrence. But the theoretical challenges are not of
less importance because the science of international
relations has already emerged by that time and there
were very many scholars which diverge within
approaches. So, the second round of great debates in
international relations theory, which started out
narrowly in the 1960s, 1970s, was focused on the father
methodological developments of this science. Primarily,
these debates have been conducted between the
 109

scholars in the United States. But later on, the European

Scholars and scholars from the other countries also
joined them. In the last third of the 20th century, the
social sciences were influenced by a huge intervention of
the precise sciences, what had led to a clash between so-
called traditional and positivist or scientists approaches.
So, the great debates in the second part of the 20th
century have been conducted between traditional and
positivist or scientists approaches. Let us first speak
about the traditional approach in international relations
studies, which also includes classical political realism and
classical political liberalism. The traditional approach
argued that an international relations research should be
based on a certain major starting points and a certain
rules of the game. First of the rules, the observation of an
actor. What is actor? Actor is the state. So, our task, as
classical realist and classical liberal say, is to look at the
action of the state and take the state as the major
important actor and the same time, factor of the
international relations. And so, the state was considered
as the only one, and the behavior of the state could have
been explained and could have been understood
accordingly to the representatives of political realism and
classically liberal theory. Second, a prerequisite was a
 110

focus on diplomatic and international history. And

historical experiences have been taken by the all classic
approaches as the most important source of knowledge
about why the states act in a certain way, why the states
reacted in a certain way at the behavior of the other
states. Third, a prerequisite was analysis of international
law and treaties. Law and treaties binding the states have
been considered as the major written experiences, and
the major embodiment of the states will increase and
will. Next, the memoirs and other descriptive materials,
as the main sources, have been taken and advocated by
the political realists. So, for the political realists, there
was no general theory per se. Everything was connected
with the concrete practical experiences explained in the
treaties, memoirs, and other descriptive materials. And
last but not least, case studies was considered by the
classic political realism, the main research method. So,
they studied every state and its policy, and they tried to
predict the behavior of the state based on the case
studies from the previous historical books. 4.2 Let us
continue our discussion about the great debates. The
other camp which has confronted the classical political
realist and classical political liberals have been called
positivist or scientific approaches at method. Scientific or
 111

positivist approaches argued what international relations

studies in contemporary times, meaning in the second
part of the 20th century, should focus on more scientific
methods. They basically believed those who represented
these camp of the great debates, they basically believed
that the classical experiences and knowledge of history
and knowledge of the case studies and the knowledge of
memoirs until these treaties is not scientific enough.
They believed in mathematics. We should not forget that
in the second part of the 20th century, the mathematics
and precise science has developed very much the science
made huge discoveries. Their nuclear weapons haven't
invented, the space hubs has been discouraged by the
people, the new developments of the mathematics,
physics, chemics, and the others have been developed in
the second part of the 20th century and all these
achievements of their science as an opposition to
humanities has brought many arguments for those who
believed that international relations science should also
be brought closer to their classical scientific methods
advocated by them. So the first method, according to the
representatives of these positivist camp was aggregation
of data. They believed, and by the way they continued to
believe that no serious study can be done without the
 112

aggregation of a huge amount of statistics, huge amount

of data which can be later analyzed but how to analyze
these data. Quantitative analysis was brought to the field
of international relations science. The third method was
application of natural science methods to social sciences
exactly taking social science humanities to the
methodological domain of the classical nature of science.
Next, what was important for those who represented
these positivist approach was mathematical modeling.
They believed that since we have a data, huge amount of
data, we can do a quantitative analyses. We can predict
the international relations based on mathematical
modelling as we can do it with physics for example, or
make a simulation. If we have a huge data we can have
mathematical model and then we can simulate how the
states will behave in the international system and vis-a-
vis to each others. The only one problem with this
approach that unlike in mathematics, in politics, two plus
two is not always four. In politics for good or for bad, two
plus two is what we decide, is what politicians decide and
people who vote for this politicians decide. That's why
mathematical modeling and all positive scientific
approach exists in international relations. It helps us to
understand many issues and processes on the micro level
 113

but while trying to predict the genuine political

developments in international relations, it generally fails.
So consequently, emergence of neorealism or structural
realism was a result of these great debates and
representatives of structural realism tried to make peace
between two confronting camps of the great debates
and it's emergence of this theoretical paradigm in the
late 70s put an end to these debates. From one hand,
structural realism meant a victory of "positivist camp"
good because it has brought scientific methodology to
the international relations studies. Since then the
international relations has become a little bit less for
humanities, a little bit less connected to history than
before but from the other hand presented for example
by Kenneth Waltz, the founder of the structural
approach, new theory saved many features of a
traditional humanitarian approach of classical realist
theory and it was strongly based on it. Now let us talk
about Kenneth Waltz. Who was Kenneth Waltz? He was a
great man for our science. He was a prominent American
political scientist of Joan origin, the key theorist of
Neorealism and the founder of this theory. In the book
"Theory of International Politics" which has been
published in 1979, Waltz described the main assumptions
 114

of his structural approach to the study of international

relations and defended the main features of this
approach. And as a matter of fact, he established the
signs of international relations in its contemporary
existence. The central points of his theory was analysis of
the international politics not through their units, not
through the states and their behavior, but through such
categories as system and structure. So, let us talk a little
bit about the basic assumptions of the structural realism
as it has been developed by Kenneth Waltz in the end of
1970s. Neorealism has taken a lot from political realism
and it was basically a continuation of political realism
theory adapted for the new realities or the new
methodological possibilities which scientists had. And like
political realism, the neorealist theory was based on such
assumptions as first, that the international system is
anarchic. The neorealist have never denied that system is
anarchic they always believed in these rule of
international relations which belongs to the classical
realist approach from the times of Fukuda's. And there is
no credible power they argued above the states that
together form the system. So here we can see something
from Tomasz Gop, isn't it? And we see the clear
connection between neorealism and classical realism.
 115

The other basic assumption which neorealist inherited

from the classic realism was the assumption that states
cannot be certain of the intentions of other states. We
do remember the problem of intentions from the
previous lectures and the uncertainty of the intentions
has been always considered by the realist theory as one
of the main prerequisites of why states don't trust each
other. This uncertainty was important and still is
important in all realist paradigm to which the neorealist
theory also belongs. Next assumption was that at least
some states have offensive capabilities and some states
having these offensive capabilities eased the basic
condition of international system and that the other
states should always take these into consideration. The
next assumption was that states have preferences which
they seek to realize and that survival is a prerequisite for
realizing such a preference. So unlike political realists,
classical realists believe that they have many
preferences, not just only one survival or domination, but
still for them survival was number one and for the state,
the most important was to ensure its survival and other
preferences could have been realized and implemented
in the political practice only if survival is achieved. And
consequently however, unlike political realist, structural
 116

realism uses system analysis as the basic methodological

instrument and not analysis of the this certain action. So
we do know already that Kenneth Waltz has invented
and developed his integral part of the international
relations theory, the concept of system and structure.
What is a system? System is the central category of
neorealist theory, in the most general sense, system is a
regularly interacting or inter-depending group of items
forming a unified whole. In international relations, these
items are ultimately the states. Since such approach
means that political actors states, as the elements of the
system, are strongly connected entities which behavior
influences other actions producing counter reaction. So
the states are not working in a vacuum that their
behavior is always influenced by the behavior of the
artists and all of them together influence the
international environment and this environment is the
most decisive most important for their future reactions
and behavior. Such approach allowed to call the Kenneth
Waltz theory defensive realism. Why defensive, not
offensive? But because according to him, actors within
the international system are not motivated by hunger for
power and glory, but purely by security considerations
and here we see the very very clear difference from the
 117

theory of classic political realism. For classical political

realist, any state regardless of its power and position was
motivated by hunger for power and glory. But for the
neorealist, the survival was understood not as a
domination of the others but as assuring its own security
by the very concrete stand. And as soon as they depend
on the others and have to react to their actions, it may
cause conflicts and sometimes lead to wars. 4.3 So, how
the Neo-realist theory takes the problem off the actors?
The problem of actors is one of the key problems of
international relations. And what are there elements of
the international relations system according to the Neo-
realist. We know, they're states. The only essential
elements of international system, are states which
policies define development and evolution. So, as well as
in classic realism, the state is the point of departure. And
the other actors of international politics, such as
international organizations, multinational corporations,
religious organizations, and the others, are not
considered by the Neo-realist as equal to the states, or
even important elements of the system. However, unlike
political realists, the Neo-realist do not deny the
existence of these elements, and they do not deny that
they have some influence on the behavior of the states
 118

and international environment. So, the treatment of the

non-governmental, non-state actors, is the other main
feature which makes Neo-realist theory different from
the Classical Realism. And speaking about the states, the
more powerful states are, the more important role they
play within the system. However, even superpowers,
those dominant states, the mightiest states, they do not
seek for domination just to dominate. This is another
important difference between Neo-realist approach and
Classical Realism. We remember, that for the Classic
realist, the domination, the rule among the others has
been always considered as the primary goal of any state.
Not for the Neo-realist. For the Neo-realist, the aims by
all of these states, the aims of even super powers are
limited by creation of security environment, which is able
to grant the highest security level possible in current
situation, and preserving status-quo. This logic perfectly
suited for the cold war strategic situation. Let us look at
this scheme, the picture of how the Neo-realist, or
Structural Neo-realist see the world, and see the main
principles on which the international relations develop.
So for them, first of all, state is a central actor. And it is in
the middle of the picture. But the same state is a black
box. Why black box? Because so many factors influence
 119

state. So many factors are within the states, which we

cannot analyze, because we cannot describe all of them,
we cannot think about all of them. The [inaudible] in one
of his works, he wrote, that the international relations
science can't tell us what pressures will exercise the
system of international relations at the concretes states,
but it can never say what is going to be reaction of the
state, because of the internal factors. So, for the Neo-
realist, the emergence of a certain foreign policy is seen
as the number of challenges which influence the state.
And state responses, do these challenges with a certain
policy. So for us, in Neo-realist theory, the most
important is to analyze these challenges,to analyze their
international environment, and only after the state,
which is still the central actor. The state, every state is a
part of a certain structure. And we remember, that as
well as a system, structure is another central and the
most important notion of the Neo-realist or Structural
realist theory. Structural Realism is because the structure
is so important. Because states seek to survive. so the
imbalances of power automatically form. Such
transformations of the international system, can be
described as evolution of its structure, the change of the
structure of international system. Structure, by
 120

definition, is the weight of organizing of elements within

the system. So in the system, there are a certain number
of interconnected and interacting elements. Structure is
how they are organized. What is the subordination?
What is the role of each of them? What role each of the
states plays within the system? What is important of
each state? In the international system, it means first of
all, distribution of power as well as other aspects.
Particular relationships between states, the level of
development of international institutions, et cetera, et
cetera. So, for the Neo-realist, not only the power, the
physical power of certain states was important, but also
relationships. Certain states for example, can be a
relatively weak as most of the member states of, say
NATO or European Union, but because of the unique
relationships they have with the mighty states, like the
United States for example, these small states can
increase their power, and can take a higher role in
international system and structure. That level of
development of international institutions is also
important. In the Neo-realist structure, the international
institutions are not the actors equal to the states. They
are much weaker and the after all formed by the states.
But at the same time, and we will speak about it a little
 121

bit later, they can influence the international

environment, and they can affect even the distribution of
power within the international system, thus, influence
the structure. Structure is a central knowledge of the
Neo-realist paradigm. And the science of international
relations has identified several types of the structure.
And this structure is shaped by the mightiest powers.
First of all, superpowers and the great powers. So for us,
the most important is to see the distribution of power,
exactly between the superpowers and great powers,
because they are the most important elements of any
structure. And they are critical for the survival of a
certain structure. Depending on the way of distribution
of power, and the number of leading powers, several
types of international structures may be defined.
Historically, the first type of international structure was
the Multi-polar structure of international system, with
three or more great powers, balancing each other within
the system of flexible lines. The example here is of
nineteenth century balance of power in Europe. In
nineteenth century in Europe as we remember from
history, there were no any single country, or two
countries which have been able to dominate the others.
Russian Empire was weak economically, but very strong
 122

in terms of military. British Empire was not so strong

military, but very strong in economics. France wasn't
between them, as well as Germany, Austria, Hungary. All
these permit to the existence of this multi-polar
structure, when not one or two powers are dominating.
The multi-polar structure ceased to exist in the beginning
of the twentieth century. And after the 30 years of
European Wars, and not only Europeans, the World
Wars, the bi-polar Structure emerged. We have been
only speaking a little bit about bipolar structure, but
what is it? Bipolar structure of international system is
when, there are two superpowers or great powers which
counterbalance each other. It's assumed to be the most
stable international structure. Example, the Cold War.
The representatives of the Neo-realism believe that
having two strongest possible powers who counter
balance each other helps to the stability of international
system because the others, can decide which they
support, and the other parts of other countries, the
smaller ones, can adjust their policies, preferences, and
interests through the policies, preferences, and the
interest of one or another superpower, and that helps to
keep the world relatively stable. And last but not least,
uni-polar system. Where uni-polar- structure of
 123

international system, which has one hegemon,

dominating the whole international systems. The Uni-
polar is considered by the Neo-realist theory, to be the
last stable international structure. The example, the post-
Cold War uni-polar moment, when the United States,
after the defeat of the Soviet Union, have been able to
consider enormous power, and actually to seek the world
dominance. 4.4 So, on this map, you can see the
distribution of power during the bipolar international
structure of the Cold War. And even if you look at the
size of the confronting parties, Soviet Union and its allies
are in red, the United States and their allies are in blue,
you see that those two camps have completely
dominated international environment. China and some
other smaller states tried to influence this environment.
But they have not been able to change the general path
of international developments, which has been
dominated and prescribed by the two confronting camps
and the logic of the bipolar confrontation. But at the
same time, you see, as Soviet Union controlled so many
states and the United States controlled even more states,
the behavior of the smaller participants of each alliance
have been restricted by the participation in a certain
grouping led by a hegemonic power like the United
 124

States or the Soviet Union. The other important notion

which is very, very crucial to know when we speak and
when we use Neorealist theory of international relations
is security dilemma. Security dilemma is one of the basic
concepts within Neorealism which explains behavior of
actors. In particular, arms race and causes of war. So,
security dilemma is a situation in which actions taken by
a state to increase its own security cause reactions from
the other states, which in turn lead to a decrease rather
than increase in the regional states security, as has been
written in the Encyclopedia Britannica. But at the same
time, this notion is not a very new one, and the first
thinker who described security dilemma in international
relations was our old, old friend Thucydides, who lived in
the ancient Greece. You remember this quote from the
first lecture. "The growth of the power of Athens, and
the alarm which this inspired in Sparta, made the war
inevitable. It allows to consider Thucydides as not the
first international relations thinker, but as a predecessor
of structure of the realist approach, explaining causes of
conflict by counter-reaction of actors on status-quo
change. We can also say, that everything, what is new in
international relations, says, has very, very, very deep
roots in the very beginnings of our discipline. So, we can
 125

see on this graph how the security dilemma was

reflected in the military spending of the United States
and Soviet Union, and later, Russian Federation after
1991. We see that the highest, the top days of the Cold
War have been at the same time represented by the
highest military expenditure and number of the
warheads in the both confronting camps. At the same
time, Neorealist theory of international relations is also
called a security-centered theory. Why it is called the
security-centered theory? Because, particularly focusing
on the problems of military dimension, structural realism
is usually considered as a security-focused theory, which
explains things such as nuclear deterrence, forming of
military alliance, containment, et cetera. It, however,
doesn't mean that structural realism does not pay any
attention to other important aspects of international
politics such as economic relations, institutional building,
et cetera. Even more, unlike classical realism as we know,
Neorealism gives attention to the economic relations and
institutional building or other known security standard
issues of international relations. But at the same time, as
universal theory, structural realism aims to explain all
aspects of international relations, which goes beyond
only security issues or military issues. So, what is the
 126

treatment? What is the attitude of the Neorealist theory

towards the international institutions? For the
Neorealist, institutions do not play a critical role within
their approach. However, while classic political realism
does not take institutions into consideration entirely,
Neorealism is different in this regard. Neorealism
reflected the political reality of the second part of the
20th century when the big and universal international
organizations emerged like United Nations, for example,
but also regional international institutions like European
Union or NATO or Warsaw Pact. So, based on this
practical experience, Neorealism assumes institutions as
an important part of international structures. What do
they do, institutions for the Neorealists? First of all, they
serve as an instrument of foreign policy, promote norms
and standards profitable for the creator. So, every state
tries to take advantage of influencing the international
institution because this institution can help the state to
increase their own individual power to become stronger
than the others. So, basically, states abuse institutions
for their own profit. The other purpose of international
institutions is to strengthen the international structure.
International institutions are not the units of the
structure. But, at the same time, they help states to
 127

organize their relationships. If we have, for example,

bilateral or multilateral structure of international system,
if states don't have institutions, they interact case by
case and they can never be sure of what is going to be
their new interaction about. If they have international
institutions, they have a certain bureaucracy together,
certain logic of not cooperation but the regular
interaction, which helps them to be more predictable vis
a vis each other. But at the same time, we should never
forget that, according to Neorealists, institutions do not
have their own political will and power. They only reflect
the willingness or will of the state. Let us look at the
international institutions which emerged in the second
part of the 20th century in Europe. Most mighty, NATO
and the Warsaw Pact. So, basically, we see that Europe,
with the exception of the non-participating Sweden,
Finland, Ireland, Switzerland and Austria, all Europe has
been divided between the two institutions prepared for
the fight between them, and participation in these
institutions influence the behavior of each member state.
How else we can use Neorealist theory? Let us take
another case related to the international political
economy. Neorealist theory deals with international
economy and was the factor of economic relationships,
 128

but deals in a very, very particular way. Let us consider

two initiatives, Trans-Pacific Partnership and
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which
have been developed and which have been almost
introduced into the political reality. Both have been large
agreements promoted by the United States and they can
serve as an example of how Neorealist logic may explain
institutions of economic co-operation, and how the
unique states can take advantage of promotion of certain
international institutions, which might, in a certain point,
govern international economic relationships and
international economic environment. These two
initiatives, these two partnerships, have been an attempt
to make a major reform of economic regulation, and it
may be interpreted as a reaction to the structural
weakening of the United States. China has been rising.
Russia has been assertive. So, the United States tried to
consolidate their power by introducing the new
international institutions. While refuse as a result of a
changing structural environment, the chosen instrument
appeared to be ineffective in the new circumstances. And
we see that the new president of the United States,
immediately after his election, has abolished the
participation of America in Trans-Pacific Partnership.
 129

Neorealism is a very, very comprehensive theory. But as

well as any theory of international relations, of course,
Neorealism or structural realism, is not free of any
criticism, and like any other theory, Neorealism is not
ideal. The main criticism on Neorealism is in many
respects on the same nature on realism. What are the
main criticisms? First, domestic politics are not taken into
consideration at all. As well as political realists did,
Neorealists say that we do not include domestic issues
into our methodology. But because of the different
reason. For classical realists, domestic politics did not
matter because national interests dominate the behavior
of the state. But for Neorealists, domestic politics did not
matter because the most important was the international
system and structure, and not the internal situation in
particular actor. Second, system level explanation can
hardly help in explaining of some other more targeted
issues. Foreign policy decision making, political culture,
et cetera. In explaining these issues, Neorealism is very,
very weak and struggles to overcome this weakness.
Third, criticism was directed into the focus on security
issues. Very typical for the Neorealist theory. According
to the critics of this theory, this focus limits analytical
instrumentary to explain economic relations. And last but
 130

not least, the role of non-actors is undermined by the

very approach of the Neorealist theory, which puts the
state and the structure into the center of its entire
methodology. And the end of the Cold War and
structural configuration on the international system has
brought a strong conceptual challenge to the Neorealist
theory. 4.5 So, we have considered that theoretical
criticisms of Neorealist theory. But the most important
challenge actually, arrived from the political practice.
Collapse of the Soviet Union challenged the Neorealist
approach entirely. Back in 1989, Kenneth Waltz argued
that the Cold War was firmly rooted in the structure of
postwar international politics and will last as long as that
structure endures. So according to him, the bipolar
structure and the Cold War as a product of this bipolar
structure was the most natural state of the international
relations. And for the states, for the leading powers, the
most rational way of behavior was to continue these sort
of the relationships and these sort of the shape of the
entire international order represented by bipolar
structure. But, in two years after Kenneth Waltz wrote
this, the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War
finished. However, structural contradictions between
post-Soviet Russia and the United States remained and
 131

emerged as new confrontation after 2014. And this helps

Neorealist theory to survive and to be a useful part of
our methodology nowadays. So, what is Structural
Realism today? In 1990, just on the eve of the end of the
Cold War, an influential American scholar, John
Mearsheimer from Chicago University, argued that the
West has an interest in maintaining the Cold War order,
and hence has an interest in maintaining the Cold War
confrontation, adding that the continued existence of a
powerful Soviet Union with substantial military presence
in Eastern Europe should be supported by the West. So,
according to the Neorealist, to the ideal world of
Neorealist and Structural Realists, the United States, in
order to survive and to assure its alliances and the
system they have profited from, should have also
supported the existence of the opponent of the Soviet
Union, while relying on their bipolar system. The scholar,
John Mearsheimer, argued that otherwise, the key factor
of the Western consolidation may disappear and
therefore lead to a conflict between the Western states.
While it has never happened, disappearance of a
common foe brought the rise of contradictions in the
West and the European Union in particular. And after the
end of the Cold War, we have seen lots of problems
 132

between the member states of the European Union and

the United States. For example, in 2003, two major
European countries, France and Germany, have openly
and decisively opposed the intention of the United States
to invade Iraq in order to remove the dictator Saddam
Hussein. And this split within the Western camp, for the
Neorealist was the consequence of the end of the Cold
War. Soviet Union, as a common friend, disappeared.
And 12 years after, the leading European powers
disagreed with the United States on the issue which was
very important for American administration. And, if we
look at the political realities now, we see the so-called
"Russian threat" serves to European powers and
European Union as a factor of consolidation, as a raison
d'être over the institutions like NATO , for example. So,
what to say more about Structural Realism nowadays?
After the end of the Cold War, Kenneth Waltz and other
Structural Realists argued that rise of the United States
should cause consolidation of other powers against the
hegemon. And, as I said, just a minute ago, it has
happened in the most harsh form in 2002, 2003, when
the United States wanted to invade Iraq. It was difficult
to imagine in 1990s, but however now, Russia, China,
and some other powers are counterbalancing the United
 133

