Stuvia 2320572 International Relations Assigned Readings Part 1 Ir

International Relations: Assigned
readings part 1 (IR)
geschreven door
PoliticalScienceUvA
www.stuvia.com
Gedownload door: marcuspoelstra | Marcus.poelstra@outlook.com € 912 per jaar

Dit document is auteursrechtelijk beschermd, het verspreiden van dit document is strafbaar. extra verdienen?
Stuvia - Koop en Verkoop de Beste Samenvattingen
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS - ASSIGNED READING NOTES
Week 1:
Chapter 1 (J, S, M) - Why Study IR?
Introduction to the historical and social basis of IR. The aim is to emphasise the practical reality of IR
in our everyday lives and connect the practical reality with the academic study of IR. The chapter
makes this connection by focusing on the core historical subject matter of IR: modern sovereign states
and the international relations of the state system.
Three main topics of chapter:

1. The significance of IR in everyday life and the main values that states exist to foster
2. The historical evolution of the state system and world economy
3. The changing contemporary world of states.
International Relations in Everyday Life
IR can be defined as the study of relationships and interactions between countries, including the
activities and policies of national governments, international organisations (IGOs), nongovernmental
organisations (NGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs).
- Can be both a theoretical subject and practical policy

- Academic approaches to IR can be empirical, normative or both
- IR is often considered a branch of PoliSci (also subject studied by historians and economists,
in legal studies and philosophy)
- From the broader perspective IR clearly is an interdisciplinary inquiry
- Aspects have been scrutinized and remarked upon at least since the time of the ancient Greek
historian Thucydides
- IR only became a proper academic discipline in the 20th century
- Main reason why we should study IR is that the entire population is divided into separate
political communities or independent states, which profoundly affect ways people live
- Independent nation or State = an unambiguous and bordered territory, with a permanent
population, under the jurisdiction
- Together they form an international state system that is global in extent
- At present time – almost 200 independent states
- States are legally independent of each other (they have sovereignty)
- The international state system is the core subject of IR
- States are usually embedded in international markets that affect the policies of their
governments and the wealth and welfare of their citizens
- When states are isolated and cut off from the state system, either by their own government or
by foreign powers, the people usually suffer as a result (e.g. Myanmar, Libya, North Korea,
Iraq, Iran, and Syria)
- State system is a distinctive way of organizing political life on earth and has deep historical
roots
- Study of IR dates to early modern era (16th and 17th centuries) in Europe

- Ever since the 18th century – relations between independent states started to be labeled as
“international relations”
- State system was initially European, then western
- In the 19th and 20th centuries the state system was expanded to encompass the entire earth
- To understand the significance of IR it is necessary to understand what living in sates involves
There are at least five basic social values that states are expected to uphold:
1. Security
2. Freedom
3. Oder
4. Justice
5. Welfare
- These five values are so fundamental to us that they must be protected in some way
o Through social organizations other than the state
➔ Families
➔ Clans
➔ Ethnic or religious organizations
➔ Villages
➔ Cities
- In the modern era the state has usually been involved as the leading institution in that
regard: it is expected to ensure these basic values
o e.g., people generally assume the state to underwrite the value of security, which
involves the protection of citizens from internal and external threat
- The very existence of independent states affects the value of security
- We live in a world of many states, almost all of which are armed at least to some degree
and some of which are major military powers. Thus, states can both defend and threaten
people’s se-curity, and that paradox of the state system is usually referred to as the
‘security dilemma’. In other words, just like any other human organization, states present
problems as well as provide solutions.
- Military power is usually considered a necessity so that states can coexist
- Many states enter alliances with others to increase their national security
Basic Values of IR
Security:
- One of the most fundamental values
- That approach to the study of world politics is typical of realist theories of IR
- Operates on the assumption that relations between states can be best characterized as a
world in which armed states are competing rivals and periodically go to war with each
other
Freedom:
- Both personal and national freedom or independence

- A fundamental reason for having states and putting up with the burdens that governments
place on citizens, such as taxes or obligations of military service, is the condition of
national freedom
- We cannot be free unless our country is free too
- Peace fosters freedom and makes progressive international change possible
- That approach to the study of world politics is typical of liberal theories of IR
- Operates on the assumption that IR can be best characterized as a world in which states
cooperate to maintain peace and freedom and to pursue progressive change.
Order and Justice:

- Sates have a common interest in establishing and maintaining international order so that
they can coexist and interact of a basis of stability certainty and predictability.
- States are expected to uphold international law
- States are expected to follow accepted practices of diplomacy
- States are expected to uphold human rights
- International law, diplomatic relations, and international organizations can only exist and
operate successfully if these expectations are generally met by most states most of the
time
- That approach to the study of world politics is typical of International Society theories
of IR
- Operates on the assumption that international relations can best be characterized as a
world in which states are socially responsible actors and have a common interest in
preserving international order and promoting international justice.
Socioeconomic wealth and welfare:

- People expect their government to adopt appropriate policies to encourage high
employment, low inflation, steady investment etc.
- National economies are rarely isolated – people expect that the state will respond to the
international economic system to enhance the national standard of living
- Most states today try to implement economic policies that maintain stability of
international economy upon which they are dependent
- Economic interdependence, meaning a high degree of mutual economic dependence
among countries, is a striking feature of the contemporary state system
o Pro: may increase overall freedom and wealth by expanding the global
marketplace, thereby increasing participation, specialization, efficiency, and
productivity.
o Con: may promote overall inequality by allowing rich and powerful countries, or
countries with financial or technolog- ical advantages, to dominate poor and weak
countries which lack those advantages
- hat approach to the study of world politics is typical of IPE (International Political
Economy) theories of IR
- Operates on the assumption that international relations can best be characterized as a
fundamentally socioeconomic world and not merely a political and military world.
Moments that heightened awareness for these major values:

- WW1


- WW2
- Great Depression
Theories Focus
Realism Security
Power politics, conflict, and war
Liberalism Freedom
Cooperation, peace, and progress
International Society Order and Justice

Shared interests, rules and institutions
IPE theories Welfare

Wealth, poverty, and equality
Traditional View Alternative or Revisionist View
States are valuable and necessary institutions: States and the state system are social choices
they provide security, freedom, order, justice, that create more problems than they solve
and welfare
The majority of the world’s people suffer more
People benefit from the state system than they benefit from the state system
Brief Historical Sketch of the State System
- States and state systems are basic features of modern political life
o Makes it easy to assume that they are permanent and always present – which is
false – it is important to emphasize that the state system is a historical institution
- The state can be seen as a social organization – like all social organizations the state
system has pros and cons which change over time
- There is nothing about the state system that is needed for human existence
- Even though world politics is in flux, states and state systems have always managed to
adapt to change
The Roman Empire

- Began as a city state in central Italy
- Over centuries the city expanded into an empire larger than any which had existed in that
area before
- Laid the foundations of European civilizations
- Rome helped shape European and contemporary practice and opinion about the state,
about international law and about empire and the nature of imperial authority

City-states and Empires

500 BCE – 100 BCE Greek city. states system (Hellas)
200 BCE – AD 500 Roman Empire
306 – 1453 Orthodox Christianity: Byzantine Empire, Constantinople
500 - 1500 Catholic Christendom: The Pope in Rome
1299 – 1923 Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, Istanbul (Constantinople)
Other Persia, India (Mongul), China
- Different aspects of IR emphasized by realism and liberalism

- Relations between independent political groups make up the core problem of IR
o They are built on distinctions between people in a territorial world
- State System Definition: relations between politically organized human groupings which
occupy distinctive ter- ritories, are not under any higher authority or power, and enjoy and
exercise a measure of independence from each other. International relations are primarily
relations between such independent groups.
The Christian commonwealth of medieval Europe
Religious Hierarchy Political Hierarchy Centralized modern

authority
Pope = Emperor = Government
Archbishops, bishops and Kings and other

other leading clergy = semi-independent national
rulers =
Priests and other common Barons and other

clergy = semi-independent local
rulers =
Ordinary Christians = Common people of People

numerous local
communities =
- Medieval era was one of considerable disarray, disorder, conflict and violence which
stemmed from this lack of clearly delineated territorial political organization and control
- Wars were fought between religious civilizations
o e.g., Christian Crusades against the Islamic world (1096–1291)
o Hundred Years War between England and France
- There was no distinction between civil war and international war

- Medieval wars were more likely fought over issues of rights and wrongs: wars to defend
faith
- Wars were less likely to be fought over exclusive controlled territory and no clear
conception of the nation or the national interest
What did the political change from medieval to modern involve?

- It it eventually consolidated the provision of medieval values within the single
framework of one unified and independent social organization: the sovereign state.
- In the early modern era, European rulers liberated themselves from the overarching
religious– political authority of Christendom.
o Freed themselves from their dependence on the military power of barons and
feudal leaders
Power and authority were concentrated at one point:

- The kind and his government
- The king now ruled a territory with borders which were defended
- The king became the supreme authority ober all the people in the country
That fundamental political transformation marks the advent of the modern era
One of the major effects of the rise of the modern state was its monopoly of the means of warfare
The Thirty Years War 1618-48

Starting initially in Bohemia as an uprising of the Protestant aristocracy against Spanish authority, the
war escalated rapidly, eventually incorporating all sorts of issues. Questions of religious toleration
were at the root of the conflict. But by the 1630s, the war involved a jumble of conflicting states,
with all sorts of cross-cutting dynastic, religious, and state interests involved.
- Europe was fighting its first continental war.
The Peace of Westphalia 1648