States very actively and certainly. An emerging concept

describes the current international politics as the "new
bipolarity," where the United States play a role on a pole,
while Russia, China, and some of other powers represent
the "Eurasian pole," a challenger to the might of the
United States. And thus following the neorealist
argument, we can also suggest that the bipolarity can
emerge in a certain time as the new more stable
structure for international system, more stable than we
have now. Let us look at the major Subschools of
Structural Realism. First, Offensive Realism represented
by John Mearsheimer. The main idea of this school is that
every state is doomed to be expansionist, and it will
cause the war under any conditions. The other school,
Defensive Realism established by Kenneth Waltz itself
and then followed by such distinguished scholars like
Jervis and Glaser. The states can overcome expansionism
and become more cooperative. The other subschool of
the Structural Realism is a Balance of Threat theory,
which has been developed by Stephen Walt. And
according to his view, the alliances matter, military build-
ups, militarized rivalries play the most important role in
the development of international system. There is a
theory of Soft Balancing. This theory believes that in
 134

order to balance a certain country, which pretends to be

hegemon, the other states do not need to make this
competition a hard power competition. They can only try
to restrain the action of the state which tries to take a
hegemonic position. They argue in favor of a subtle
constaint actions versus unipole. Theory of Hegemonic
Stability, as another subtheory, subpart of the Neorealist
theory, argues in favor of cooperation and institution-
norm construction and building. Power Transition
believes in war, that every power transition can go only
through the war and the change of leadership will be
only connected to the very, very bad consequences for
the humanity. Let us look closer in one of the most
important subtheories of Neorealist theory, Offensive
realism. Offensive realists generally criticized Kenneth
Waltz and Stephen Walt for seeing the world solely
through the eyes of a satisfied status quo states. So, as
well as the classic political realists, offensive realists, John
Mearsheimer, for example, believe that the state is still
trying to dominate the others. And they argue, that at
least some states want to change their status in the
system and will want to advance their relative power
position by all means available. Offensive realists also
believe that states maximize power but not security. So,
 135

the priority for them, as it has been in classic realism is

power again not security, as for Kenneth Waltz, for
example. Offensive realists also believe that states do not
know when their power is sufficient because they don't
know for sure what power is the power of the others,
they don't know the intentions of the others. And the
states always try to become more and more powerful
and never considered to be sufficient. Offensive realists
also believe that states are driven to accumulate as much
power and capabilities as possible. And these leads them
to pursue aggressive expansionist policies. So, for the
offensive realists, their desire of the state to accumulate
as much power as possible, is the reason of expansionist
policies, not only the strive for the glory and dominance.
Offensive realists also believe that the objective of every
state is to become a regional, if not a global, hegemon.
So now, in this slide and the next one, you can see some
readings we suggest for the better understanding of the
general outline which has been given during our today's
lecture. You can see the work of the father founder of
the Neorealist theory Mr. Kenneth Waltz, his classic book
Theory of International Politics, the Origins of Alliances,
but also some of his followers like Mr. Stephen Walt with
his International Relations: One World, Many Theories,
 136

excellent article published back in 1998 in foreign policy.

Mr. Jervis, the Complexity in Political and Social Life. And
some other books which are very, very fit for
understanding better the Neorealistic approach. The one
thing we should try not to forget is that Neorealist
theory, it was the first one, which considered the world,
the international environment and system as a certain
unity, which can be analyzed as a unity, which acts and
which develops and lives accordingly to its own internal,
inherited, and developing rules, and rules of the game,
and rules of their nature. So, for us, when we speak later
on about the new theories and new liberal theories, the
importance of the Neorealist theory of international
relations should be never forgotten. 5.1 Hello. Today we
will talk about neo-liberalism, which is the contemporary
stage of the development of such a basic theory of
international relations as liberalism. In other words, we'll
talk about liberalism after the end of the second world
war, and the end of the cold war. In general, there are
three stages of the liberal theory development. The first
is called liberal internationalism, or the enlightenment
period of liberalism, which is associated by such great
names, such great philosophers as Immanuel Kant, Hugo
Grotius, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and others.
 137

The second is liberal idealism, which is liberalism which

emerged after the end of the first world war or the great
war, which basically transformed the then international
system and which laid the foundation of international
relations science. And finally, the third stage about which
we will talk about now is neo-liberalism, the
contemporary stage of the liberal paradigm. And unlike
realism where classical political realism is profoundly
different from neorealism and these are basically two
different concepts two different theories. There is no
fundamental difference between the old and new
liberalism. Neo-liberalism offers pretty much the same
assumptions and approaches about how the world
functions, why states behave in the way as they behave,
and applies these basic assumptions, the same liberal
assumptions to the contemporary environment. Above
all to the conditions of globalization and to the
environment after the second world war and after the
cold war. And as neo-liberalism continues the same
assumptions, It makes sense to remember to remind
what these assumptions actually are, what is neo-
liberalism talking about. And from the very beginning, it
is extremely important to emphasize that liberalism as a
theoretical paradigm is based on the Christian tradition,
 138

on the idea of salvation and the coming of the kingdom

of the God or basically a better world. And unlike realism,
which claims that man does not change, that the human
nature never changes. And thus, the world cannot be
changed. It is always the same the basic rules of behavior
of men and of state are eternal and they never change.
Liberalism claims that human nature can be improved.
And this results us to very important for basic
propositions. This leads us to the basic propositions of
the liberal theory. And the first major proposition is that
the world as the human nature can and should be
improved. Thus, unlike realism, which studies the world
as it is, which that is reality, and which claims that states
have to adapt to this never changing world. Liberalism is
focused on studying how the world should be, not how
the world is is, but liberals from the very beginning
always have a very clear or less clear but still an
understanding a vision of dream of how the world should
be and what needs to be done to get there. What does it
mean to improve the world? What does it mean to
create a better world, right? Which is the essence of
liberal paradigm. It means less conflicts, it means
avoiding wars. It means that cooperation but more
conflict should be the prevailing form of international
 139

relations. How to make it? Again, liberalism gives us the

answer through rules, norms, institutions, and values,
which should in the mind of liberalism, govern
international relations, regulate behavior of states. Thus,
liberalism as a science, as a theoretical concept, focuses
on international law, and they are all international
relations, on international institutions, and the spread of
democracy. The ideal of liberalism is creating a rule-
based international order, and international order in
which behavior of states will be governed not just by
force, but by rules and norms and institutions. And the
second major proposition of the liberal theory, which is
also based to the theoretical Christian foundation of
liberalism is that man, human individual is the
centerpiece of the universe. Individual, not a state, is the
major unit of international relations is primary. Whereas,
the state is secondary. Individual is the major value and
the starting point of all social relations according to
liberalism, including international relations. This means
that liberalism is talking about and studying man-centric
not a state-centric reality, and applies a man-centric
approach to international relations. It considers
individual to be primary whereas, state secondary.
Whereas, realism on the contrary reconsiders state as
 140

primary, and all the rest is secondary. Thus, from the

liberal viewpoint, international relations should benefit
man, not just the state. Man being the major value. And
this means that the value of states as actors of
international relations, is much less in the liberal
paradigm as it is in the realist paradigm. And there can
be, and are other forms of organizations of individuals in
international relations beyond state such as non-state
actors, such as NGOs, non-governmental organizations,
such as transnational corporations, business, companies.
And of course, international organizations. Thus, as a
theoretical approach to IR, liberalism, neo-liberalism,
focuses on these other actors of international relations
beyond states, and on limitation or overcoming of state
sovereignty. How should we overcome state sovereignty
for the benefit of man, in conditions when state
threatens the freedom, liberty or prosperity of
individuals? And of course, liberalism status this
overcoming of state sovereignty for the sake and benefit
of individual. 5.2 [MUSIC] So how did liberalism develop
after the second World War? What does neoliberalism
consist of? The outbreak of the second World War, of
course, finished the first round of great debates in the
international relations science. The debate between the
 141

liberal idealism and classical political realism and an

idealist approach of course fails to prevent the new
conflict. The League of Nations fails to create a perpetual
peace and avoid a new war, and thus for a certain time
political realism became a dominant theory of
international relations. Indeed, the outbreak of World
War II proved the relevance, the dominance of realism.
Moreover, after the end of the World War II, the Cold
War started almost immediately. And the logic and
conduct of the Cold War was also defined by a realist
rather than liberal paradigm. At the global scale the
international system became bipolar governed by the
United States on the one side and the Soviet Union on
the other side. And the relations within this bipolar
international system, the relations between these two
major poles was determined by realist, not liberal logic.
Does it mean that liberalism marginalized or died,
demised after the beginning of WWII? Of course not. Of
course not. On the contrary, liberalism sophisticated,
liberalism developed. And the continuation of liberalism
despite the outbreak of second World War and then Cold
War was associated with three important factors. First,
we've already mentioned in the previous video. The
United States of America moved through internationalist
 142

policies and started to establish and consolidate the rule-

based liberal international system within the sphere
which they control. Within the non-Communist part of
the international system. And the United States
conducted these essential liberal policies and never since
returns to isolationism. Secondly, a short period between
the end of Second World War and beginning of the Cold
War, witnessed unprecedented transformation of
international system in a liberal way. It was if you want a
golden moment of liberalism, very important. Immensely
important elements of the international system of the
liberal nature were established there. United Nations
organization and a complex comprehensive system of the
international organizations under the auspices of the UN,
known as the UN system was established back then.
Contemporary international law, which exists up til now,
was established back then in 1945 with the adoption of
the UN charter. Bretton Woods global economic system,
IMF, International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank,
which up to now govern international economy, world
economy, were established back then. The foundations
of the free trade system of the general agreement on
tariffs and trade, which later became WTO were
established back then. So it was a very short but
 143

remarkably important moment in the history of

international relations. It was the explosion of liberalism,
and since much of these institutions and rules exist up to
now. So liberalism has been providing huge influence on
the development of the international system despite the
Cold War. And third, relations within the Western
community were based on the liberal logic, not on the
realist logic. The relations between Western and Soviet
communities were indeed based on realist assumptions.
But within the Western community, these relations were
based not on dictatorship under the United States, not
just on the realities of the distribution of power, but on
rules, limitations, restraints, norms, and values. And thus
these relations can be really be claimed that these
relations has been conducted on the basis of the liberal
logic. How did liberalism evolve in details after the end of
the Second World War? Several major dimensions of
liberal thinking appeared and sophisticated. Which
combined, constitutes the neoliberalism as we know it
today. What are these dimensions? What are these key
elements of the neoliberal theory? These are the
following. It is liberal institutionalism, a theory which
started as the role of international institutions and how
they impact international relations. It is the complex
 144

interdependence theory, the theory that started as the

influence of interdependence of economic relations and
societal relations on political relations among states. It is
a democratic peace theory which claims that
democracies do not fight each other. It is a regime theory
which studies the role of international regimes such as
the regime of non-proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and their influence on international relations.
It is the studies of integration and particular theories of
European integration which analyze the emergence and
development of the European communities and
European Union, the major liberal creature existing now
in the world. It is Post-Westphalian concepts of
sovereignty, or Post-Westphalian sovereignty concepts.
The concepts of how sovereignty, state sovereignty
changed in conditions of globalization after the end of
the Cold War, when the world is claimed to be post-
Westphalian. And finally it is the concepts of
international order. How does liberalism define,
approach and study international order? And in the later
videos we will talk in greater detail about each of these
concepts. [SOUND] 5.3 One of the major dimensions of
neoliberalism is liberal institutionalism, a school of
thought which studies international institutions and their
 145

impact, of course, positive impact on international

relations. And this school of thought is associated with
two prominent American scholars, Harvard Professor
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, who usually work
together and co-authored one of the most important
books in the theory of international relations called
Transnational Relations and World Politics. It was
published in 1972. And this book basically established the
liberal institutional tradition in international relations
science. The emergence of liberal institutionalism in the
science of international relations, is not a coincidence
because institutions, the role of institutions in politics,
international relations, economics and social sciences in
general, was becoming increasingly popular and the
study of institutions was very important in social sciences
after the Second World War in 1960s, 1970s. The role of
institutional research grew drastically in all the major
social sciences including economics. So international
relations was not an exclusion. And in IR theory, the
emergence of institutionalism took form of rising
attention on the study of international organizations,
regimes and integration. More importantly, this attention
was caused, of course, by the dramatic negative
experience of the League of Nations which failed to
 146

prevent the Second World War and maintain peace in

Europe. So post-war liberal thinkers were trying to find
out why the first collective security organization failed to
prevent the new war, and how should we improve
international institutions. How should we build and
develop international institutions to fulfill the role of
peacemakers, to really make the international relations
more peaceful stable and to promote cooperation and
reduce conflicts. The key assumptions of liberal
institutionalism are the following, as they are provided
by Keohane and Nye and some others. First, States are,
of course, key actors, it is indisputable, but they are not
the only significant actors, which is absolutely logical for
liberalism because liberalism starts with man. So man,
individual is the major actor. Right? Which makes states
not the only actors in the international system. Secondly,
neoliberals and liberal institutionalists, claimed that all
actors are rational, men are rational and states are
rational. And being rational actors, men and states
always seek to maximize their interests in all issue areas.
And as rational actors, states in the opinion of liberal
institutionalism are not really concerned with relative
gains of the others. On the contrary, they want absolute
gains for themselves. So it doesn't matter whether I get
 147

more or I get less. The most important thing that I get

something and this already makes me more prosperous,
more secure, it makes me better, makes me stronger.
Thus individuals and states according to liberalism
naturally prefer cooperation to conflict. And according to
the liberal institutionalism, the greatest obstacle to
cooperation is a lack of information about aims and
strategies of the partners. We don't know the real
intentions of the others because of this lack of
information and this impedes cooperation. A second
obstacle to cooperation is non-compliance or cheating,
which means that, we agree about something, I do but
you don't right and since one of the sides is not fulfilling
the agreement, basically I lose. And according to
Keohane and Nye these two obstacles can actually be
addressed by international institutions. This is their
mostly positive impact. It is their positive contribution to
the international relations. International institutions
provide us with information about intentions of the
others and international institutions deal with
noncompliance. They ensure compliance or reveal the
absence of compliance, reveal cheating and take
sanctions so help us to take sanctions against the
cheaters. Thus, they promote cooperation by the very
 148

existence they promote cooperation and reduce

conflicts. International institutions are neutral, they
lower transaction costs, they advance international
cooperation and develop stable cooperative
environment. And if institutions are seen mutually
beneficial by all states, states will start to cooperate.
They will shift their loyalties to these institutions
according to Keohane and Nye. What are institutions in
general? According to neoliberals, according to liberal
internationalist, institutions are enduring sets of norms,
rules and expected patterns of behavior which allow
states and individuals and other forms of social
organization. First, to facilitate activities that are
beneficial to states such as trade for instance. Secondly,
they allow to diminish mistrust, indeed because they
provide flow of information and facilitate difficult
negotiations. And finally, institutions enhance the ability
of governments to monitor the compliance of the others,
thus making commitments credible, thus promoting
cooperation. So by the very existence given this role that
international institutions play in international relations,
by the very existence they improve international
relations. Of course, according to Keohane and Nye,
Keohane and Nye give a very broad definition of
 149

international institutions as we just talked about. And

according to Keohane and Nye, institutions may include
organizations, bureaucratic agencies, treaties and
agreements as well as informal practices that states
accept as binding. In the major form of international
institutions is of course international organizations.
International organizations are interstate structures
established by states on the basis of a legally binding
agreement and having their charter and secretariat. And
we will talk in greater detail about the major example of
international organization in next video. 5.4 The greatest
international institution ever, and the most prominent
example of liberal trend, of liberal dimension of
international relations, is of course, the United Nations
Organization, which was established in 1945. It is the
major example of a grand global universal international
institution which covers all the spheres of life, all the
spheres of policy, and which includes the overwhelming
majority of states that exist in the world. Some liberals
even consider United Nations as a pre-cursor for world
government. Of course it is not a world government, but
the role that United Nations plays in international
relations is indeed, indispensable. And we can absolutely
surely say, that if we neglected UN throughout the last
 150

70 years, international relations would have been much

less stable, they would have been much more violent,
there would have been much more wars in the world,
and so on, and so forth. And basically, international
relations would have been much much more prone to
conflicts, than it is today. So, the impact of the UN has
been very positive. First of all, it was positive in the field
of international security given the existence of one of the
major, actually, the major institution within the United
Nations Organization, the major body of the UN, the
Security Council, which includes five permanent
members and 10 non-permanent or rotating members.
The importance of Security Council is that, it is the only
international institution, the only organ in the world that
can decide the questions of states' sovereignty, that can
take legal and legitimate decisions about use of force
beyond self-defense. And this allows Security Council to
manage conflicts, to conduct conflict resolution, to try at
least to resolve wars and conflicts in general. And this is
what security council is making on a daily basis. Yes, of
course, sometimes it is blocked, sometimes countries
within the Security Council disagree with one another,
and sometimes, management of these or that conflicts in
the world is troublesome, and we claim that Security
 151

Council is ineffective, but still, if we neglected, it would

have been much, much worse and less stable. And the
second manifestation of greatness of the United Nations
on the second principle organ of the UN, is the General
Assembly. And the importance of General Assembly, it is
that it is kind of world parliament. It is the manifestation
of the principle of sovereign equality of nations in the
world, because General Assembly includes all the
member states of the UN, which are the majority of
countries in the world, and General Assembly works on
the principle of one state, one vote. It is the only organ,
the only structure in the world, where every single
country, disregarding of its size, of its level of
development, of its power, have a voice. Every country
has a voice, and has the ability to speak, to state its
concerns, to settle the agenda, or to influence the
agenda, and so on, and so forth. So, the United Nations
really plays an indispensable role in the world. But
however, even the United Nations is not always effective.
And on the contrary, in the last 20-25 years, we have
been witnessing the rise of ineffectiveness of the UN in
terms of management of the international system. I have
already mentioned that the UN sometimes is blocked,
Security Council is blocked and cannot take decisions,
 152

cannot take action because member states are of

different opinions about how to resolve this or that
conflict. Take Syria for instance, right, and disagreements
between Russia and the United States, or Ukraine crisis,
and again disagreements about Russia and the United
States which prevent international action. Given that
sometimes Security Council is blocked, that there is a
stalemate within this structure, sometimes, decisions on
the matters of use of force are taken outside of the
Security Council, thus undermining international law,
undermining the United Nations and the role of the
Security Council as the only, as the indispensable organ
of managing war and peace, the questions of war and
peace in the world. And the examples of decisions taken
outside of the Security Council, for instance, NATO
aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, or the US
intervention in Iraq in 2003, both being huge violations
and rude violations of international law. And this
ineffectiveness of the United Nations, even I would say,
rising ineffectiveness of the United Nations, serves as an
argument for the realist critique of liberal institutionalism
in general, and of the role that institutions play in
international relations. And one of the most prominent
manifestations and important manifestations of this
 153

realist critique, is a famous article by an outstanding

realist theorist of IR, John Mearsheimer, article called
The False Promise of Institutions. What kind of
arguments does Mearsheimer claim, thus criticizing
liberal institutionalism? He starts from the obvious thing,
that state's behavior fundamentally depends on the
relative distribution of power in the world, right? The
distribution of power impacts behavior of states, states
behave depending of what kind of distribution of power
is, who is stronger, who is weaker. Any changes in this
distribution of power in the relative wealth and power,
affect states' behavior and consequently the dynamics of
cooperation. Thus, according to Mearsheimer, states are
interested in rather relative, not absolute gains. Why?
Because relative gains directly influence the balance of
power. If I get more and you get less, or vice versa, I
become stronger and you get weaker. Thus, the balance
of power shifts. The distribution of power starts to
change, which can destroy cooperation. So, the
conclusion that John Mearsheimer makes, is that states
would cooperate only if they reasonably expect to gain
more than the other participating states. Whereas, if
they think that they get less from cooperation, they
would rather abstain from cooperation or even prefer
 154

conflict. They will not go into cooperation if they get a

less relative gain than the opponent. And you know
what? This proposition of Mearsheimer has lots of proofs
in the recent history of international relations. Russia, for
instance, the Russian Federation was initially skeptical of
the reset with the United States under the early Barack
Obama administration, exactly because of the rationale
that John Mearsheimer develops. Because in Moscow's
opinion, the relative gain of Russia would be less than the
relative gain of the United States from this cooperation
on the agenda that was proposed by the Obama
administration. Thus, Russia was passive. It was
abstaining from this cooperation. And only when the
Obama administration shifted, changed the agenda of
the reset, and it became balanced, so the relative gains
of the sites became more equal, only then, Russia
decided to cooperate, and the reset progressed. Yes, it
failed ultimately, but initially, it progressed and the
reason of progress was this relative equality of relative
gains. So yes, what kind of conclusion can we make from
here? International institutions are of course, making
international relations more stable and peaceful. They, of
course, promote cooperation, but not always. They are
not a universal panacea, they cannot guarantee peace,
 155

they cannot ensure cooperation by the very fact of their

existence. And in order to promote cooperation, indeed,
we have to agree with Mearsheimer, that states have to
search for more balanced relative gains. 5.5 Another
important component of neoliberalism is the regime
theory. A theory which studies the role of international
regimes and how the impact international relations.
Regime theory is in certain way similar to liberal
institutionalism but also has some specific identity. First
of all, what are international regimes? International
regimes can be defined as sets of implicit or explicit
principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures
around which actors' expectations converge in a given
area of international relations. To put it more simply,
regimes, international regimes consist of rules and
principles, norms and decision-making procedures. There
are lots of examples of international regimes existing in
the current world politics, in the current international
system. There are global regional and bilateral regions.
The examples of global regimes are the World Trade
Organization which is the regime of free trade which
fosters the regime of free trade or the Treaty of non-
proliferation of nuclear weapons. The regime according
to which nuclear countries that do not have nuclear
 156

weapons must not obtain them. The law of the sea which
is a set of rules governing the communications of the sea
beyond national territories of states. Regional regimes
could be regional trading blocks such as for instance, the
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership which is
being negotiated and emerging in East Asia or the Trans-
Pacific Partnership which could appear in 2016. But the
Donald Trump administration pulled out. Or another
example of regional regime is the Schengen Area existing
in the European Union. The regime of visa free travel
within the members of Schengen area. Bilateral regimes
could be bilateral free trade areas. Another example is
the Union State of the Russian Federation and Belarus. It
is organization which includes a lot, an abundance of
bilateral regimes covering very different fields of
cooperation; economic, human, science and research,
military, political and so on and so forth. Another
example of bilateral regime is for instance a visa free
regime. And there are lots of, again, visa free regime
such as between the United States and Canada but well
well well beyond that. And the founding father of the
Regime theory is a prominent American professor, a
professor of Stanford University, Stephen Krasner.
According to Stephen Krasner, states not just create rules
 157

but they also abide by them. And these rules, institutions

and regimes serve to create new forms of commonality
through the experience of cooperation. So according to
Krasner, when we cooperate, we create some
commonality. We expect this cooperation to continue.
And creation of regimes thus changes the participants
perceptions of themselves and of their interests. And the
regimes according to Krasner are durable and can survive
the demise of states that had created them. Indeed, an
example could be the same non-proliferation regime, it
was established by one of the founding fathers of this
regime was the Soviet Union. We no longer have the
USSR but this regime still survives. And according to
Stephen Krasner, according to the proponents of regime
theory, international regime indeed can increase
cooperation and stabilize international system. How do
they do it? First of all, they do it by providing information
about behavior of others. Again, knowing what are the
intentions of others is crucial and regimes help us with
this. Regimes and institutions monitor behavior of
members of this regime and thus impact it. And the
report on this compliance. Again, let me emphasize this
important proposition of regime theory, not just states
influence regimes and rules but rules influence states.
 158

Rules become kind of independent actors. Rules

accomplish agency. They get agency in international
relations and impact the behavior of states. So, rules and
norms define what constitutes a defection and often
clearly prescribe punishment for the cheaters, for those
who don't comply, and this clarity reduces the fear which
is the usual obstacle for cooperation. The fear that states
are being exploited by the other members of the regime
and this reduction of the fear, this clarity minimizes
chances for misunderstanding and promotes
cooperation. Usually, regimes as the same non-
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction regime
have sanctions and they prescribe sanctions for cheaters
and these sanctions again reduce incentive to cheat and
thus promotes cooperation. Secondly, according to
Stephen Krasner, international regime reduce transaction
costs and reduction of transaction costs, clearly also
promote cooperation and reduce absence of
cooperation. How do they reduce transaction costs?
They do it by institutionalizing corporation and reducing
the cost of future agreement. Because if this corporation
is institutionalized, you don't have to start from the very
beginning each time. You kind of continue already
established pattern of cooperation. And they also do it by
 159

reducing the costs of reaching an agreement. For

example, each round of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade reduced many procedural problems
that did not have to be revisited in subsequent rounds.
So once you deal with that, you continue and this indeed
changes the perception of states of how difficult or easy
this cooperation. This impacts interests right.
Continuation of a cooperation becomes an interests of
states and thus cooperation prevails over conflict. Third,
according to regime theory, regimes generate the
expectation of cooperation among members. Regimes
create that belief that cooperation will continue for the
foreseeable future. Indeed, let's take the World Trade
Organization, right? Whereby the very existence of the
regime of free trade, we expect these rules of free trade.
The rules of non-protectionism continue to the future,
right? And we expect, we start to think that cooperation
is the norm, not an exception to the law but cooperation
is the norm and we'll continue to the future. So,
international regimes increase the importance of
reputation. And finally, of course international regimes
are vital because they limit the freedom of state
behavior. States become more or less kind of locked.
They are put in a strict framework of regimes and they
 160

have to conduct through according to norms and rules of

the relevant regime. If they don't, they will face sanctions
because as already mentioned the majority of regimes
prescribed punishment for those who violate these rules
and abiding to these rules, of course, makes international
system more cooperative and stable. 5.6 Another crucial
component of neoliberalism is the theory of complex
interdependence, which studies the impact of economic
and social relations among states on their political
relations. You know the very idea that interdependence
economic relations and economic interdependence plays
a positive role on political relations among states is not
new. It had already being advanced by Immanuel Kant in
his major and most influential work towards perpetual
peace. Later, the same argument in a more precise and
clear way was made by Norman Angel, a prominent
scholar of early 20th century, in his famous book "The
Great Illusion", which argued that economic
interdependence between Germany and Great Britain in
the early 20th century make war between them less
likely or unlikely. And of course, that didn't happen. Of
course this an economic interdependence did not
prevent the First World War. And after the Second World
War, the same idea was developed and sophisticated by
 161

two prominent Americans scholars, by two prominent

current professors which we already mentioned while
discussing liberal institutionalism. But the greatness of
these two men, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, is such
that they are founding fathers of not just liberal
institutionalism, but also the liberal transnationalism or
complex interdependence theory. And the major
contribution that they made again together to the status
of complex interdependence is their famous book"
Power and Interdependence", which they co-authored
and published in 1977. First of all, let's deal about what
complex interdependence means, what does it mean
complex, what constitutes complexity in relations among
states? According to Keohane and Nye, societies are
connected by multiple channels. They are not just
intergovernmental official diplomatic relations, but also
transgovernmental officials. There are multiple informal
ties among societies, among non-governmental elites,
between companies, between corporations, and these
multiple connections, multiple networks among states,
which transcend to really state to state relations, makes
these relations complex and makes interdependence
complex. So, according to Keohane and Nye, the agenda
of interstate relationships of this complex interstate or
 162

transnational relations consist of multiple issues which

are not really arranged in a clear or consistent hierarchy.
According to realists, again to make a comparison, the
agenda of interstate relations is very hierarchal and
military security issues dominate. All the rest are
secondary. Keohane and Nye disagree, and they say that
in conditions of these complex transnational relations, all
these spheres are important, not just militarily, but all
these sheres, including low politics spheres, economic
relations, societal relations are also very important for
transnational relations. This is why they call this
interdependence complex. Now let's deal with the word
interdependence and the impact of this complex
interdependence to interstate relations. What is
interdependence? Interdependence is such as level of
connectivity among states. First of all, economic
connectivity, but also societal connectivity, a destruction
of which destabilization of which would bring very severe
and perhaps even unacceptable damage to both. So,
interdependence are relations which can not be broken
because it will be very painful for states to break them.
So, to use a Marxist metaphor, economic
interdependence or complex interdependence is such a
state of relations when the rise of economic quantity
 163

finally evolves into political quality. And Keohane and

Nye make a very strong case, that complex
interdependence transforms political relations among
states. How in particular? First of all, complex
interdependence make wars quite unlikely among
interdependent countries. Why? Very clear, because the
use of military force between interdependent countries,
countries locked into this complex interdependence
relations, would devastate this interdependence which
exist and does cause damage, which is sometimes
unacceptable. Secondly, as a result of this, states which
are locked in this interdependent relations have to
resolve their disputes in a cooperative way, not in a
conflictual way. States have incentives to cooperate to
manage this interdependence. I mean, they have to keep
this interdependence in order to prosper, in order to
avoid damage. And thus, they have an incentive to
cooperate to keep this interdependence. And thus,
relations among states in general are prone to improve.
It is also important to emphasize though that for complex
interdependence to work positively, for this political
ethic to happen, interdependence among states has to
be symmetric, not asymmetric. Symmetric, meaning that
states have to depend on each other in a balanced or
 164

more or less equal weight, because if an

interdependence is asymmetric, if I depend on you more
than you depend on me, it is unilateral vulnerability,
which the side which depends less would try to exploit
against me. Right? For him, the relations would not be
interdependent, would not be dependent. So, he would
not pay a damage if this interdependence breaks down.
Thus, the side which is less dependent will try to exploit
and actually blackmail the depending side, and the
depending side will be compelled to follow the demands
of the less depending side. This is quite an unstable
situation. So, asymmetric interdependence usually
produces instability. Whereas for interdependence to
produce stability, it has to be symmetric. And in the
history and reality of international relations, there are
multiple cases proving this interdependence theory and
proving its vitality. For instance, European integration.
Development of the European Union started with the
stimulation of interdependence between two major
European powers, Germany and France, who have been
enemies for the majority of history. Establishment of
their economic interdependence between them through
community of steel and coal or coal and steel in 1957,
eventually changed political relations among them,
 165

eventually promoted their rapport more. Transatlantic

relations. The relations between the United States and
the European Union is really based on strong and deeper
economic links. This is the economic foundation, the
economic base on the political transatlantic relations.
Another component of this base is the links between civil
societies of the United States and the European Union.
US-China relations is another prominent example of how
interdependence works, because US and China consider
themselves rivals. In the opinion of the United States,
China is the major strategic rival to American leadership
in the world, and there are abundance of conflicts and
contradictions among them. But despite this abundance
of conflicts and contradictions, US and China are
compelled to manage their relations in a constructive
way. Why? Because they depend on each other, and this
interdependence is symmetric. Russia-EU
interdependence is another example of working
interdependence because neither side can allow an
outright confrontational towards each other, unlike the
Russia-US relations. It's very interesting to compare.
There is no interdependence between Russia and the
United States, and we have outright confrontation. And
the United States can afford to confrontational policy
 166

toward Russia and vice versa. With the European Union,

the situation is much more complex. It's different. Yes,
the relations are bad, but we still lack outright
confrontation. Why? Because of interdependence. And
finally, if we compare Russia's relations with Germany
and Italy on the one side, with Russia's relations with still
EU members, and European countries as the UK, Britain
on the other hand, we will see that Russia's relations
with Germany and Italy are much more constructive,
positive, and sustainable and stable. Why? Again, to the
same reason, because of interdependence. However,
there are lots of cases when interdependence was not
able to prevent conflict, when interdependence doesn't
work as it is supposed to do, which brings us to the
conclusion that again, it is not a panacea. Yes,
interdependence stabilizes relations among states, but
sometimes it fails. And the major examples of the failure
of interdependence are several. First of all, of course, the
most classic and known example is the beginning of
World War One. German Empire and British Empire were
the two major economic partners. They really had
economic interdependence. This is why basically Norman
Angel claimed in the "Great Illusion" book that war
among them is very much unlikely. Alas, the war
 167

happened and interdependence failed. Yes, this war

made both Germany and Britain much weaker. They both
paid the price. They both underwent damage, faced
damage. But nevertheless, the interdependence didn't
prevent war. Another example is let's say Russia's
relations with Poland, Baltic states, or more important
today with Ukraine. You know Russia and Ukraine really
had interdependent relations. They were parts of the
Soviet Union. They were parts of the Russian Empire.
Between Russia and the Ukraine, there were abundance
of economics links and societal links, mutual marriages,
and so on, and so forth. And this real interdependence
did not prevent a severe conflict which started between
Russia and the Ukraine in 2014. Russia and the European
Union, we mentioned it as an example of how
interdependence works, but pessimists would tell you
that this is an example of the opposite of how
interdependence fails, because despite independent
economic relations, still the European Union applied
quite severe economic sanctions against Russia.
Interdependence did not prevent sanctions. And of
course the big question mark for the future is, how will
interdependent or whether interdependence will still
prevent an outright clash and conflict between the
 168

United States and China in the future. Today it does, but

many realists like John Mearsheimer, whom we already
mentioned, or Stephen Walt, another prominent realist
of today, claim that a war, a direct clash between the
United States and China as two major rivals of the
emerging international order is unavoidable despite
interdependence. So we'll see. And the relations
between US and China will be a very interesting case, a
very interesting test for the economic and complex
interdependence for the future and the impact on
international relations. 5.7 Another very important part
of neoliberalism is the Democratic Peace Theory. The
first grand philosopher or the first thinker who claimed
that ultimately behavior of states, foreign policy of states
depend on their domestic nature was Immanuel Kant. In
his great book, Perpetual Peace, a philosophical sketch
published in 1795, when he claimed that Republican
states are more peaceful than monarchical states than
the monarchies. Later, by the end of the 20th century,
liberal scholars observed that there is quite a few
examples of democratic countries fighting wars among
each other. And thus, the contemporary Democratic
Peace Theory is essentially based on the imperial
evidence of no wars among democracies. Of course, this
 169

proposition is questionable. First of all, it is difficult to

define their true democracy, how to define true
democracy, how to define war, what kind of clash should
we understand as a real war. Can any use of force or
threat of the use of force be defined as war? Or we need
to fight a huge war to define it as a war. And thus to
prove or disprove this proposition of law of democracy
not fighting each other. Secondly, the second difficulty is
that there still there are not lot but some exceptions to
this empirical evidence of no wars among democratic
countries, such as the war between Spain and the United
States in 1898. Of course, the proponents of the
democratic peace theory claim that Spain was not a real
democracy at that time. So, this is a questionable
exception. But still, officially to Spain by that time was
already a democratic country rather than authoritarian
country. And the second exception is the famous
Fashoda incident, between Great Britain and France, that
also happened in 1898 in Africa, when the British Empire
and French Empire clashed directly about colonists, when
they couldn't divide colonial influence. However, despite
these difficulties and exceptions based on the empirical
evidence, democratic peace theory makes the
proposition, the general proposition that democracy is,
 170

meaning consolidated democracy is not questionable but

consolidated democracies, do not fight each other. So,
democracies can fight wars and do go to wars with
authoritarian countries, but do not go to wars with other
democratic countries. And most popular are these
Democratic Peace Theory became in 1980's and 1990's
with the beginning of presidency of Ronald Reagan in the
United States. Ronald Reagan as we all know proclaimed
the crusade against communism, and claimed that the
Soviet Union is the empire of evil. And in a series of
speeches such as in the speech that Ronald Reagan gave
in the British Parliament in 1982, Ronald Reagan basically
formulated the essence of what later became and what
now is Democratic Peace Theory. For instance in this
1982 speech he claimed, " governments founded on
respect for individual liberty exercise restraint and
peaceful intentions in their foreign policy." So, he said
that democracies like the United States are peaceful,
whereas the implication was there what was between
lines that the Soviet Union which is the empire of evil
which is the authoritarian and totalitarian country, does
not exercise restraint and does not have peaceful
intentions on the contrary they pursue aggressive and
conflictual for impulse. What is the rationale? How does
 171

the Democratic peace theory explain this proposition of

peaceful nature of foreign policies of liberal democratic
states? Because according to Democratic Peace theories,
liberal democratic governments behave in the world
stage in foreign policies just as they behave at home. And
in domestic political systems, democratic governments
do not resolve conflicts through violence. They do not
throw opposition to prison. They do not kill those people
who disagree them and and criticize them. On the
contrary they used to resolve contradictions through
compromises, through institutions, through law. And this
is the path that they apply in foreign policies as well in
relations with other democratic governments. So,
democratic governments communicate amongst
themselves just as they communicate let's say with their
opposition, with their counter partners a home. And this
makes the democratic governments more peaceful by
the very beginning by their nature than authoritarian
governments. Also what is very important in this
rationalization in this argumentation is the role of
citizens in democratic countries. Citizens usually do not
want war. Citizens do not want to pay for the burdens of
war. And if the government is democratic in a democratic
country, if the government listens to the people. If there
 172

is a freedom of speech and representative political

system, representative government. If the government
wants to be re-elected for the second term, then
obviously the government would take this people's
position against war into account and avoid war. On the
contrary authoritarian leaders and totalitarian countries
are instinctively aggressive according to this liberal
Democratic Peace Theory, and their very existence
makes for war, makes international system less stable
and more conflictual. And one of the major scholars who
contributed much and developed this democratic peace
theory was an American professor and is the American
professor Michael Doyle, who published two very
important books. First is Kant Liberal legacies and foreign
affairs, and the second is liberalism and world politics.
Both these books were based on this major proposition
made by Ronald Reagan, and not just Ronald Reagan,
that liberal democratic countries are by their nature, by
default more peaceful than are authoritarian countries.
And Michael Doyle Studies the cases and analyzes when
and how democracies prefer peace, exercise restraint,
and on the contrary when and how under which
conditions they go to war. And basically he agrees and
proves the major proposition of the democratic peace
 173

theory that yes, given their political system, internal

political system, democracies prefer peace than war. And
that difference in the patterns of behavior of democratic
countries is rooted in different conceptions of the
citizens and the state. I will draw your attention to the
big quotation that I have in this video. And indeed
following Immanuel Kant, Michael Doyle claims that
citizens in democratic countries in general oppose wars,
because domestic political cultures in democratic
countries are based on peaceful conflict resolution.
Democracies act abroad as I said as they act at home.
The same with all authoritarian regimes. Secondly
Michael Doyle claims that democratic governments are
controlled by their citizens who oppose war. Citizens
oppose war because they do not want to be of the costs
of war. Thus governments who want to be reelected
avoid wars. And the example of that would be for
instance the huge public opposition to against the
Vietnam War in the United States which really influenced
the American government, the US administration to
finish this war and withdraw from Vietnam. Another
example would be the German and French opposition to
the American intervention in Iraq in 2003. It was strongly
driven by public opinion in Germany and in France. Also
 174

Michael Doyle claims that democracy is called common

moral values, and this created Pacific Union. It creates a
sense of integrity, a sense of commonality among
democratic countries which consolidate together as a
single community, which elaborate the sense of us versus
them. So democratic countries are much more
consolidated and united community than the countries
with different political systems. And of course freedom of
expression and free communication promote mutual
understanding internationally, and helps to ensure that
political leaders act in accordance with their citizens
views. Thus Michael Doyle basically proves or tries to
prove that really democracies are much more peaceful
by default, in their foreign policies than authoritarian
countries. The conclusion, the policy implication of
democratic peace theory is very important. It is that in
order to make international relations more peaceful and
stable, less conflictual, you have to expand democracy.
You have to increase the number of democratic
countries. The more democracies, the less wars, the
stronger the peace, because democracies do not fight
with each other. Thus, in order to make international
relations better, in order to make international relations
less conflictual, you have to spread democracy. And this
 175

is exactly the foreign policy that has been conducted by

the United States of America, especially after the end of
the Cold War. Moreover, the United States intensified
this foreign policy after 9/11 after the terrible terrorist
attacks on September 11th 2001 in the Middle East.
Because the reason of the origins of international
terrorism according to the American officials according to
American lead, was the absence of democracy in the
Middle East. And the way to solve the problem of
terrorism, to solve the problem of instability in the
Middle East was to spread democracy. And thus the
United States have been trying to spread democracy to
enlarge the zone of democracy in the world up to now,
for the whole time after the end of the Cold War. And
the one of the latest examples of this policy was the
policies of the Obama administration in the Middle East
when the so-called Arab Spring started. The Arab Spring
was interpreted as another wave of democracy which
was, ans the Obama administration vigorously supported
democratic transformation of Middle Eastern countries.
Some scholars observers and politicians call this
irrational, call this destabilizing in the longer term. But
this policy is a essentially based to this Democratic Peace
Theory which makes it very important. 5.8 [MUSIC]
 176

Another prominent component of neoliberalism are

theories of integration. In particular, theories of
European integration. Theories which explain the
emergence and development of the most advanced form
of international cooperation existed in history, the
European Union. Integration is by default, the most
advanced form of cooperation in general. Because states
share much more in the integrationist relations than they
do in just cooperative relations. Integration is a deeper
form of cooperation when states establish common
spaces, when they establish commonality. And of course,
European integration and the European Union as it exists
now is the apex of liberal thinking and politics. It is the
most advanced and successful liberal project of
international relations ever. Today, European Union
constitutes the zone of Kantian peace, the territory of
Kantian peace in the international relations which are still
largely Hobbesian. Indeed, wars among member states
of the EU are simply unthinkable. Just imagine and
remember how many wars have been conducted in one
European countries through the course of history. Lots
and lots, dozens, even hundreds of wars. France and
Germany were two historical rivals and enemies. The
Franco-German contradictions resulted into the Two
 177

World Wars. European integration promoted and

accomplished Fanco-German rapprochement. Today,
France and Germany are like brothers and use of force
among them is simply unthinkable. In the European
Union, these fields are managed not through conflicts.
Not through wars, but through rules and institutions.
Moreover, European Union in the way which will be
would be claimed as quite unusual and even improbably
in the real list paradigm promoted so-called pulling of
sovereignty. Realism claims that the sovereignty of each
state is the highest value and what states do is promote,
and keep, and protect sovereignty. The example of
European Union proves the opposite. It proves that
states sometimes put sovereignty above. They voluntarily
reject. They voluntarily restrain themselves. They
voluntarily reject some part of their sovereignty and pull
decision-making authority to the level of European
institutions. And the major European institutions of the
European Union are European Commission, which is
actually the element of the EU. European Council and
Council of Ministers of the EU which represents all the
member states at different levels, starting from the
heads of states up to ambassadors and ministers and
deputy ministers. The European Parliament, which
 178

brought Parliamentarians into a single forum from all the

member states of the EU in the court of the EU and these
European institutions have even exclusive competences
in certain spheres. They decide, not member states
decide in certain spheres. For instance, trade. For
instance, European common currency, Euro. Member
states today no longer control the monetary policies of
themselves, the monetary policies of Euro. Euro is being
managed by the European institutions, by the European
Central Bank. Trade, agriculture, fisheries are the three
major fields which are governed by the European
Commission and national governments have really few
things to do might less things to do in this field than
before. So European Union is an example of states
voluntarily giving up some authority. Voluntary giving up
some competences, some sovereignty for the sake of
integration, for the sake of making, this creating this
stronger and powerful European institutions. This again
is very much unusual and odd seen from the realist
perspective, from the realist prism and this reality should
be analyzed and can be analyzed only through the prism
of liberalism. What are the legal theories, which explains
this integration as logic which explain the very
emergence and later development of the European
 179

theories. There are three major theories. The first and

actually the most popular one is functionalism and neo-
functionalism, which is a theory promoted by such
prominent theorists or scholars of the European
integration as David Mitrani and Ernst Haas. According to
functionalism and neo-functionalism, integration starts
with low profile corporation with very specific and
technical corporation in some specific areas, not of high
politics, but low politics areas such as some fields of
economics and then this corporation in a step-by-step
way. Spillovers to some other areas of corporation, to
some other areas of integration and thus integration
grows. Integration deepens over time and this is exactly
how European Union developed. It was established as
the European communities in 1957 with the
establishment of the European community on coal and
steel. So coal and steel industry was the first issue area,
which was integrated. And then this integration grew,
grew, grew and spilled over to other fields of life. And
now, we're talking even about common foreign and
security policy of the European Union or it claims to have
a common defense policy. So from the specific economic
fields, eventually cooperation evolved into some high
politics fields. Another theory of European integration
 180

quite opposite to functionalism is federalism promoted

by famous Italian scholar Altiero Spinelli. If functionalism
and neo-functionalism is talking about a bottom up
integration from low fields specific fields to general
political and even security integration, federalism is
talking about a top down integration. That European
Union from the very beginning should have a strategic
purpose and this strategic purpose should be the
development, the establishment of the United States of
Europe. A federal EU, a federation inside which member
states of the EU would be like the subjects of federation
like states in the United States of America. According to
Altiero Spinelli, sovereignty and states obsession with
sovereignty was the reason of conflicts in Europe, was
the reason of wars including First World War and Second
World War. So in order to eliminate that and establish
peace. Sovereignty has to be limited. Sovereignty has to
be Passed on the supra-national level, on the level of this
federation of the EU. Well, it is not entirely how
European Union developed and functionalism is more
working, is more practical as a theory and more correct
as a theory explaining development of the EU. But
nevertheless, European Union did and does have federal
components. European parliament and European
 181

Commission are the major super national institutions in

the court of the European Union which look like federal
structures, especially the parliament. Moreover in 2005,
the European Union was going to adopt the constitution
of the European Union. Constitution would be a huge
step towards the federalist development of EU. Yes,
constitution failed. But still some elements of federalism
remain. And finally, the third theory of European
integration is liberal intergovernmentalism. Created and
promoted by a prominent American scholar, Andrew
Moravsik. According to liberal intergovernmentalism,
European integration happens, because members states
benefit from it. Because in conditions of globalization or
before that in conditions of the bipolarity and the cold
war of two super powers, Soviet Union on the one hand
and the United States on the other hand. European
countries could remain powerful, could remain
influential and relevant in world politics and world
economics only if they unite. That separately France,
Germany, Britain, Italy are much less important in world
affairs than the European Union together. So even if
member states of the European Union had kept, had
preserved the individual state sovereignty, they would
not be able to exercise this sovereignty, to exercise this
 182

authority at the global stage. Whereas pooling this

sovereignty, rejecting some part of their authority makes
them more powerful and actually allows them to
exercise the sovereignty abroad. Thus, these are three
theories that play a very important role in neoliberalism
as such. [MUSIC] 5.9 The end of the 20th century,
witnessed a fundamental change of the International
Relations which provided a very important impact on the
evolution of Liberalism and the role of Liberalism in
International Relations and the International Relations
Science. This changes not just shifted, not just
transformed the patterns of the International Relations
in a very serious way, but they also undermined many
assumptions of Realism. They put the major realist
assertions about how International Relations evolve
under question, and they were unforeseen by the
majority of realists. Thus, there was an impression in the
end of the 20th century that Liberalism was becoming
the dominant or has become the Dominant Theory of
International Relations. And that indeed, International
Relations was started to finally to develop in accordance
with the liberal not realist logic. What kind of changes?
What kind of transformations and events are we talking
about in detail? First of all, the end of the Cold War and
 183

the collapse of the Soviet Union. Both came as a huge

surprise for the then scholars and observers, especially
the realist one. The realists claims that the Cold War
would continue well in the 21st century, that the Soviet
Union is stable, that the bipolar structure of the world is
stable, beneficial for them both, and that neither the
Soviet Union nor the United States have an incentive for
powerful incentive to change the status quo, and thus,
people like Kenneth Waltz, for instance, the founding
father of neo-realism, predicted continuation of the Cold
War up to the middle or the second half of 21st century.
However, it rapidly changed in the late 80s, early 90s.
And almost immediately, the Soviet Union collapsed.
Thus, this realist assertion that the Cold War will be
stable and bipolar system will be stable proved wrong.
Whereas, the liberal assertion that the Cold War has to
be changed and the international system has to be more
unified and peaceful proved right. The second
fundamental shift and development of the late 20th
century was, of course, the realities of globalization with
its economic, political, and cultural consequences. First
of all, there was a fairly rapid increase of global
interdependence. All became dependent on all.
International System became more internal and
 184

interconnected, which proves the real liberal case of the

increase of interdependence. And the expansion of
interdependence, of course, increases the power of
liberal contemplations, of liberal assertions about how
interdependence transforms Political Relations. There
was a rapid increase of non-state actors, and non-state
actors started to acquire more and more power from
states they have. They were becoming increasingly
powerful in comparison to states. This is another proof of
the liberal logic of International Relations which
emphasizes the role of non-state actors. There was a
profound expansion of interaction and communication at
all levels, happening, of course, due to general
democratization of political systems throughout the
world and information and communication of revolution.
And this profound expansion of interconnectedness, of
connectivity, and interaction at all levels, increased the
share of cooperation. International Relations started to
be interlinked, transnational, and cooperative much,
much more than it was the case during the time of the
Cold War. Again, this increase of the level of cooperation,
of the share of cooperation, above conflicts, and increase
of interconnectedness was proving the liberal case of the
liberal presumptions about the development of how
 185

liberals assume International System should develop. As

a result of the rise of interdependence, increase of non-
state actors, and the expansion of interconnectedness,
and cooperation at all levels, state borders were
becoming increasingly penetrable. State borders no
longer limited or prevented communication. They were
increasingly penetrable and blurred. The volume of
people, goods, and capital, crossing state borders, and
ideas crossing state borders, became umcomparably
larger and more intensive than was the case in the time
of the Cold War or before the Cold War. Democracy was
global on the marsh and the end of the Cold War
witnessed a rapid expansion of the number of
democratic countries. Nearly all the post-communist
countries declared democratic regimes or their desire to
build democratic regimes and joining the community of
Democratic Nations. Thus, as a result of all these
tendencies taken together, the approaches to state
sovereignty started to shift. And many scholars and
politicians started to talk about a decline of Westphalian
Traditional Sovereignty. And this statement about
decline of sovereignty, about the change and reduction
of the role of borders, about the expansion of
cooperation in the world in comparison to the number of
 186

conflicts and contradictions in the world, the rise of

global interdependence, the increase of non-state actors,
all these tendencies and trends are liberal in their nature.
And of course, they created the impression that realist
assumptions about how International Relations function
are no longer valid. Realism failed to predict the end of
the Cold War. Realism failed to predict the collapse of
the Soviet Union. Realism could not assume such an
abundant and reached transformative development of
the International System that we've just talked about.
Thus, in the opinion of many, especially in the United
States but not only in the West at large, Realism was
claimed to be outdated. And Liberalism was proclaimed
to be the dominant School of Thought analyzing the
development of International Relations, explaining the
development of International Relations. There was a
widespread opinion in early 90s that basically,
International Relations have underwent a fundamental
shift, that the patents and the rules of International
Relations Development have been valid throughout
centuries have ended to be valid, have ceased to be
valid. And since now on, since early 90s, International
Relations will start to develop in a new way, in the liberal
way, in the peaceful and cooperative way, that
 187

cooperation will finally become the dominant form of

interaction among states, that the pursuit of prosperity
and freedom will become the dominant imperatives of
states behavior instead of relative gains and conflicts,
and so on. And one of the most prominent examples of
the School of Thought which claimed that International
Relations basically changed, and that the previous part of
International Relations history is outdated is American
scholar, Francis Fukuyama, who is mostly famous for
proclaiming the so-called End of History. In 1992, just
after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the
Cold War, Francis Fukuyama published a book which
became a classics of neo-liberalism, and one of the most
influential and famous books in International Relations
Science called The End of History and the Last Man. And
in this book, he claimed basically that in late 80s, 1990s,
international evolution, the development of the
International System reached its apex point, and since
now on, it will start developing in a different way. Give
you the most important quote from Fukuyama, "What
we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War
or the passing of a particular period of post-war history
but the end of history as such: that is, the end of point of
mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization
 188

of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human

government." So according to Francis Fukuyama, in the
end of the 20th century, after the end of the Cold War
and collapse of the Soviet Union, the Western liberal
democracy was becoming, or actually became universal.
The universal form of government and the final form of
the human organization. How did this conviction that
since now on International Relations will develop in a
fundamentally different way impact liberal studies and
liberal approaches to International Relations? I've
already said that Liberalism was claimed to become
dominant over Realism as the paradigm explaining
development of International Relations. At the same
time, liberal status underwent certain changes
themselves, and new particular dimensions and focuses
became very prominent in the Liberal Studies. First of all,
in conditions of globalization and after the end of the
Cold War, the focus on non-state actors increased in the
works of neo-liberalism. And many of neo-liberal scholars
started to claim that states are losing their relevance,
that states are not just ceasing to become the central
actors of International System, but maybe, the states are
becoming increasingly weaker, and some even called
states as the Deaner Czar of World Politics of the 21st
 189

century, that states are going to die to disappear as the

universal form of Social-Political Organization. And
maybe in the future, International System will exist
without states. That we will be leaving in the world
without states. So, focus on non-state actors and
contemplation about the reduction of relevance and the
role of states in International Relations was very
important dimension of Liberal Studies. Secondly, as a
result of this focus on beyond states, Liberalism
developed new post-Westphalian understanding of state
sovereignty. What is state sovereignty in conditions of
globalization? In conditions of new proclaimed state of
International Relations? In conditions of the end of
history? And according to neo-liberals, the new state
sovereignty was irrelative, not absolute. Unlike Realism
which claims states sovereignty to be absolute, and on
the visible, Liberalism claim that it is secondary and
relative. Relative to what? Relative to the ability of states
to produce public goods. So, the argument was that
states are sovereign only when they produce public
goods. And of course, the ability of states to produce
public goods such as security, economic development,
ensuring welfare, education, medicare to the people, and
so on, and so forth, the ability of states to produce public
 190

goods, ultimately depends on the nature of their political

regimes whether they're Democratic or Authoritarian.
Because just democracies produce such public goods as
protection of human rights, as securing freedoms and
liberties of the people. Thus, the new Liberal School of
Thought started to claim after the end of the Cold War
the just democratic countries are fully sovereign or
sovereign in this post-Westphalian sense. Whereas,
authoritarian countries are not that sovereign, that their
sovereignty could be limited. And of course, according to
this thinking, sovereignty could no longer be considered
as a frontier between the external and internal. It no
longer protected states against intervention into
domestic affairs. Within this liberal paradigm, domestic
politics not just could but should become a matter of
International Relations and agenda of discussions among
states. So, states should talk about the nature of
domestic politics of each other. Something that could be
called Anathema according to the realist paradigm just
decades before. And finally, in accordance to this new
approach to state sovereignty, neo-liberals started to
think about the ways to limit it. If a state can be
considered sovereign if it produces public goods, it is
natural that international community should think about
 191

the ways of limiting this sovereignty of those states who

failed to produce these public goods. And as a result,
neo-liberalism promoted the development of specific
concepts of how to limit states sovereignty. Again,
something unthinkable in the paradigm of Realism. And
after the end of the Cold War, two major concepts were
developed about limiting of state sovereignty from
above. The first was the concept of Humanitarian
Intervention developed in 1990s, according to which,
international community can interfere into a state
including with the use of military force, if this state
conducts mass violations of human rights, such as
genocide. And the example of this humanitarian
intervention could be the US Intervention into Somalia in
1992, 1993, and NATO Intervention, NATO War against
Yugoslavia in 1999. The second concept elaborated in
2000s is the so-called concept responsibility to protect.
According to this concept, international community has
not just a right but an obligation, a responsibility to
provide public goods to the people if this state fails to
provide that themselves, if the state either is unwilling or
unable to provide this goods, which means if that either
the state is authoritarian and dictatorial, and violates the
rights of the people, or if it is a failed state, and cannot
 192

provide this public goods because of its state failure. And

this principle of responsibility to protect was developed
by a very famous International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty, which was convened
in 2000, 2001 under the auspices of the then UN
Secretary General Kofi Annan, and the government of
Canada. The author of this concept is the former
Australian prime minister, Gareth Evans. And there were
attempts to make this concept legal, to get authorization
and blessing for this concept at the level of the United
Nations organization. And since this concept was
introduced by this International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty, there were
continuous attempts by the West, and by the United
States in particular, to make it legal, and this attempts
were partially successful. Namely, the General Assembly
of the United Nations in 2005 endorsed this principle. So,
by now, we can say that this responsibility to protect
principle remains illegal. It is not part of the International
Law because it is not endorsed by the UN Security
Council, but still, it is politically existing because it was
adopted by General Assembly. 5.10 As a summary, let us
compare the major propositions of neo-liberalism and
neo-realism, and analyze their major points of
 193

disagreement. First of all is the nature of relative

anarchy. Both liberalism and realism, claim that
international system is anarchical, and they also claim
that it is relatively, not absolutely anarchical. But the
reason of this relative, or limited anarchy is different for
neo-liberalism and neo-realism. Whereas neo-liberals
claim that this relative anarchy can be mitigated through
international institutions, regimes, law, and values,
realists argue that anarchy can only be reduced through
a structure of international system. That is through
distribution of power. Another crucial disagreement
between neo-liberalism and neo-realism is about
possibility, or likelihood of cooperation in international
system. For neo-realists, international cooperation is
quite hard to achieve, difficult to manage, and ultimately
cooperation depends on the distribution of power. Again,
it is the structure of international system which either
promotes, or rather limits cooperation. Whereas neo-
liberals claim that cooperation is much easier, and the
major reason for cooperation is mutual interest. If you
have mutual interest, you would cooperate despite the
differences of the power distribution. The third
disagreement between neo-liberalism and neo-realism is
the discourse about absolute and relative gains. Neo-
 194

liberals claim that common interest compel states to

maximize absolute gains. And thus in order to get
absolute gains just to achieve something, states ignore
relative gains. For neo-realists it's the contrary. They
state that states are concerned about relative gains more
than absolute gains, and they wants to get more,
because relative gains impact the distribution of power.
And states do not want the others to be more powerful,
to become more powerful, than themselves as a result of
this cooperation. And finally, neo-realists claim that
international order always follows the distribution of
power. If power shifts, the existing order ends, and then
is surpassed by another order based on a new
distribution of power. Whereas neo-liberals, such as John
Ikenberry and his study of order, argue that liberal
international order can survive the change of power
distribution. And as Ikenberry claims, the relative decline
of the United States does not result in the demise of the
existing liberal international order. The liberal
international order continues to exist, if you want in the
post-American world. This is all about neoliberalism.
Thank you very much for your attention. 6.1 Hello. After
talking about neoliberalism, today, we'll talk about the
third classical concept of International Relations theory,
 195

namely, Marxism and Neo-Marxism. As an IR theory,

Marxism was born in the 19th century. It is the third
classical or base paradigm of this science of international
relations together with Realism and Liberalism. Marxism
also started by explaining patterns of social and political
development, the development of states and societies,
but eventually the Marxist theory came up with a
particular view of inter-state, inter-societal and
international relations as well. The vision, which is
fundamentally different from both Liberal and Realist
ideas. What is the major peculiarity? What makes
Marxism different? It is the economic determinism.
According to Marxism, politics, including international
politics, is neither a struggle for power or prestige as it is
in realism. More, it is an attempt to make the world
better to improve the world as it is in Liberalism, rather
according to Marxism, power politics and international
politics is always a struggle for distribution of economic
resources. And this economic determinism distinguishes
Marxism from other classical theories of international
relations, Realism and Liberalism. Why is Marxism a
classical theory of international relations? Why do we
put it at the same level as Realism and Liberalism?
Because as they, Marxism provides a systemic
 196

explanation to the nature of international relations. It

gives a fundamentally different but comprehensive vision
of the basic theoretical elements which explain
international relations politics, the connections between
them, correlations among them, such as individual, state,
non-state actors, international systems as well, it
explains the motives of actors and key patterns which
drive international relations. Why is Marxism still
relevant? Despite, the collapse of the USSI and the world
communist system, Marxism is a very relevant theory of
international relations. First, it remains as an essential
tool explaining world economy, and especially
international economic crisis. Classical liberal economic
theory is very often unable to explain distortions of the
world economy and crisis. The cases when the so-called
invisible hand of the market doesn't work, or doesn't
work effectively. Witness the latest world economic crisis
of 2007, 2009. It was poorly predicted. Many economists
claimed it to be the Black Swan. And it was poorly
explained through the classical economic theory.
Marxism, on the contrary, is absolutely excellent in
explaining and predicting crises. It perceives crisis as a
natural and unavoidable feature of capitalist economy
and this is not very far from truth. Secondly, the idea of
 197

inequality and exploitation of the poor by the rich which

is central to Marxism is very relevant today, and is getting
more and more acute at both inter-state, and
international levels. Indeed, there is a growing gap
between the rich and the poor inside developing and
developed countries, and concentration of wealth at the
hands of very few is just unprecedented. For instance,
according to Oxfam, just one percent of global
population controls about 99 percent of global wealth.
Just think about these figures, one percent versus 99
percent of global wealth. Just 62 individuals according to
the same Oxfam source, 62 men and women possess the
same wealth as the poorer half of global population. 62
individuals again possess the wealth which is
approximate of the wealth which is possessed by three
billion people of the world. Rules of international
economic relations remain to be unequal and unjust,
which favor rich, developed countries and discriminating
poor and less developed. Global economic governance
remains to be in the hands of the G seven of the group of
seven most industrial developed countries, especially,
the United States and the European Union. Thus,
Marxism provides us with very relevant concepts and
terminology and approaches which actually we use in
 198

day-to-day life, and in international relations theory.

Such as the first world and the third world, the golden
billion, the global North, and the global South, and so on
and so forth. And finally, Marxism is very relevant
because it is essentially based on one of the most
appealing and eternal ideas of mankind. The idea of
justice. And the strive to justice which is usually
understood this strive for equality, has been and will
remain to be one of the central pillars of human nature.
And among the major drivers of history and Marxism is
the best way to approach international relations through
this prism of justice. What is the structure of Marxism?
Basically, Marxism consists of two major groups. The first
group is the Classical Marxism. It is this theory which was
developed by its founding fathers in the 19th cent early
20th century, and the second is Neo-Marx which is the
more modern and sophisticated theory which was
developed by Western scholars in the middle and second
half of the 20th century. There are crucial similarities
between them, but also very fundamental differences
about which we will talk about later in greater detail. 6.2
[MUSIC] Let's start talking about the Classical Marxism.
And there is a necessity to explain some basic concepts
of the Marxist theory. Not just about international
 199

relations but about the development, about life, about

history and state and society. Like Realism and
Liberalism, Marxism emerged under particular historic
circumstances. And of course, the circumstances that
gave rise to Marxism was Capitalism. And after the great
French ourgeoisie revolution, in the 19th century,
Capitalism was marching in Europe. And Colonialism
spread Capitalism to the rest of the world. The major
European powers were becoming less and less feudal,
more and more capitalist. The majority of them
maintained colonies throughout the world. And this
allowed Capitalism, eventually, by the end of the 19th
century, to become a global economic system. And one
of the major characteristic features of Capitalism in the
19th century was industrialization. And industrialization
was transforming states and societies. It did so in the
following way. On the one hand, industrialization created
harsh inequality at both national and international level.
On the other hand, industrialization provided states and
capitalists, the ruling class of capitalist system, with
unmatched resources. The resources unmatched in
human history. Resources to conduct wars, for instance.
Resources to conquer foreign lands. And this
industrialization and development of Capitalism gave
 200

birth to the Marxist theory. And as I already mentioned,

the distinctive feature of this Marxist theory was
economic determinism. The idea that the nature of
society, the nature of politics, the nature of state and the
nature of international relations, they all depend on the
state of economic relations. Economic relations at every
particular point of history. Some words about the
founding athers of classical Marxism. There are three
major founding fathers of classical Marxism. The two
prominent German philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels. And the Russian philosopher, thinker and
revolutionary, the leader of the Russian Bolshevik
Revolution, and the first ruler of the Soviet Union,
Vladimir Lenin. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels created a
comprehensive theory explaining the whole history of
humanity. Explaining the nature and logic of
development of society from this economo-centric
perspective. Whereas Vladimir Lenin, who lived in a little
bit later period than both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
as you see from their life years of their birth and death.
So Vladimir Lenin adapted this Marxist theory to the
realities of early 20th century. And laid the foundation
for what later became a Marxist-Leninist theory of
International Relations. The classical works of Marxism
 201

are the four. The major work of Marxism, which is just

the point of departure, just the founding brick, which is
the Bible of Marxism Is what is in German, Das Kapital, or
The Capital. Which is the major book by Karl Marx which
shows how capitalist system is exploitative. That quote, it
transfers the fruit of the work of the majority to a
minority. So The Capital basically explains how society
develops. How the state is being created, what is the
logic of the state, and how the state evolves. And the
central idea is inequality and exploitation. The second
classical book is the book by Friedrich Engels which is
called The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the
State. This book shows us the evolution of the history of
mankind on the Marxist foundation. It presents the
evolution of humankind from primitive communism, to
slavery, then to feudalism, to capitalism, and finally,
towards industrial communism. Depending on the level
of development and the features of economic relations
In each and every step. And the two works by Vladimir
Lenin. The major ones are, The State and the Revolution,
the brief but very important paper pamphlet that
Vladimir Lenin published in 1917. It identifies the nature
of the state as an instrument of exploitation and
suppression, by the rich of the poor, by the capitalists of
 202

the working classes, namely the workers and the

peasants. And finally, a very important and bigger work
by Vladimir Lenin, called Imperialism as the Highest Stage
of Capitalism, also published in 1917, the year of the
Russian Bolshevik Revolution. It explains the nature of
World War I, of the first World War, from the Marxist
interpretation. And claims why these imperialist wars, as
the first World War was, are inevitable from the Marxist
perspective. Inevitable given this stage of the
development of capitalism at that time. And why the
only way to avoid such wars, is to conduct the global
socialist revolution and establish world wide
communism. The major proposition, the central idea, the
central pillar of Marxist theory, including towards
international relations, is the theory of class, or the Class
Theory. And the basic idea is the following. The major
participants of social relationships are social classes. Not
individuals, as it was the case in Liberalism. Not
sovereign states, as in Realism, but social clauses. We
already mentioned that Marxism is a materialist and
economical centrist theory of history and development
and international relations. Everything, everything in
Marxism is determined by a state of economic
development of this or that country or society at a given
 203

particular moment. By how production is organized. So

thus classes are also identified according to the economic
criteria. In particular, according to their relation to the
means of production. The means of production are
what? These are land, factories, tools of production,
labor itself and the capital, the money. If you possess the
majority of them, you belong to one class, you belong to
the class of capitalists. If you possess just yourself and
your personal skills, if the only thing that you possess is
your labor abilities, then of course, sorry, you belong to a
different class. You belong to the class of workers or
peasants. And examples of classes in the Marxist theory
are are exactly workers, peasants, and capitalists. The
definition of the class provided by Marx himself says the
following. Members of society that share the same
relations to the means of production. Which are again,
land, equipment, factories, labor, money. And contrary
to the liberal theory, which argues that there is harmony
of interests in societies, Marxists claim that society is
systematically prone to class conflict. Indeed, according
to Marxism, relations between classes inside societies
are far from harmonious. They're inherently conflictual.
The nature of conflict inside societies in Marxism is
predetermined by what? Very simple,by unequal
 204

distribution of profits and means of production among

social classes. Factories, land, raw materials, the means
of production in general belong to the class of capitalists.
The class of workers possesses, as alreadysaid, just its
time and working skills. Which they have to sell to the
capitalists to survive, just to live. Thus, the workers
become the labor force. And as a result, capitalists
controlthe relation of production, and thus take the
overwhelming majority of profits. Development of any
society and thus human history as such, according to
Marxism, is predetermined by three major factors. One
of which is constant and the two others are variable,
they're determined to change, they're prone for change.
The first factor, the permanent factor, is the inherent and
prominent conflict between those exploited and those
who exploit. Whereas the changing ones are
development of material means of production, and
relations of production, which is how production is
organized. The Class Theory, which we've just explained,
provides the foundation for the Theory of Social
Development. The Marxist Theory of Social
Development. And according to Marxism, development
of every single society, and thus the human
development, the history of mankind as such, is
 205

predetermined by three major factors. One of them is

constant, and the two other are prone for change. The
constant factor is the inherent and permanent conflict
between those who exploit and those who are exploited.
The capitalists and the workers and peasants. Whereas
the other two determinants of human development,
which are the changing ones, are the following. They are
the development of material means of production.
Which is basically the technological advancement.
Whether they are primitive or advanced. Whether we're
dealing with very primitive means of production, or we
deal with robots. Which and the factory is fully equipped
with robots and the most advanced technologies. And
finally, the third is the means of production or relations
of production. Basically how production is organized. And
so this Theory of Social Developments explains us the
development of every society, development of every
state and development of mankind. And the details of
this development, we will discuss right away. [MUSIC] 6.3
Now, we've come to the centerpiece of the Marxist
theory. The theory which explains the development of
society, the state and the mankind and international
relations as well, in general. And this centerpiece is the
teaching of the base and superstructure which are
 206

present in every society. According to Marxism, every

single society consists of two major elements, the
economic base and the non-economic superstructure.
The base is formed by two things. First, by the means of
production, again, labor, tools of production, land,
factories and capital. And secondly, the relations of
production, the nature of relations between those who
control the means of production, the capitalists and the
workers. And the examples of this relations of production
could be slavery, serve them, freedom but economic
dependency and so on and so forth. Whereas, the
second part of every society, the superstructure, is a
political part. It is institutional and other non-economic
systems which are relevant to the base and they include
media, religion, culture, political system of the state,
family, education system, and ideology. And as you can
see from this picture, there is a mutual impact between
the base and superstructure. The base, the state of the
base, the features of the base are determined by their
objective factors such as technological development.
They determine the political superstructure, they
determine the nature of superstructure. The nature of
superstructure depends on the base, and the base in turn
is dependent on the technological development at this
 207

particular moment. And the political superstructure

maintains the base, controls the base. It does so through
repressive measures, through propaganda, through
religion, and so on and so forth. So, the base shapes the
superstructure, whereas the superstructure maintains
the base, makes the base such as it is mostly beneficial
for the ruling class, for capitalists or for slavers or for
feudal lords. It depends on the particular period of the
development of mankind. So, what is a State from the
Marxist perspective? Essentially, it is the organization of
a superstructure. What kind of superstructure we are
dealing with, and as I already said, the superstructure in
its own hand depends on the nature of the base. And
there can be, and there were in human history, several
types of superstructures. This is the chart, which
illustrates the development of mankind from primitive
communism to the era of empires, to feudalism and
capitalism and towards the communism, towards the
communist utopia. In its major work which I already
mentioned, The Origin of the Family, Private Property,
and the State, Friedrich Engels presented the evolution
of mankind from primitive communism, to slavery, to
feudalism, to capitalism, and finally, to industrial
communism. These evolution through class struggle
 208

started with the creation of State. It is eternal and it will

and only with the emergence of communism according
to Marxism theory. So, material evolution of the base
determines the course of history because material
revolution of the base determines development of the
superstructure. And what is important is that at each of
these stages, as you can see from this picture, there
remains the inherent conflict between the exploited and
those who exploit. Unlike John Lock and other liberal
thinkers of the enlightenment, Marxism considers a state
not as a result of social contract, but an instrument of
the ruling class to enforce its leadership, to maintain
inequality and exploitation. A state appears when social
inequality comes to a certain level, which makes different
social groups follow different political interests and aims,
and when inequality becomes such that those who
possess more wants to get some instruments to keep this
possession, to keep their wealth, to protect their wealth
from the poor, from those who do not control these
means of production. So state, from the Marxist
perspective and Vladimir Lenin makes this case very
explicit in his classic work which are also mentioned, The
State and Revolution, State is the engine of class
exploitation. State is a repressive mechanism, which
 209

allows the rich to accumulate and maximize wealth and

exploit the poor. And the only way to abolish this
conflict, this inherent internal conflict at every stage of
historic development is to eliminate its basic root, the
exploitation and uneven distribution of the means of
production. That is to establish communism through a
socialist or communist revolution. Communism according
to Marxism is the end of history, is the Marxist end of
history, and the end of state as such. If you depict the
state as Marxism depicts the state as the repressive
mechanism, again, which allows to preserve exploitation
and inequality, so Communism brings this state to an
end. In a communist system, there are no capitalist class,
capitalist class disappears. Means of production belong
to the workers themselves. Thus, there is no class
conflict. Thus, the interests of the working members of
society are harmonious and Communism according to
Marxism is inevitable. Why? Because sooner or later, this
inherent contradiction between the exploiters and those
who are exploited will result in a revolution. So, the idea
of revolution is of extreme importance for Marxist
theory. Socialism and Communism is inevitable as I
already said, but to achieve them, you need a revolution.
It is impossible to achieve Communism through
 210

evolution. You need a revolution to achieve this. Why?

Very obvious, because the capitalists will never get rid of
their wealth voluntarily. Because they will always try to
preserve the unjust and unfair situation. Because their
interest in the prolongation, in the continuation of the
exploitation of the poor, of the workers, they do not
want to share their wealth with the workers, with the
peasants, with those who produce. Thus, you need
revolution in order to move from Capitalism to Socialism
according to the Marxist theory. 6.4
Having discussed the essence of Marxist theory in
general, let us move to the Marxist theory of
international relations. And according to Marxism,
international relations is the struggle, the class struggle
at the international or global level. So the basic unit of
international relations according to Marxism is class. It is
not the nation state as it was in Realism, or it is in
Realism. It is not the human individual as in Liberalism,
but it is class. So class is the dominant actor in the
international system, and international relations are
presented as the class struggle at the international or
global level. The class of capitalists, the exploitaters is
presented by the capitalists in the leading industrial
capitalist countries, who dominate this countries, they
 211

are the dominant class in the major industrial countries

in the world. The class of workers and peasants are
presented by workers and peasants on the relevant
parties in the developed capitalist parties, but also by
socialist countries like the Soviet Union, and its allies in
the times of the Cold War, when the world socialist
system existed. And there is a permanent conflict. A
permanent antagonism up to the very end between
these classes. Between the capitalist world, and the
socialist world. Between the capitalists and the workers
in capitalist countries. According to Marxism, peace or
corporation are impossible in the international system as
long as capitalists exist. As long as there are capitalist
classes, the capitalist class and the capitalist countries.
Cooperation is impossible either between capitalists and
workers in the capitalist states, or between the capitalist
countries, and socialist countries. The peace is
impossible. Because the corporation is impossible
between the classes of explotaters and the class of the
workers. The natural state of relations among them is
conflict. So states clash in the world not because of
anarchical structure of international system, or clashing
national interests as the realism claims. More of by the
lack of morale as liberalism emphasizes. But because of
 212

this class conflicts, because of the inherent and

permanent conflict and clash between the class of
capitalists, and the class of workers. The first thinker who
created the Marxist theory of international relations was
Vladimir Lenin. He upgraded the teachings of Marx and
Engels, and then apply that to the realities of world
politics, and world economy of the late 19th early 20th
century. The era which Lenin defined as imperialism. And
as already mentioned, one of the major works of Lenin is
called imperialism as the last stage of capitalist.
Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism. What is this
imperialism? Lenin defines Imperialism in the following
way. It is the concentration of production and capital
that developed to such a high stage that it has created
monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life. It
is the merging of band capital with industrial capital, and
creation of the financial oligarchy. It is the export of
capital as distinguished from the expert of commodities,
which acquires exceptional importance. It is the
formation of international monopolist capitalist
associations, which divide the world among themselves.
And imperial countries divide the world according to
Vladimir Lenin. And finally, imperialism is a situation
when the whole world is divided among the biggest
 213

capitalist countries. So imperialist system is global, which

means that the whole world is divided among several
imperialist countries. And secondly, it is inherently prone
to conflict in wars. Wars are inseparable from this
imperialist system. Wars are unavoidable. And the major
illustration of this unavoidable wars is the first World
War. Which according to Vladimir Lenin, became the
imperialist war. World War One is the imperialist war.
War for imperialism is used is necessary to conquer and
control colonies, to prevent the development of
socialism, and to compete with other imperialist powers.
According to Lenin, and basically Marxism in general,
periods of peace in the imperialist environment are
quote nothing more than a truce on period between
wars. So it is an exception not the rule. The rule is war.
The rule is conflict. And World War One as I already said
is understood as the major inter-imperialist war, as the
imperialist war. In the World War One caused the huge
devastation in Europe. In Western Europe, World War
One is called The Great War. Up to now, the Great War.
And the only way to stop this Great War, the only way to
stop this unavoidable world wars, according to Marxism,
is global socialist revolution. Once again, you have to
eliminate the essence of imperialism, which is the class
 214

of capitalists. And the foreign policy of the Soviet Union

provides us with an example of how this Marxist theory
of international relations can be applied to the realities
of global politics, through to the realities of foreign policy
over a particular state. The purpose of the foreign policy
of the USSR was to acquire the full victory of communism
to reach the full victory of communism, to ensure
Socialist and Communist revolutions to spark Socialist
and Communist revolutions in the major capitalist
countries, in thus to achieve peace. This approach was
mostly manifest in foreign policy of the USSR in its early
period. The 1920s and 1930s. When the Soviet Union
indeed supported the spread of the revolution, the world
communist movement, and encouraged revolution in
capitalist states. For instance, the Soviet Union
established and sponsored the so-called "Kuomintang"
the Communist International. Today, we would call this
entire Communist International a global terrorist, and
extremist organization, because it indeed proclaimed
that its purpose was to overthrow constitutional regimes
in the violent way to stage revolutions in sovereign
countries, and in the capitalist countries, and bring them
towards socialism, establish socialism and communism
there. So that was the essence of the four foreign policy
 215

of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s. Whereas

after the Second World War, Marxism Leninism remained
as ideological frame for the Soviet foreign policy, but on
the strategic level, its nature was increasingly becoming a
realist. This was the result of the realities of the Cold War
and bipolar international structure. However, tactically,
Marxism Leninism of course remained as the essence of
the foreign policy of the USSR and its foreign policy
toolbox. For instance, Soviet Union supported the spread
of socialism to the countries that were getting
independence in the course of decolonization, and to the
countries it controlled as a result of the Second World
War. Such as the countries of the East Central and
Eastern Europe, North Korea, Afghanistan, and so on,
and so forth. Also, this classical Marxist Leninist approach
to international relations was manifest in the Soviet
foreign policy priorities, and in its protocols. According to
which the leaders of communist parties of the socialist
countries, and the leaders of the communist parties of
the capitalist countries, were officially considered and
treated as more honorable and respectful than the
leaders of capitalist states. Witness for instance, the
funerals of such Soviet leaders as Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri
Andropov, and Konstantin Chernenko on YouTube. You
 216

will see that this sequence of people who were

approaching for instance Andropov, to explain
condolences with the death of Brezhnev was the
following. First, were the leaders of the communist
parties of the socialist countries. Second were the
leaders of the communist parties of the capitalist
countries, and only after them, followed the heads of
states of the capitalist countries. And it was very funny,
for instance to witness the leader of the Communist
Party of the United States, to go before the Vice
President of the United States. But this sequence which
would seem absurd for us nowadays was indeed pre-
determined by this logic of Marxist Leninism, and the
Marxist Leninist approach to the International Relations.
6.5 Let us move from the classical Marxism to Neo-
Marxism, which is a more sophisticated and modern
theory, but also based on the major Marxist concepts
and propositions. The major difference between Marxism
and Neo-Marxism is basically that Neo-Marxism does not
claim of inevitability of the socialist revolution because it
didn't happen. I mean there was a paradox. Karl Marx,
the founding father of Marxism, claimed that socialist
revolutions are most likely to happen in developed
capitalist countries, in the most developed capitalist
 217

countries of the 19th century such as Great Britain and

Germany, it didn't happen. Instead, a socialist revolution
happened in a country which was backward in economic
terms in comparison to most developed capitalist
countries of Western Europe and the United States,
namely Russia. So, why did it happen? Why there is no
global socialist revolution? And of course we know very
well that the socialist experience of the Soviet Union
failed, the Soviet Union collapsed. And today, the only
socialist country, which basically calls itself socialist, is
North Korea. But even North Korea is gradually applying
market methods, whereas other countries that are
claimed officially as socialist or communist as China,
Vietnam, Cuba, they move towards capitalism. So Neo-
Marxism acknowledges these changes, acknowledges the
realities of the international relations and of history of
the 20th century. It acknowledges the unlikely
probability of the world socialist revolution, and thus
does not make this jump from capitalism towards
communism. But nevertheless, Neo-Marxism retains
some basic features of classical Marxism and the main
feature, of course, is the economic determinism in the
idea of exploitation and inequality. The basic idea of Neo-
Marxism is very close to Marxism, to Classical Marxism. It
 218

is that humanity is unequal, there is no equality. But

there is a very profound differentiation of mankind, of
the international system, to the rich and the poor, to the
exploiters and the exploited. Instead of the classic
Marxist class, these exploiters and the exploited are
states. For Neo-Marxism, these are states and the groups
of states. And the world is thus distributed into the rich
North and the poor South. And basically, it is Neo-
Marxism which introduced these very useful and
important concepts such as the North, South, the third
world, or the second world, the world of developed
countries, and the developing countries. And for Neo-
Marxism, it is less important whether this or that country
is democratic or authoritarian, as it is for liberals. It is
much more important for Neo-Marxism whether this
state, whether this country is a capitalist or socialist,
whether it is developed or developing, whether it is
advanced or not advanced. According to Neo-Marxism,
foreign policies of states are determined by the group
interests of the exploiters, developed countries, and the
exploiting, developing countries. So, it is not the national
interests of states, as realists would have said, nor it is
the considerations of morale or the common good, as
Liberals usually claim. But it is the group interests of the
 219

exploiting countries or the developed countries, and the

exploited countries or under-developed countries which
determine foreign policies of the according states which
determine their foreign policies. The exploiting countries,
the developed, rich countries, they want to keep the
status-quo of unfair rules of the game, of unfair
relationship in the world economy. And according to
Neo-Marxism, of course, the rules of the game are based
on the realities of exploitation, so they are unfair. And
the developing countries, they are united in their intent
to continue to exploit, they are interested to continue to
exploit. The exploited countries, which are developing or
poor countries, they want to change the status quo. They
want to get rid of the unfair terms of the relations, or
they want to get out of the asymmetric dependence in
which they are locked by the exploiting countries which
basically determine the rules of the game. And also
according to Neo-Marxism, developed countries, the
exploiting countries, are not really interested in
advanced development of the developing ones. Because
this development of the developing countries would
create competitors for them. Why are they interested in
creating competitors for themselves? They want to
develop, whereas the poor countries need to remain
 220

poor and needs to develop only those features of their

economies, of their industries, in the development of
which the developed countries, the rich countries are
interested. The founding fathers, the classics of Neo-
Marxism theory are the following. The major one is, of
course, Immanuel Wallerstein. He's a prominent
American sociologist and philosopher, and author, the
creator of the so-called concept of the world-system, or
world-system theory, or world-system analysis. This is
the major methodological approach of Neo-Marxist
theory. And the major works of Immanuel Wallerstein
are, "The Modern World-System", which was published
in 1974, it is his capital. And the "World-System Analysis:
Theory and Methodology", which accumulated and
modernized the previous writings of Wallerstein. The
other prominent scholars of the Neo-Marxism theory are
the famous Italian descendant and the prisoner of Benito
Mussolini, Antonio Gramsci. And he is the founding
father of the European angle of Neo-Marxism. Actually, it
was Gramsci who was the first to ask the question, "Why
did the socialist revolution happen in backward to Russia,
but not in advanced, in developed United States,
Germany, or Great Britain?" And the answer that Antonio
Gramsci provided was the idea of hegemony. That
 221

hegemonic systems developed by the most developed,

advanced countries created such a strong ideologist, so
strong superstructures, which basically convinced the
exploited classes, the workers in the necessity to adjust
and to continue the status quo. The other prominent
scholars of the Neo-Marxism theory are, Andre Gunder
Frank, a very famous Latin American writer, and the
creator of the so-called dependency theory, who claimed
about asymmetric, unfair dependency of Latin America
on the United States, and what kind of unfair rules of the
game exist in the relations between North America and
South America, between the United States and Latin
American countries. Robert Cox, a very famous British
Neo-Marxist, adapted Neo-Marxism writings to the
international relations. And finally, last but not least, a
very famous Norwegian scholar, Johan Galtung. 6.6.
The centerpiece of Neo-Marxist theory is the world-
system approach proposed by Immanuel Wallerstein. So,
what is the world-system approach, or world-system
theory? It is basically an analytical framework which
divides the world according to the division of labor,
economic division of labor which exists among the
countries of world economy, the division of labor which
divides the world into the developed countries,
 222

developing countries, the countries which Immanuel

Wallerstein calls the core countries, peripheral countries,
and semi-peripheral countries. Wallerstein himself
provides a definition of a world-system in his major book
published in 1974. According to this definition, a world
system "is defined as a unit with a single division of labor
and multiple cultural systems." So, in other words, there
are multiple cultural systems co-existing in the world,
multiple civilizations, many countries of different value
systems, and so on, and so forth, many religions. There is
Islamic world, there is the western Christian world, there
is Confucian Asian world. But they all participate in a
single system of the division of labor. And according to
Immanuel Wallerstein, in the world history, there were
just two examples of world-systems, world economists
and world empires, and historically, first-world empires
followed by the world economism. Today, the world
system is the world economy system, not the world
empire. World empire, the examples that Wallerstein
himself provided, were the Roman Empire or Han China
empire were the large bureaucratic structures with a
single political center and exiled division of labor but
multiple cultures. And world economy is a large axial
division of labor with multiple political centers and
 223

multiple cultures. So, the world system is a set of

mechanisms which redistribute surplus value from
periphery to the core. So, the basic idea is again
inequality, exploitation, and this is why it is Marxist.
According to this world-system theory, the world is
divided into three major components: the core,
periphery, and semi-periphery. This is the map that
roughly shows this distribution. The core comprises the
most advanced developed Western countries, namely
the Western European countries, United States, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand. So, these are the most
developed countries which export high developed
production goods, which usually import raw materials,
which control financial flows, which establish the rules of
trade, and so on, and so forth. Periphery are the least
developed countries, the countries that are doomed for
poverty, according to Neo-Marxism. And as you see on
this map, periphery includes basically African countries,
usually the sub-Saharan Africa, but also North Africa,
especially now, in this period of instability in the Middle
East, that is the Maghreb countries, some countries of
the Latin America beyond Brazil and Argentina which are
more developed, and some countries of the Middle East,
and even the post-Soviet states. So, these countries are
 224

usually exporters of raw materials. They are importers of

advanced production goods, and these countries are
exploited by the others who are more advanced. As for
semi-periphery, this is the third component.
Traditionally, semi-periphery was socialist countries.
When Immanuel Wallerstein produced the theory, Soviet
Union and Soviet system still existed. So, semi-periphery
was referred to as socialist countries. But now, as semi-
periphery consists of the most advanced developing, not
developed, by developing countries. The examples would
be BRICS countries, the countries like China, India,
Russia, Brazil, South Africa, before the so-called Asian
tigers, the countries like South Korea, Taiwan, and so on.
So, these countries that are much more advanced than
sub-Saharan African countries, these countries already
acquire more and more modern economy but they still
have not reached the level of developed countries. China
is one of the major economies in the world, is the
country that is growing very fast. But China still considers
itself, and is considered, as a developing country, not
developed. So, this is why it is more precise and accurate
to define it as semi-periphery rather than either
periphery or the core. So, foreign policy of every state is
driven by its belonging to either core or periphery or
 225

semi-periphery. So, these group interests dominate and

determine foreign policies of the particular countries. If
you belong to the core, you want to preserve the status
quo of exploitation. You want to preserve the rules of the
game that benefit you and not the rest. You want to
preserve the system in accordance to which you rise. You
produce advanced goods. You adopt the more advanced
technologies and ways of production. Whereas, the
others produce something like agriculture or raw
materials, and do not pose a huge competition to you.
So, the core wants to export advanced goods, wants to
import resources, and wants to preserve the status quo
of this global division of labor. Semi-periphery obviously
wants to enter the core, wants to become the core itself,
wants to become developed part of the world. Thus,
semi-periphery wants to shift the rules of the game
which are unfair and unjust. But semi-periphery itself
wants to exploit periphery because periphery has been
exploited not just by the core, but by the semi-periphery
as well. Look at the Chinese forces. China is investing
hugely in Africa and Latin America exactly into the
extraction of raw materials, exactly into those sectors in
which China itself is interested most, not necessarily
these countries, not necessarily from the perspectives of
 226

the sustainability of their long term development. So,

semi-periphery wants to become the core, and wants to
preserve exploitation of periphery. And finally, periphery,
of course, wants to overcome the, its very unfortunate,
and I would say, doomed position in which it exists.
Periphery wants to develop, wants to become semi-
periphery, wants to break free from the unfair rules,
wants to overcome the asymmetric dependency, wants
to get out of poverty, and, well, wants to change the
economic model. It wants to develop more advanced
industries, not just the extraction of raw materials. So,
these are the major patterns of foreign policy interests of
these countries. And where are conflicts in this system?
Of course, conflicts are at the boundaries of these
groups, at the boundaries of the core and semi-
periphery, and especially the boundaries between semi-
periphery and periphery. So, according to Neo-Marxism,
the group interests dominate over the individual
interests. Of course, there are diverging national
interests of the countries, and this is acknowledged by
Neo-Marxism, by it is less important than the group
interests of the core, periphery, or semi-periphery. And
especially, it is the case with the center which is much
more consolidated politically and economically than the
 227

countries of the semi-periphery, and especially

periphery. So, these are the patterns and rules of foreign
policies and international relations according to Neo-
Marxism. And now, we will talk about some illustrations,
why and whether this thinking is relevant today. 6.7
Finally, some illustrations about relevance of Neo-
Marxism to the realities today and unfortunately
tomorrow. I think this approach and the emphasis of
inequality and exploitation, is very relevant to the
situation today and to the situation tomorrow. Just look
at this map. It shows the world looks like from the
economic perspective. From the perspective of GDP
produced by these or that countries. Where is Africa on
this map? It is almost absent. Compare it with the normal
geographical map of the world. And from this map, you
also explicitly see how rich is the North in comparison to
the poor and almost non-existent south. Actually Russia,
quite particular, is also extremely tiny on this map
because Russia constitutes to no more than two percent
of the global GDP and global income. And indeed, one-
third of global wealth belongs to just half percent of
global population. Two-thirds of billionaires live in the
United States and European Union. And at the same
time, around 700 million people suffer from starvation,
 228

suffered from hunger in 2016, just last year. This is

another chart illustrating the global inequality and how
unbalanced and in an unbalanced and unequal way the
global income is being distributed. The world is put
upside down. It is in a pyramid which is upside down. If
we divide the global population into five equal parts,
according to population, we will see just that one-fifth of
the global population controls about 74 percent of global
incomes, the richest part. Whereas the poorest one-fifth,
the same quantity of the people, the poorest one fifth of
population controls just one and a half percent of global
income. And this is of course exploitation. And this of
course results into the contradictory interests. This of
course results into the class conflicts about which the
founding fathers of Marxism were talking about.
According to Neo-Marxism, the rules of the game and
economic policies are essentially unfair and unjust. The
main purpose of rich countries of the core is not to
stimulate but to prevent a rapid economic and political
development of semi-periphery and periphery, in order
to stimulate themselves. It is this which results in
conflict. It is this why the conflicts are at the borders of
the current semi-periphery and semi-periphery and
periphery. Because these group interests are
 229

contradictory. And it is very difficult to find a common

ground. It is very difficult to reconcile these contradictory
interests. If the interest of the core is to exploit, the
interests of the rest is to get out of this exploitation, how
will you reconcile this? It's impossible. And the major
instruments for preservation of these unfair rules of the
game are foreign aid, foreign trade, and foreign
sanctions. Foreign aid, according to a Neo-mraxist
perspective, is conducted not to stimulate economic
development of developing countries as the liberal
theory of economics tells us. On the contrary, the
purpose of foreign aid is to promote national interests
and to keep control over the recipients of the aid and to
manage their economic development, according to your
donors' preference. So the donor decides what kind of
industries of the recipients to stimulate and which
industries of the recipients to suppress. This is a very
illustrative chart, which provides you the major recipients
of the American aid. Look, the major recipient of the U.S.
aid is Israel. Israel is not the most poor country in the
world. It is one of the developed country. One of the
most developed country in the world which possesses
nuclear weapons and so on and so forth. It is the major
recipient of American aid followed by Egypt and so on
 230

and so forth. So the point here is that the major

recipients of aid, not just by the United States but of
many other developed countries in the world, are not the
poorest countries. But the countries in which the donors
are interested. And the nature of aid reflects the
interests of the donor not the interests of the recipients.
The same with let's say United Kingdom, the major
recipients of the British aid are former British colonists
and thus the United Kingdom projects and promotes
national interests. The major recipients of French aid are
the former colonies of France. The major recipients of
Russian aid are the countries of the former Soviet Union.
The major recipients of the Chinese aid are the countries
from whom China extracts raw materials and natural
resources. Does it always stimulate economic
development of the recipients? No, it stimulates
economic development and promotes political interests
of the donors. Another component is foreign trade,
which from the Neo-mraxist perspective, is understood
as the freedom of trade for developed countries. And the
purpose of trade regimes is to conquer markets of
developing countries, to doom them to raw materials
extraction and development of agriculture, nothing
more. At the same time developed countries establish
 231

quite protectionist trade regimes from the developing

countries, which developing countries have very big
troubles in overcoming. The rules of free trade benefits
the more competitive countries. If you establish a free
trade regime, let's say between the United States of
America and the poor developing country, I don't know,
for instance Mozambique or Tanzania, it would be
absolutely evident that American business will conquer
and simply eliminate the local business of the poor
countries. Then the poor countries will have very big
troubles in terms of competing with American giants or
with European giants. And basically, this is why
developed countries have been historically promoting
free trade. And the current evolution of economic
policies of the United States is, a perfect illustration and
the perfect justification of Neo-Marxist approach. But it
is also the perfect illustration of the egoistic and
mercantilist approach to foreign trade and how unjust
the foreign trade regimes are. When historically, after
the Second World War, the United States was the global
economic hegemony and for a free trade regime was
benefiting the United States, the US was promoting free
trade. But now, when in conditions of globalization, free
trade started to benefit China, what did the United States
 232

do? The United States immediately started to adjust

rules of the foreign trade. And Barack Obama, the foreign
president of the United States, invented this idea of
trans-Pacific partnership, and he claimed that it is the
United States who needs to write the rules of foreign
trade. And Donald Trump, the current president of the
United States, is making it even more explicit and claims
that trade regime needs to benefit the United States, in
the first and foremost not the others. So this is a very
clear example of unjust approach a mercantilist approach
to foreign trade. And finally, foreign sanctions are also
considered a very widely used mechanism of establishing
unfair and unjust economic regimes. Foreign sanctions
appear to be illegal restrictions on certain economic
activities, that strengthen competitive advantages of
those who impose the sanctions and thus the result into
unfair competition. For instance, if you sanction a certain
sector of your competitor, of course you provide the
particular advantage for yourself. And this map shows for
instance, against how many countries of the world did
the United States impose economic sanctions, including
by the way Russia. Thus, as you can see from these
examples, the relevance of Neo-Marxism for the analysis
of international relations is quite high. And Marxism and
 233

Neo-Marxism remains to be a very useful analytical

instrument to understand how the world functions, and
how the world will develop in the future, and what kind
of conflicts should we expect in the years and decades to
come. Thank you very much. 7.1
Hello. Today we will talk about so-called critical theories
of international relations. Above all and precisely we'll
talk about constructivism, post-modernism, and
feminism as the most prominent examples of the critical
theories. Why are they called critical? What brings them
together and differs them from the other theories of
international relations. They're called critical not because
of their importance, of course they are important, but
because they criticize the classical or basic theories of
international relations. They identify certain gaps in the
classical theories in Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism,
and they cite that on many issues, these classical
theories, they oversimplify the reality. They that in fact
the reality is much more complex, then the classical
theorists show it. But unlike the classical theories these
critical theories, they do not provide the comprehensive
theory of their own. They do not aspire to give the all
encompassing explanation of development of the
international system of the courses of behavior of states.
 234

So, they certainly feel certain gaps, they criticize, they

claim that on these or that aspects, the fundamental
notions and assumptions of the classical theories are
misplaced, are wrong, but these critical theories are
unable to substitute the classical theories of international
relations in providing us with the general picture of how
the world functions, what are the major drivers of the
behavior of states, and so on and so forth. At the same
time, there is certain advantage of critical theories. And
the major advantage of the critical theories that they
explain diversity and dynamism in the international
system. Because indeed the majority of classical and or
nearly all the classical theorists are kind of static and
universalist. All the classical theories provide the
universalist explanation to the causes of behavior of
states. Right? Realism claims that it's all about power,
and all states try to maximize their power in the
international system or preserve the power that they
have in the structure of the international system.
Liberalism claims that all states pursued benefit, they
want to make profit, and they all create rules, norms of
behavior, and pursue the common good. Marxism claims
that it is economics that drives the behavior of all states
and all states want to exploit all other states. So the
 235

classical theories provide a kind of universalist all

encompassing explanations to the behavior of states and
thus evolution of the international system. But critical
theorists claim that it is not always the case, that states
behave differently in different situations, and what is
applicable to some states might not be applicable to the
other states. What is applicable today was not applicable
yesterday and probably will not be applicable tomorrow.
So international system is actually much more diverse
and complex than it is usually assumed by the classical
theories, and critical theories help us to understand this
complexity and diversity of the international system. And
since now on, we will talk in more detailed way about
constructivism, post-modernism, and feminism.7.2
Let's start with constructivism, which made the most
important contribution to the start of international
relations among the critical theories of IR. And the classic
of constructivism is Alexander Wendt, a relatively young
American scholar, who basically established the
foundations of the constructivist theory in the
international relations field. The prominent work of
Alexander Wendt is called "Anarchy is What States Make
of It", and it really explains the philosophy of the main
point of constructivism. That anarchy, the state of
 236

international system, is not the all encompassing and all

powerful determinant of behavior of states because
indeed, both realism and liberalism claim that states
behave in a certain way in conditions of the anarchical
system. They draw different conclusions of how do states
behave in conditions of anarchy. Realism claims that
states compete in conditions of anarchy, and anarchy
makes all states enemies of each other or competitors of
each other. Liberalism claims that anarchy, on the
contrary, promotes states to cooperate because
cooperation is the only way for the states to survive in
anarchical system, but anarchy is kind of the nature of
the international system which is an anarchical, is the
major driver of behavior of states. It's kind of programs,
behavior of states, and states are like machines, which
follow the demands of the program which is the system,
which is anarchy. Wendt disagrees, and he claims that it
is much more complex, that states behave as they want
to behave in the anarchical system and anarchy is a
environment which is produced by states, which is not
existing by default, which is not kind of imposed on
states, on us, from the above. And the point of departure
of Alexandra Wendt was basically the failure of the
classical theories of IR to explain the rapid end of the
 237

Cold War and collapse of the bipolar system, collapse of

the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, early 1990s. And so,
he developed the alternative narrative of explaining the
end of bipolarity in the Cold War, which allowed him to
develop an independent theory of international relations
namely constructivism. So what are the main
assumptions of constructivism? Constructivism, as I said,
starts from the premise that classical theorists could not
predict the end of the Cold War or change in general.
Classical theories are static. They assume that
international relations never change. Classical theories
try to provide us the eternal laws of international
relations evolution, that in all kinds of history, states
behave in a similar way. For Realism, in all times of
history, states compete. For Liberalism, in all times of
history, states cooperate. For Marxism, in all times of
history, states draw economic benefits and exploit the
others. So, the major laws of international relations are
static according to the classical theories. Wendt
fundamentally disagrees. He claims that international
relations are much more dynamic, are much more
complex, and not always rational. Why? Because
according to Wendt and according to constructivism in
general, international relations are not material, they are
 238

not materialist. He criticizes the materialist assumptions

of the traditional theories of international relations.
According to him and according to Constructivism,
international relations is not a material thing.
International relations does not consist of geography,
stones, rocks, and oceans. International relations is a
social reality. So, we can say that constructivism is a
sociology of international relations, a kind of merge of
sociology and IR. And if international relations is a social
reality, so ideas are as powerful as material things.
Another very powerful proposition is that the world is
much more complex and flux, much more dynamic and
unpredictable than is claimed by the classical theories.
Why? Because international relations, according to
constructivism, are not always rational, and states in
their behavior are not rational. Indeed, states behave
differently faced by similar situations in the anarchical
system. Faced with anarchy, some states can prefer
competition. The other states, in this absolutely same
situation, can prefer cooperation. Why? And each of
these states might consider that its behavior is rational,
but nevertheless, states act in different ways. Why do
they behave differently in similar situations? It is because
perception of reality differs, and perception is a
 239

fundamental notion in the constructivist theory. Again,

since international relations is a social reality, not a
material reality, so perceptions matter more than
material things. States behave not because of the
objective reality that they face or the determinants of
the behavior of states is not the objective reality. The
behavior of states is the images that the states have kind
of in their hands or the leaders of the states have in their
heads, in their conscious, in their minds. And states have
different perceptions. They have different images of
reality. They see the world differently. I mean, the same
with states, as people, we can look upon a certain thing
and have a different picture, a different understanding of
the realities. And why do we have different
understandings of the realities? Why are the images that
our imagination that our mind constructs differs from the
images that are being constructed before the others? It is
because we have different history, because we have
different culture, because we speak different languages,
because we have different values. Thus, constructivism
focuses on these precisely factors, history, culture,
language, and values, as determinants of the image
making that happens in the heads of the leaders, in the
heads of the states, in the minds of the states. And thus,
 240

determine policy because again, policy, the behavior of

states, is determined by the images, by the perception of
reality, not reality as such. So we can say that
constructivism is a sociology and epistemology of
international relations. Epistemology is a science that
studies perception. And according to epistemology, there
is no reality, there is just perception. So, reality is not
what really exists. Reality is what we see. Reality is what
we see, not what really exists. And we can be wrong in
the perception. Ancient people, they imagine that the
world is flat, and they really thought that the world, I
mean, there was no globe, but the Earth is a flat thing
that is standing upon elephants, and so on, and so forth,
and there is sun, which goes around the earth, not vice
versa. And they operated according to this image that
they have. So this is what happens in international
relations. This is the driver of state policies, the
perceptions, not the objective reality. And
constructivism, by the way, is absolutely correct in citing
this. None of the classical theories of IR cites this
difference between the perceptions and the reality.
Constructivism does it, and this is the foundational value
of constructivism in the study of international
relations.7.3
 241

[SOUND] As I said, constructivism pays much attention to

culture and language. Why do they matter? Why do we
need to focus on culture and language when we start
international relations? And again,
there is a foundational difference. Between this
assertion,
the assumption of constructivism and the classical
theories of IR. For classical theories of IR,
all the countries behave in a similar way, disregarding
their culture,
disregarding their language. For both realists, liberals,
and Marxists
claim that the United States of America acts in a similar
way as Russia,
Iran and China, right? And if they don't, this is a mistake.
Constructivism disagrees. It is not a mistake by China or
Russia that they behave differently
from the United States of America. Or it is not a mistake
of Iran
that it behaves differently from the United States or
 242

from other countries. It is simply they behave differently,

simply because they see
the world differently. Why do they see the world
differently? Because their culture and
language differs. So culture and language matter in
international relations because they
shape perceptions of states and people. And perceptions
determines policy. Again, there is no objective reality,
there is just an image. There is just perceptions
which determine policy. And perceptions differ from
countries to countries. Countries interpret the same
events, and the same talk, the same speeches,
the same narratives differently. And this difference in
perceptions
results into clashing polices. Just to give you an example,
the Arab Spring. The perception of the Arab Spring
in the United States and in Russia differed fundamentally.
Despite the fact that there were
the same facts on the ground, right, namely
transformations in the Arab world. For the United States,
Arab Spring was the new wave of democratization,
 243

the new wave of democracy. It was the beginning of the

transition
of the region of the Arab world from authoritarianism to
democracy. Thus it was a very positive tendency which
needed to be encouraged and promoted. For Russia,
Arab Spring was a transition
from stability to instability. It was the beginning of the
movement
of the region into chaos, into disorder, into endless wars,
into collapse of statehood. And thus this was the process
which
was perceived in a fundamental and negative way and
needed to be resisted. Thus the United States and Russia
pursued fundamentally clashing opposite policies vis a vis
the Arab Spring which
resulted into our clashes in Libya, into our clashes in
Syria, and
so on and so forth, right? Despite the fact that we were
dealing with the same reality. Narratives differ and clash
as well. We have different
 244

interpretations of history. We have different

interpretation
of the same periods of time. Another prominent
example,
how did the Cold War end? Right, we have the end of the
Cold War and
the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Communist
Bloc,
the collapse of the Communist system. What does it
mean? What conclusions do we draw from that. And we
have absolutely
different narratives. From the perspective of the United
States,
the Cold War ended with the victory of the US, with the
victory of the
American values, American institutions, American rules,
and
the Western institutions and rules. Whereas the
alternative was defeated,
and thus it was collapsed. The Russian perspective of the
end of
 245

Cold War is fundamentally different. It is that the Cold

War was brought to
an end through deliberate cooperation and dialogue of
two major super powers,
Soviet Union and the United States. And Soviet Union
was not defeated, but
it was the voluntary and deliberate decision of the Soviet
leadership to end
confrontation with the United States. There is a
fundamental clash of
our narratives, I mean Russian and American narratives,
in interpreting the post-Cold War period. The post-Cold
War period for the United
States was the absolutely bright, benign, and positive
time when the American
values became universal. There was a chance for
globalization to trigger prosperity in many countries and
regions of the world. I mean it was the golden period of
time. For Russia, the post-Cold War
period was the 25 years' crisis, to paraphrase Edward
Carr and
 246

his analysis of the middle war, his characterization of

the middle war period. For Russia, it was the period
when international relations were developed in the
wrong way,
rather than right way. And of course the policies of
Russia and
the United States, that were based on these
clashing narratives, also clash. Our understanding of the
major trends
of international relations differ. What is a norm, and
what is the violation
of the norm in international relations? Is for instance this
sphere of influence,
the notion of spheres of influence, is our spheres of
influence a norm? Is it normal to respect the demands of
great powers in their neighborhood? Or it is a violation of
the norm and
if great powers behave in this way, we need to punish
them. Where does the world go? Where does the
international relations go? Are we moving towards a
homogeneous world
 247

based on the Western values institutions? Or the world

goes back to the 19th
century multipolarity with coexistence of different
regional
orders and several great powers. We have fundamentally
different
understandings of this. And both Russia and the United
States in these understandings
are convinced that they are correct. And we have a
situation today in
the US-Russia relations when both the United States and
Russia rationally claim that they
are at the right side of history. Whereas the opponent is
at
the wrong side of history. And both countries, both sides
are able to prove this by certain arguments that they
draw from
the international relations, that they draw from the
images of the
international relations that they have. And these clashing
narratives,
 248

clashing and different perceptions and understandings of

the world
are social constructions, right? We are dealing with not
a material objective reality. We are dealing with social
constructions
which are shaped by history, culture, and language. And
this is why we need to focus
on history, culture, and language. Because they help us
to understand why do
countries and peoples understand reality in a particular
way different from how
the others understand the same reality. So according to
constructivism, theories
based on rational choice are misguided. According to
constructivism, constructivism claims that
states act as people. And people are not rational
machines,
people are irrational creatures. Constructivism
emphasizes social
dimensions of international relations and the possibility
of change. Why there is change,
 249

why do states behave differently, because their

perceptions differ, and
because they act in an irrational way. And this
irrationality produces change, such as the collapse of the
Soviet Union,
for instance. Reality according to
constructivism is not objective. It is constructed, it is
being built,
it is being imagined, it is a man-made reality in
international relations,
not something imposed from above. So international
relations as such is a
product of social construction of reality. It's not like the
ocean that exists
differently from others, right? What is international
relations? Do we actually see
international relations? It is the invented thing. It is
imagined reality, right? So we're dealing with the results
of social construction. We are dealing with the mental
activity, with imagination to a certain way. And social
facts according
 250

to constructivism depend on human interactions

to make them real. There are no social facts by
themselves,
by default. It is the human interactions
which produce them. So this is why international
relations
is kind of the result of the behavior of actors, of the
behavior of people,
not vice versa. Not the behavior of people is the result
of certain objective reality which exists in the world out
there. Thus constructivism makes a very
powerful conclusion that states behave as they choose to
behave. States behave as they choose to behave. Their
behavior is not predetermined by
the structure, by the objective reality. National interests
are not determined
by structure, but are constructed. Thus we can make a
conclusion
that constructivism is a kind of epistemology for
international relations. It claims that perceptions matter,
and perceptions are sometimes
 251

more important than reality. We live in the world of

images and
operate according to these images. States behave not
according to what exists
out there but according to what they see. And there is a
link between identity and
national interest. States' national interests are derived
from the way they perceive themselves and those
around them. So there is no objective reality. There are
images which are constructed. This is why
constructivism, right? Constructivism as a term is based
on the notion that reality, social reality, is being
constructed. And international relations
is a accumulation of different social constructs.
Perceptions differ across countries and
within countries. Thus constructivism in addition
to history, language and culture, also attributes
a big role to values. Values define what the state
considers importance and will affect the way it
perceives other actors, right? Behavior is shaped by
whether we
 252

consider the others similar to us or different from us. If

we consider the others as aliens,
we will probably compete with them. We won't trust
them. But if the others,
they share our values, they are like us, then it is much
more probable
that we will cooperate with them. So this is why values
also matter for
constructivism no less than language, culture, and
historical experience. [SOUND]7.4 Now, let's talk a little
bit more about what is construct, what are social
constructs, what is the process of construction, how are
these constructs made? Construction, according to
constructivism is an act that brings into being a subject,
or object that otherwise would not exist. Once this object
is constructed, it has a particular meaning and use within
the given context. The social constructs, which is the core
of the constructivist study, are basically social values,
norms, and assumptions. So, they are social phenomena,
including relations among states that takes place in a
specific historical, cultural, and political context. They are
a product of human interaction in the social world. And
these constructs can be different in different time, and
 253

for different cultures, and civilizations. And one of the

main assumptions of constructivist approach is that
identities, norms, culture play very important role in
world politics. Identities and interests of states are not
simply structurally determined, but they are produced by
interactions, by institutions, norms, and cultures. Now,
how are these cultures, norms, rules, and assumptions,
and constructions, how they are produced? They are
produced through interactions, through the process of
communication of actors. So, this is why constructivism
makes a very important conclusion that it is the process
not structure, which determines the manner in which
states interact. Not this state of the world as an objective
reality. There is no objective reality, there is no this
constant, and static state of the world. But it is the
process which determines the manner in which states
interact, it is the process which creates culture, it is the
process which creates norms, assumptions, rules of
behavior, and so on and so forth. The role of agency, thus
it is very, very important component of the constructivist
theory. International relations evolve over time and
change based on the agential factors, not just on the
structural imperatives of energy. Again, to claim the
major point of Alexander Wendt, anarchy is what states
 254

make of it. So, international relations are not

predetermined. There is no determination of history, or
predetermination of history. History is the result of
agency of relations of certain actors. Thus constructivists
emphasize the role of norms, shared understandings,
and relations between energy and structure, agency and
structure. Structure agents relations is a very important
part of the constructivists study. International relations is
not static, it is not given a priori, but exists only by the
virtue of human acts. It is a social reality which is shaped
by people, thus it is shaped by norms, perceptions, and
relations. And these human acts are called social facts,
because they happen in a specific cultural, historical, and
political context. Action must always be understood from
within. According to Max Weber's sociological tradition,
what is in the people's head, right? So, we need to put
ourselves into the shoes of the particular actor in order
to understand why is he acting in the same way. We
need to put ourselves in the same context in order to
understand why he or she behaves in a certain way. This
is the chart which identifies this complex reality between
actors and context. Actors states they make behavior,
they have interests, and they have very importantly
identities. Their behavior is shaped by their identities.
 255

And context which influences the behavior of actors, or

the system consists of ideas, meanings, and rules. Ideas,
meanings, and rules are exactly the social constructs,
which pretty much determine the behavior of actors.
Now some words about the methodological foundations.
Methodological foundations of constructivism is based
on the discourse between ontology and epistemology.
Ontology, a scientific approach which claims that reality
exists, we do what we know, that we are dealing with the
objective reality. And constructivism questions that. If
there is indeed a real world out there that is independent
of our knowledge about this world, and is our perception
of this, or is our knowledge of this world correct, right?
Because again we operate according to our knowledge,
not according to the objective reality. We might know
the objective reality in a wrong way. Our knowledge of
the world might be wrong, as the ancient people and the
middle aged people in the Middle Ages were wrong
about the fact that the earth was flat. Giordano Bruno
was even burnt by the colleague inquisition. He went to
fire, he sacrificed his life, because he wanted to prove
that the world is actually a circle, the world is round. But
the predominant knowledge of the time was that the
world was flat. The same in international relations. And
 256

epistemology, how do we know, how do we know that

the reality is as we think about it? Can we really discover
the world through direct observation or not?
Rationalists, they accept the logic of consequences, that
rational acts produce outcomes that maximize the
interests of the individual humans. Thus, the classical
theories are based on this rationalist. Constructivists,
they accept the different logic, they accept the logic of
appropriateness. Rationality for them is a function of
legitimacy, defined by shared values and norms within
various social construct. What is rational for some, could
be irrational for the other. Like for the same with Russia.
I mean, the overwhelming majority of the mainstream
observers in the West today claim that Russia is an
irrational actor. That Russian foreign policy behavior such
as towards Ukraine, towards Syria, towards the United
States of America, towards the West in general, and
towards China is irrational. They claim that Russia for
instance, doesn't understand that it becomes a junior
partner of China, thus the Russian desire to establish
strategic partnership with China is irrational. The Russian
understanding is completely different. And Russia claims
that it is conducting a very rational foreign policy. So,
why do some claim that Russia is irrational, and the
 257

others claim that Russia is very much rational? Because

we have different social structures, because we have
different social context. Therefore, different social
context produces different outcomes for individuals. Not
only their interests matter, the social context, these
structures according to which that they are the
constructs on the basis of which they operate differ, and
we have different policies. The primary concern for
constructivists is to bring this social dimension into the
discipline of international relations. It is a mix of
sociology and classical IR, classical international relations.
Constructivists accept the anti-foundationalist ontology,
that is the world does not exist independently of our
knowledge about this, that there is the link between
structure and agent. And also constructivists accept
positivist epistemology. That hypothesis needs to be
tested as a very prominent in other constructivism that
Hopf claimed. Positivists epistemology are operated by
constructivists gives considerable legitimacy, provides
considerable legitimacy to constructivism in their debate
with the rationalists, who claim that the behavior of
agents is rational. 7.5
[MUSIC] In this picture you can see
 258

the place of constructivism, and the relations of

constructivism
with the realism and liberalism, and what kind of
assertions,
major assumptions, they make. Realism talks about
power as
the major determinant of behavior, and claims that
anarchy
produces security dilemma, and anarchy makes emphasis
on power essential. Liberalism claims that institutions,
various types of institutions is the major
determinant, the major driver of behavior, and claims
that anarchy is mitigated by
international governmental organizations, by
international regimes,
interdependence, common values, and international law,
and so on and so forth. Constructivism claims that ideas,
not power or institutions, but ideas are the major
driver of international politics. That anarchy is an
artificial term,
not the determinate but kind of the secondary notion,
 259

because this produced by states and anarchy depends on

the state's behavior. And states behave based on their
culture, based on their national identity,
based on how the societies are shaped. There are several
variations
of constructivism. The conventional constructivism,
represented by Alexander Wendt, does not reject the
scientific
assumptions of positivist science at all. Conventional
constructivism advocates some
kind of middle ground between positivism and
poststructuralism, and includes social
ontology and positivist epistemology. But there is also
critical constructivism, which challenges
the conventional constructivism. And critical
constructivists highlight
the inseparability of social ontology and social, not
positivist, epistemology. And here are some prominent
representatives of the critical constructivism. So the
essence of the debate
between conventional and critical constructivism is
 260

the consistency of the method. Finally, I will give you an

example of
how constructivism really works, right? Where do we see
the manifestations
of constructivism in actual making of international
relations. And this example is the so-called
securitization concept, which was developed by the, so-
called, Copenhagen
School of international relations. And the major
contribution to
this securitization starter was provided by the two
prominent authors
operating within the Copenhagen School, Barry Buzan
and Ole Waever. What is securitization? Securitization is
that we start
to approach, we start to consider a certain reality and
certain policy field as security. And as soon as we
approach certain areas,
for instance, climate or trade or energy or finance,
through the prism of security, they, these fields of life,
 261

they immediately, fundamentally transform. And

behavior and relations in this
fields become fundamentally different. It kind of
becomes
a part of security area, not the original area of this fields,
and the rationale of behavior of
states becomes different. Let's say we were talking
about trade relations, right, or economic relations among
states. Originally, before securitization, if we
do not consider trade as a security issue, our purpose
from trade is to extract
benefit, is to extract profit. And this is the driver of our
behavior. But as soon as we start considering trade as a
security problem
then the major rational, the major driver of our behavior
of our policy becomes different. It becomes keeping
control and
reducing our vulnerability. And as soon as we securitize
we are no longer thinking about
profit as the major driver. And, indeed, we are thinking
about
 262

control and vulnerability, and we are ready to pay for

that. We're ready to engage in less beneficial
relations for the sake of security, for the sake of
invulnerability,
for the sake of control. And the energy relations between
Russia and the European Union, today, is a prominent
example
of this securitization theory. Because, originally, Russia
and the European Union were talking about
energy interdependence in a positive way. They were
talking about that both,
they were believing that both sides were getting profit
from
these energy relations. And thus these energy relations
need to be preserved. However, today, both Russia and
the European Union, they perceive this energy relations
as a threat and
certain challenge to their security. And thus they want to
establish control
and reduce their vulnerability. This is why Russia's
building alternative
 263

pipelines to the EU, for instance, surpassing Ukraine, and

talking about and implementing diversification policies
from the European
Union, building the gas pipeline to China. This is why the
European Union is talking
about the same thing, reducing its energy dependency
on Russia, strengthening its
energy security through diversification. Disregarding the
fact that
it would be costly and that the price of the alternative
sources could be more expensive than the price
of the Russian gas. The supplies of the liquefied
natural gas from the United States to Europe are very
much more expensive
than the price of the Russian gas. But, nevertheless,
certain European
countries are ready to import expensive gas from the
United States in order to
reduce their vulnerability on Russia. Despite the fact that
it is more
 264

beneficial to import gas From Russia. And this is indeed

social constructivism,
social construction, because we construct
different types of relations. We construct a different
reality, right? It is still the same in material aspects. It is
the same energy relations, but
our perceptions of energy relations are diametrically
different before
securitization and after securitization. So securitization is
the act of
constructing a different social reality, different
constructs,
which determine our policies. Another example of
securitization and
creation of new constructs, of new social constructs,
which determine our behavior, is how do we use the
word war and
how does the word war is applied to strange situations,
to the situations of the absence of war. For instance, we
use the phrase
war on drugs or war on poverty, despite the fact that this
 265

is not a real war, right? I mean this is a process. This is a

natural way of struggling
against drug production and traffic, or
it is about economic development. But we use the word
war, citing the
importance of that, citing prioritization. Citing that it
might be more important for states to deliver results in
these
certain fields despite the cost. That we need to do it at all
cost,
disregarding that our cost benefit relationship becomes
completely different in this situation. Or the war on
terror, I mean,
war on terror is a very artificial term, because it is a
fundamentally different
process than the classical interstate war. But,
nevertheless, we use this term, and thus we approach
the war on terror
as if it were a classical war, creating the new social
reality. [MUSIC] 7.6
 266

Another prominent critical theory of international

relations is postmodernism. Let me start with defining
the term postmodernism and explaining what
postmodernity or postmodern means in international
relations. Modernity in international relations is
inseparably linked with states. The era of modernity is
the era of viste folly and system is the era of states. So,
modern system in international relations is the system
consisting of states where states are the major actors.
Thus, post-modern period of the international relations is
a period beyond states. Thus, post-modernism is a theory
which really looks beyond states, which emphasizes the
role of non-state actors and the role of societies in
shaping policy. Postmodernism is in a certain sense quite
similar to constructivism as they both emphasize how
political action is affected by language, ideas, abstract
concepts and norms. Postmodernism, as well as
constructivism, claims that our beliefs and expectations
about how the world works are influenced by these
deeper issues. Language, ideas, concepts and norms, the
deeper issues which also shape our identities. Identities
matter. We discussed it in regards with constructivism,
the same thing with post-modernism, how we identify
ourselves, each other and our world implicate our
 267

actions, predetermines our actions. Thus, according to

postmodernism as well as to constructivism, it is
necessary to examine the deeper meanings of language
discourse, such as the meaning of words like to give you
an example, American presidents always use the word
democracy, always use the words liberalism, and liberty,
and freedom. This is not the case for the Russian
president or the president of China and this matters,
right? These words and their meaning they help us to
understand the ideas, the images. They help us to
understand why are certain states behave in a certain
way and this is different from how other states behave.
So, we need to study the meanings of words and ideas
and trace their effect on political action. Here are the
most important assumptions and proposals that are
made by the modernist theories of international
relations, and how do they criticize the classical ones.
First of all, postmodernists claim that critical theorists
underestimate or simply miss many very important
actors such as women, such as multinational
corporations, poor countries, classes and so on and so
forth. They claim that the world is much more complex
and diverse than the classical theorists claim. States,
according to postmodernism, are not unitary actors and
 268

thus are not rational. States for them are simply

abstractions against their social constructions. What are
states? Do we see a state as we see this world for
instance or this picture? No. I mean, states are the
abstractions, they are artificial social constructs that exist
in our imagination and on the world map and the world
map is again the abstraction. When we go to the street,
we don't see the world map. Borders between states are
emergent reality nodes, the real existing realities like
rivers oceans and mountains. If states are abstractions,
then postmodernists claim that there is no such thing as
national interest, and this is a sea way difference from
the classical theorists especially realism, which claims
that national interests are the object of realities. For
postmodernists, national interest simply do not exist.
They imagined. It is the leaders, it is the people who
think that these are national interests but the national
interest are the products of their imagination.
Postmodernists also claimed that classical theories define
power in a very limited way. The definitions of power
provided by classical theories is limited to mostly
tangible measures not power of ideas, not power of
norms, words and so on. Foreign policies and
international relations are irrational for postmodernists.
 269

And if they are irrational, then international relations

basically are unpredictable, and this is one of the
foundational claims made by postmodernism,
international relations are unpredictable because
behavior of states are irrational. And this is the
fundamental difference between postmodernism and the
classical theories. All the major classical theorists claim
that international relations are predictable. Basically, the
purpose of classical theories is to explain and predict.
Yes, they provide different explanations but they all
assume that behavior of states are rational and thus,
international relations are predictable. Postmodernists
claim the opposite. States, according to postmodernists,
are declining. They are just one of many actors and these
many actors including individuals they operate on par
with states, social groups and individuals not states are
the real actors of international relations, according to
postmodernists, and they are the real focus of the
postmodernism studies, not states such again,
postmodern meaning beyond states, so the focus on
social groups and individuals. International system
according to postmodernists is much more complex than
the classical theories as you and again, complexity is the
second major proposition of the postmodernism studies
 270

together with unpredictability and irrationality. So, we

have irrationality, unpredictability, and complexity as the
third pillar, complexity being the third pillar of
postmodernist studies. Real international system, not the
oversimplified international system provided to us by the
classical theories, but the real international system
operate as complex systems do. And complex systems,
postmodernists claim, they don't operate according to
the simple laws of IR such as security dilemma, or
international regimes, or classes and the struggle of
classes. The real complex international relations operate
according to the laws of synergetics. Synergetics is a
science which studies the behavior of complex systems,
and one of the notions of the synergetics is that complex
systems are unpredictable and unmanageable and thus,
international relations from the post-modernist
perspective are unpredictable and unmanageable. Thus
basically, postmodernism questions, the very rationale of
international relations as a science it kind of rejects the
science of international relations, because the core of
international relations science is to explain, predict and
govern development of international relations and
postmodernists they simply reject it. Thus, we can say
that postmodernists they criticize the classical theories
 271

but in providing this criticism, they kind of reject the very

rationale for the existence of international relations as a
science, as a theory which explains reality.7.7
[SOUND] Finally, it is necessary
to talk about feminism as another example of critical
theories of IR. And the main point of
feminism in this field of international relations
is the role of gender and the role of women is
underestimated
by the classical theories. Feminism as IR theory
emerged in late 1980s. At that time there was a series
of feminist conferences devoted to international
relations in 1988, 1998, in 2008, one in ten years. And
feminism is influenced
by postmodernist intellectual tradition but with
a special focus on the role of gender. Like
postmodernism, there is no single theory feminist
theory in international relations. There are different
theoretical
feminist approaches. There is liberal feminism Socialist,
Marxist, critical feminism,
 272

constructivist feminism, radical feminism, post modernist

and post structuralist
feminism, post colonial feminism. So basically,
it is the attempts to provide the gender focus and the
gender dimension
to all the major status of critical approaches and classical
approaches to international relations. And the major
assumption of
feminism is that traditional theories of international
relations are kind of male. They are masculine. They are
invented by men. And they focus and
study on masculine behavior, and ignore that women
behave differently. To oversimplify, or to make it clear,
realism claims that states compete. Liberalism claims
that states cooperate,
but both competition and cooperation and this
antagonism between competition and
cooperation is a masculine behavior. Whereas, women
behave
fundamentally differently. And this notion of difference
of behavior is missed in the classical studies
 273

of international relations. What is gender? Gender,

according to True, refers to the asymmetrical social
constructs of masculinity and femininity as opposed to
the ostensibly
biological male female difference. So by gender factor,
we mean that
the hegemonic western brand of masculinity is
associated with autonomy,
sovereignty, the capacity for reason and
objectivity, universalism and men. Whereas, the
dominant notion
of femininity, of feminism, is associated with the absence
or
lack of these characteristics. What does it mean? It
means that sovereign,
autonomy, pursuit of power or profit or common good
Which are claimed as the fundamental drivers of
the behaviour stage by classical theories. These factors
are kind of masculine games,
 274

boy's games. The end, they are masculine theories. In the

world run by male, it might work. And indeed in the 19th
century,
for instance, or the 18th century, when women truly
didn't participate very
actively in global politics, it did work. But in a world
where
women play equal role or sometimes even major roles in
comparison
to male, these major assumptions about the drivers of
behaviors or states
and national religion no longer work. We need different
theories. We need different notions that takes
these gender factors into account and which make
different conclusion
about the drivers of the behavioral states and
international relations. So feminists claim that
mainstream
approaches of the international relations excluded
women's lives and
 275

experiences from their field of study. The feminists

interest
is women's place in IR. Gendered structures of
international relations. Women are claimed to be
marginal
in international security or economic decision-making.
Therefore, the claim is that women
are victims of war and inequality. And again, as True
claimed, bringing
women's life into the view through gender sensitive
research is
policy-relevant and material effects. Indeed, feminists
argue
that only when women are recognized as fundamental
players in economic and political processes will they
share
an equal role in societal decision making. So basically,
again,
the foundational assertion of the feminist theory Is that
women behave differently, and this needs to be
recognized by
 276

the theories of international relations. However, of

course,
not all agree with that. There are very powerful
counterarguments provided against this core feminist
assertion. And the major counterarguments
are of methodological nature and the typical nature. The
methodological
culture argument is that feminist allow too many
unverified assumption. And these counterarguments,
this criticism, is provided, for instance, by one of the
major scholars
of liberal theory, Robert Keohane. Who claimed in 1998,
quote,
that we will only understand each other if IR scholars are
open to the important
questions that feminist theories raise. And if feminists
are willing to
formulate their hypothesis in ways that are testable and
fashionable with evidence. Only then we will understand
the feminist
 277

cause, the feminist assertion. So basically Robert

Keohane claims
that the assertions that feminists claim are untestable I
am so
far without evidence. And the empirical
counterargument,
the empirical criticism of the feminist theory
is that current history, when women very actively
participate
in global politics and occupy the highest political
positions, such as
Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor. Hillary Clinton,
the State Secretary
of the United States and the presidential candidate
in the United States, and even before the Golda Meir
Prime Minister
of Israel and so on. So we have the examples. We have
the practice of women's
participation in international relations. But the majority
of these examples show
that their behavior as political leaders, does not differ so
 278

much from the mans behavior. What is the fundamental

difference
between Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, or
Madeline Albright, the three female Secretaries of State
of the United States
and the male behavior and the behavior of men as
Secretary
of State of the United States? There is no found
foundational difference. Hillary Clinton was much more
aggressive and interventionist then other males then
males then men
in the Obama administration. Condoleezza Rice was one
of the quotes
in the Bush Jr administration and was one of the
prominent people that
prepared the US intervention in Iraq. Madeline Albright
in 1990s Was one of the hawks in the Bill Clinton
administration, and so on. So we see that it is not
necessarily that
if a woman occupies the highest position in a state, or is
the leader of foreign
 279

policy, that this state will be benign, will reject wars as

the method of
foreign policy, and so on, and so forth. No, we have lots, I
mean,
innumerable number of examples that women as the
leaders of
states basically behave as men. Another very prominent
example, and
of course, known to all of you, is Margaret Thatcher, the
former
prime minister of the United Kingdom. She was even
called, her nickname
was the Iron Lady, the Iron Lady. And her behavior was
much tougher,
much more masculine in this regard than behavior of
male prime ministers of
the United Kingdom in that period of time. So given
these examples, it is really not evident that the nature
of behavior of women in the world of politics is
fundamentally
 280

different from the behavior of men. And the examples

show that both women and
men behave alike. This all about the critical theories
of international relations. If you want to study more,
please look
upon the literature list provided. [SOUND] 8.1 Hello.
Today, we will talk about Actors in International
Relations, about those who actually drive policies, about
those of which international system consist of. Who are
actors? What is the actor? In political science in general,
actor is any individual or political entity, which has
enough authority and power and has a will to exercise
this power to influence political processes. As for
international relations, international actor is an entity
with the capacity of having an impact obviously in
international relations. So, unlike domestic actors who
struggle for their ability to govern or influence domestic
governments, domestic policies, international actors are
those who act across state borders, are those who
actively participate in world politics at the international
arena, and have impact upon other actors in other
countries. There are multiple actors in the international
system. They could be individuals. They could be multiple
 281

social groups and movements, private and public

companies, non-state organizations like NGOs, states,
and groups of states, and international relations. But of
course, the most important and the most influential and
actually considered as the main and central actor in
international relations are sovereign states. And this is
the tradition that last from the Treaty of Westphalia
signed in 1648. Why actors matter? Why it is important
to focus on them and starting them? Because, obviously,
you cannot analyze international system without the
elements of this international system. It is not possible to
analyze any political process without a clear
understanding of who actually drives politics, who drives
this political process, what are his motives and
intentions, and what capabilities it has. So, actors could
be called the simplest elements or just elements of the
international system, connections of which, the
composition of which constitutes international system
and relations between which constitute international
relations. So, they are of essential importance. In
general, there are three major types of actors in
international system. The first and main ones are states,
sovereign states, which are considered the most
important actors. Modern sovereign states emerged in
 282

1648 with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia, which

ended the 30-Years War and introduced the principle of
state sovereignty. States in general existed since ancient
times, but modern states, the states says participants of
the contemporary international system existed only after
1648, and this system is called Westphalian international
political system. The second major type of international
actors are international or interstate or also called
intergovernmental organizations. They are interstate
institutions which are created by states on the basis of
treaties and charters in order to fulfill the states'
interests and purposes. And, finally, the third type of
international actors are multiple non-state actors. They
can be all other. They are all other social entities, social
collectivities, which have enough resources to influence
international politics, and who are just active in the
world arena. And the importance of non-state actors and
their presence in the international system has been
growing in the era in conditions of globalization, so we
can talk about them since 1970s. 8.2.
After describing the whole composition of international
actors, let us talk in a more detailed way about each of
them. And of course, it is necessary to start with states.
States as the main and central elements of international
 283

system. What is a state in general? There are of course

multiple definitions of a state. In general, if to aggregate
and to have a common denominator definition, this
would be that state is it politically organized body of
people at a given territory and characterized by public
authority and legal use of force, legal use of violence. So
states, especially sovereign states, have to maintain
monopoly on the legal use of force at their territory, they
have to be recognized as sovereign states by other
sovereign states, and states have to set up public and
legal government, because government or rule can be
both public and private. A private rule, a private type of
authority could be exercised in a criminal for instance
organization, and this is not a state. For a state, for
authority to be a state authority, it has to be public. So
from this definition we can conclude that essential
elements of sovereign states, those elements which are
indispensable for the states to be regarded as sovereign
states, which allows us observers to recognize a state as
a political actor, these elements are the following: A
state has to have territory, there obviously cannot be any
state without territory. A state has to have population,
again there cannot be any state without no one lives,
although I would say that there is one interesting
 284

exception to this rule which is the Vatican City. Vatican is

a sovereign state without permanent population, but
there is a unique situation because sovereignty in the
Vatican City belongs not to the city of Vatican, but to the
Holy Chair, to the Pope of Rome. Third, an essential
element of a sovereign state and prerequisite of a
sovereign state is public government, it has to have a
public governing authority structures. And finally, very
importantly, any sovereign state must have recognition
by other sovereign states. It is not enough to have
territory, population, and public government, it also has
to be formally recognized by other sovereign states. And
this not always happens, for instance, let's take such
state as Nagorno-Karabakh in the Southern Caucasus, it
does have territory, it does have population, it does have
public authority governance institutions, but it is not
recognized by any other sovereign states thus, we have a
phenomena like unrecognized states. Unrecognized
states are such states that actually de facto exist, but De
Jure, they are not for sovereign states, De Jure they
belong to some other sovereign entities and Nagorno-
Karabakh officially belongs to Azerbaijan. Another
example of unrecognized state is Transnistria. Again, it
has territory in South East Europe, it has a population, it
 285

has its own government, President, Parliament, even

armed forces, but it is not recognized by any state in the
world, thus it is also an example of unrecognized states.
Also we have a phenomena of semi-recognized states,
these are countries that are states which are recognized
by some sovereign states, but not recognized by the
other, and this partial recognition is not enough to
consider them as full fledged sovereign states. There is
no by the way, rule in the international law and
international relations, how many formal recognitions
are necessary in order for a sovereign state to be
considered as a sovereign state. In general, it is
considered that all five permanent members of the UN
Security Council, the United States, Russia, Great Britain,
France, and China at least, at least this group of five have
to recognize this country in order for it to be accepted
into the United Nations Organization, and thus regarded
as a sovereign state. So not all of the permanent five, and
the majority of the UN members recognize all states
thus, we have semi-recognized states such as Kosovo for
instance. Kosovo is recognized by the United States of
America, by the majority of Western countries, but it is
not recognized by neither Russia nor China so, it is semi-
recognized state and not a member of the United
 286

Nations Organization. Another example are Abkhazia and

South Ossetia, they are recognized by Russia, by
Venezuela, by some other countries, but not by the
majority of the international community, and by none of
the other permanent members of the United Nations
Security Council except Russia, so also semi recognized
states. And another historical example would be
Northern Cyprus, the Turkish Republic of Northern
Cyprus. This is the, also a country, a state, semi-
recognized state which is recognized as sovereign state
by only one country in the world, Republic of Turkey, the
Turkish Republic. All the other countries do not recognize
North Cyprus and consider it formally to be the part of
Cyprus or South Cyprus, right. Thus, we have this
phenomenon of semi-recognized states, and you see
recognition by other states is very important criteria. By
the way also there is no rule and criteria upon which
states are compelled or considered to recognize other
states, thus of course this issue of recognition, is
determined by national interests, and there are multiple,
just multiple double standards there, right. In the opinion
of the United States, Kosovo should be recognized as a
sovereign state whereas Abkhazia and South Ossetia
don't. The same, Russia considers Abkhazia and South
 287

Ossetia as rightful and necessary to be considered as

sovereign states, and Kosovo is not recognized by Russia
so, lots of double standards.8.3
Why do States play a central role in international
relations, and, why are they considered as the main
actors, as the main components of IR? Due to several
reasons. First, because they define structure of the
international system. Structure is the distribution of
power among whom, among States. There can be no
structure of international system among companies, or a
non-governmental organizations. It is always among
States, especially great powers. And structure of the
international system is one of the central determinant of
the development of international relations, international
system, and foreign policy. Secondly, it is States and just
States, who have a monopoly to use force within their
sovereign territory. If the state does not have this
monopoly, if there is some other actor who uses force,
military force within a sovereign territory, it means that
this state does not fulfill its sovereign obligations. It
means that this state is not fully sovereign. It is justified
to call this state a failed state, or failing state. Only states
themselves and the legal governments of these States,
have a monopoly to use force within their sovereign
 288

territory. Third, states are central because they're able to

consolidate much more financial, military, and other
resources than any other actors. Of course, some
multinational or transnational corporations such as
Apple, or Boeing, or Microsoft, could have more money,
financial resources that some small States, I don't know,
Republic of San Marino, or even some relatively large
states, or like some African states. And, some non-
governmental organizations, such as the International
Commission of the Red Cross, can have more social and
ideological appeal than some other countries like North
Korea, who wildly violate human rights. So, in some
specific aspects of power, non-state actors can surpass
States, but, only States have military power, and no one
else than these States, especially with illegal use of
military power. And states of course, surpass any other
non-state actors in the accumulation of these power
sources. Only states can combine financial, military,
ideological, social, cultural, and other aspects of power.
And in this accumulative category of power, they are of
course much more powerful than non-state actors. Only
states possess different aspects of power, not just
economic, or social, or military. Then, states are central
because they create legal space for all the other actors,
 289

for non-state actors, and international organizations to

function. It is states, after all, who create international
organizations, and who allow non-state actors to exist, to
appear, and to define the legal framework and the legal
corridor for non-state actors to function. If states make a
decision, they can easily eliminate, either international
organizations, they could be dissolved, thanks to league
of nations, right? The League of Nations was dissolved in
1946. Or, states can eliminate, destroy or limit behavior,
very much, of non-state actors, if they consider that
correct. Any individual, or company, or NGO, have a legal
connection to certain states, and they have to operate
according to state regulations. States are always above
any non-state actors, and states can dissolve and create
international organizations. Next factor of state's
importance. States are the only universal organizing form
of political space. There is no alternative. There is no
other universal form of organization of political states
emerged so far. In political life and territories without
states, we know it very well from the recent history, is
usually chaos. Take for instance, the Islamic State, take
the destiny or the fate of the countries like Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, after the collapse or undermining of their
state structures. These countries they existed. I mean, a
 290

life without strong states is life in chaos, in complete war

of all against all. And thus, there is no clear alternative to
states. The next factor of state importance is that, only
state sovereignty allows nations to get independence
and determine their own development and future. This is
why so many nations like Catalonia, for instance now,
wants to get their states sovereignty and to create a
state of their own, because you cannot determine your
own life and future. You cannot develop by yourself
without your own statehood, if you are a nation. And
finally, last but not least, states are necessary for
democracy. Democracy without states is simply
impossible. You have to have a rule of law, you have to
have institutions, you have to have accountability.
Democracy is basically a system when people make
government. But the process and structure of people
making government, is actually a state. This is why,
indeed states, are much more important than any other
international actors. 8.4
[SOUND] Now let's talk about
the liberal perspective and the liberal approach to states.
How do liberals view states? Liberals, unlike realists,
 291

pay more attention to non-state actors. They do

recognize them as full fledged
autonomous players, powerful enough to seriously
transcend states, state policies
and impact international relations. However, of course,
realize they do acknowledge the leading
role of states, but they simply pay more attention to the
non-state
actors in comparison to realists. What is the peculiarity
of
the liberal approach to states? Since liberalism generally
focuses on globalization and the role of non-state actors,
liberal emphasize and analyze the change of state
sovereignty in
the post-Cold War and globalized world. So whereas
realists, they analyze,
let's say, continuity of state sovereignty,
liberals emphasize change and transition, transformation
of state sovereignty in
the post-Cold War and globalized world. And according
to liberals,
 292

states can simply no longer fulfill their sovereign

functions on their own,
in comparison to the previous time, in conditions of
globalization and
conditions of global interdependence. And thus states
have to share authority. They have to share authority
with
international organizations on the one hand, and
non-state actors on the other hand. Why do they do this?
Why do states share authority? Why do they delegate
something
to the other actors, something that they used to
do themselves in the past? Because of globalization.
Because according to realists,
in a globalized environment, states cannot do a series of
vital things, cannot implement a series of vital
functions, which are central for state survival,
development,
and sovereignty, actually. For instance, states cannot
control
 293

ideas in a globalized world. Arab Spring was a very

manifest example of
the failure of states to control ideas, to control the idea
of change and
transformation. The governments of Hosni Mubarak in
Egypt,
Bashar al-Assad in Syria, or Muammar Gaddafi in Libya
would
love to prevent the spread of ideas into their countries,
but in conditions of
social media, it is impossible to do this. Thus, states can
no longer fully
control their domestic affairs. Look at the issue of Russia
meddling into the US elections, so the alleged Russia
meddling
into the US elections in 2016. Social media, like
Facebook,
Twitter, Google, were accused and
are accused by American Congress, by the US Congress,
and the US media, for allowing Russia to play a role in
American domestic politics and to have an impact on
 294

the US domestic affairs. So it means that states in these

globalized conditions can no longer ensure their
domestic affairs. Secondly, according to realists, states
can no longer ensure
their external security. And the reason for that is global
security interdependence, manifest, for instance, with
the existence
of transnational terrorism. States, indeed, cannot be fully
secure if there is
a powerful terrorist organizations. This is why Islamic
State
posed such an enormous threat to Russia and the United
States, despite of the distance between
the Islamic State and the other countries. Transnational
terrorist organizations,
they do not recognize borders, and states cannot be fully
secure as
long as such organizations exist. Third, states can not
ensure
internal security, again, because of transnational threats
and challenges,
 295

which are the feature of globalization. How can, for

instance, a state ensure
internal security with transnational organized crime, with
the drug traffic? And in Russia,
we are severely challenged, for instance, by the drug
traffic from Afghanistan,
which is located far beyond the Russian territory, but
nevertheless creates lots of criminality, drug, and
instability problems inside the country. And the only way
is to
manage it across borders. And finally, states can no
longer ensure
their economic development in conditions of
globalization, because of the existence
of globalized financial markets, globalized energy, and
global economy, as such. We can add to that, for
instance,
global climate change, and its impact on the
development of states. States cannot ensure their
economic development in conditions of climate change,
for instance,
 296

if their territory turns into desert or turns into ocean,

right? And states cannot manage
this problem on their own. It requires global governance.
So ensuring economic development,
ensuring internal security, ensuring external security and
managing domestic affairs, are the central obligations
of any sovereign states. And states simply cannot fulfill
these central obligations. Thus, according to liberals,
states, in order to manage them, they delegate authority
to
international organizations and non-state actors, thus
empowering them. And as a result,
sovereignty of states changes. And this is the essence of
liberal approach towards states. According to liberals,
state sovereignty
in globalized environment is first and foremost relative.
Not absolute, as the realists claim, but relative, relative
to the ability
of states to do what? To produce public goods,
to fulfill their sovereign obligations. And their sovereign
obligations is
 297

basically the production of public goods, such as security,

management of
domestic politics, development, welfare of the people,
and so on and so forth. States are sovereign as long as
fulfill
responsibility vis-a-vis the people. And in order to fulfill
this responsibility, they have to share their authority
with international organizations, with other states and
with non-state actors. Secondly, according to liberalism,
state sovereignty is no longer understood as full
independence
of states in their foreign policies. Again, a complete
contrast
to the realist approach. For realists, the more
independent
a state is in its foreign policy, the more sovereign it is. For
liberals it is not necessary. On the contrary,
this relation is the opposite. For state to be able to
fulfill its obligations, to provide public goods to its
people, state
 298

has to participate in global governance. States can ensure

their economic
development, their internal security and safety, their
external security, only if
they cooperate with the other states, with international
organizations, and non-state actors on management of
transnational threats and challenges. And actually this
state
cooperation with the others, and with international
organizations and
non-state actors on management of transnational
challenges is
called global governance. So states, the scale of states'
participation in global governance, responsibility of a
state in terms of
participation of global governance, determines state
sovereignty. And the more responsible the state is,
the more sovereign it is, according to this liberal
approach. And finally,
state sovereignty is no longer a border which separates
internal
 299

affairs from foreign affairs. For realism, sovereignty is

the unpenetratable border between the internal and
external,
and the only discourse among states can be only about
foreign
policy and foreign affairs. For liberals, this is no longer
the case. And liberals actually emphasize and
claim that discussion of internal affairs of states have
already become a norm of
contemporary international relations. Indeed, look at the
agenda of what states
are talking about at BRICS summits, at G7 summits, even
at the United Nations
Security Council or in the Normandy Forum. They talk
about internal
reforms in Ukraine. They talk about internal
management of Syria. They talk about other internal
problems. So internal politics of sovereign
states is already the agenda of international relations,
and
 300

this is reflected by liberalism. On the basis of this change

of
the approach of sovereignty, liberal school of
international relations
and practice has tried to elaborate some new rules to
overcome state
sovereignty, including militarily. And these new rules and
practices to overcome state sovereignty are
humanitarian intervention concept,
which was quite popular in the 1990s. According to
which international
community, international society, can intervene and
violate sovereignty of state, if there is a vast,
large scale of violation of human rights. And in 2000,
there was a concept created called
Responsibility to Protect, or R to P. According to which,
again,
international community have a right and even
responsibility to intervene and
violate state sovereignty, if the state fails to fulfill its
 301

obligations vis-a-vis it's people. Fails to provide public

goods to
its people, above all security. Of course these two both
concepts
of violating state sovereignty, or penetrating state
sovereignty,
they have not become legal. None of them are put into
the treaty,
international law. But nevertheless, they have impacted
the practice of
international relations very, very much. [SOUND]