The Westphalian settlement legitimized a commonwealth of sovereign states. It marked the tri- umph
of the stato [the state], in control of its internal affairs and independent externally. This was the
aspiration of princes [rulers] in general—and especially of the German princes, both Protestant and
Catholic, in relation to the [Holy Roman or Habsburg] empire. The Westphalian treaties stated many
of the rules and political principles of the new society of states. The settlement was held to provide a
fundamental and comprehensive charter for all Europe.
- In the traditional view of the episode, the political change from medieval to modern
involved the construction of independent territorial states across Europe
- The state captured its territory and turned it into state property
- The population of the territory owe allegiance to that government and have a duty to
obey its laws. That includes bishops as well as barons, merchants as well as aristocrats.
- The historical end point of the medieval era and the starting point of the modern
international system is identified with the Thirty Years war and Peace of Westphalia
which brought it to an end
- From the middle of the 17th century states were seen as the only legitimate political
systems of Europe

- The emergent state system had several prominent characteristics which can be
summarized:
1. Consisted of the consisted of adjoining states whose legitimacy and independence
was mutually recognized
2. Recognition of states did not extend outside of the European state system –
non-European political systems were not members of the state system.
3. the relations of European states were subject to international law and diplomatic
practices. In other words, they were expected to observe the rules of the international
game.
4. there was a balance of power between member states which was intended to prevent
any one state from getting out of control and making a successful bid for hegemony,
which would in effect re-establish an empire over the continent.
- For the past 350 years, the European state system has managed to resist the main
political tendency of world history, which is the attempt by strong powers to bend weaker
powers to their political will and thereby establish an empir
- Debated whether the sole remaining superpower after the cold war – the US had become
a global hegemon in this meaning of the term or, if the rise of China was again
establishing a bipolar world
- This traditional/classical view has been questioned by a revisionist view
o The story of Westphalia is a historical myth created by IR scholars who wanted to

create a foundational basis in history for their realist or international society
theories.
o Revisionists argue that there is no solid basis in the historical evidence for the
traditional claim that the modern, post-medieval system or society of states
emerged out of the Peace of Westphalia and successive episodes, such as the
Congress of Vienna (1815) or the Peace of Paris (1919).
The Global State System and the World Economy

- While Europeans created a state system in Europe, at the very same time they also con-
structed vast overseas empires and a world economy by which they controlled most non-
European political communities in the rest of the world
- The global ascendancy and supremacy of the West is vital for understanding IR even
today
o May be changing with the rise of China & India and Brazil
- The Western imperial expansion made possible for the first time the formation and
operation of a global economy
- During the era of economic and political imperialism by European states, a few funda-
mental points should be kept in mind:

1. European states made expedient alliances with non-European political systems—such as

the alliances arranged by the British and by the French with different Indian ‘tribes’ (i.e.,
nations) of North America
2. Almost wherever they could, European states conquered and colonized those political
systems and made them a subordinate part of their empires
3. Colonies became a basic source of the wealth and power of the European states for
several centuries
4. Some of those overseas colonies fell under the control of European settler populations,
and many of those new ‘settler states’ eventually became members of the state system.
One of them eventually became a superpower: the United States.
5. Throughout the era of Western imperialism, from the sixteenth century until the early
twentieth century, there was no interest or desire to incorporate non-Western political
systems into the state system on a basis of equal sovereignty. (That only happened on a
large scale after the Second World War)
- European decolonization in the developing world more than tripled the membership of
the UN
Global Expansion of the State System

1600s Europe (European system)
1700s North America (Western system)
1800s South America, Ottoman Empire, Japan (globalizing system)
1990s Asia, Africa, Caribbean, Pacific (global system)
IR and the Changing Contemporary World of States

- Many important questions in the study of IR are connected with the theory and practice
of sovereign statehood
- IR includes almost everything that has to do with human relations across the world.
- The sovereign state is a contested theoretical concept
- Think of the state as having two different dimensions, each divided into two broad
categories.
1. Dimension is the state - as a government versus the state as a country. Viewed from
within, the state is the national government: it is the highest governing authority in a
country, and possesses domestic sovereignty
2. Dimension of the state - which divides the external aspect of sovereign statehood into
two broad categories.
The state as a country: Actual, empirical statehood:

Territory, government, society Legal, juridical statehood
Recognition by other states Political institutions, economic basis, national

unity
Strong/weak states – strong/weak powers

Strong Power Weak Power
Strong State USA, China, France, UK, Denmark, Switzerland, New

Japan Zealand, Singapore
Weak State Russia, Pakistan Somalia, Liberia, Chad etc.
Quasi-states
- A large number of states, especially in the non-Western world, that have a low degree of
empirical statehood
- Their institutions are weak, their economic basis is frail and underdeveloped, there is
little or no national unity.
- possess juridical statehood but they are severely deficient in empirical statehood
Insiders and outsiders in the state system

Previous state system Present state system
Small core of insiders, all strong states Virtually all states are recognized insiders,
possessing formal or juridical statehood
Many outsiders: colonies
Big differences between insiders: dependencies;
some strong states, some weak quasi-states
Conclusion
- The state system is a historical institution – fashioned by people
- For most of recorded human history people have lived under different kinds of political
organization
o medieval times, political authority was chaotic and dispersed
o In the modern state, authority is centralized in one legally supreme government,
and people live under the standard laws of that government
- The state system was initially European
- During Western Imperialism rest of the world was dominated by Europe and Americans
- Globalization of state system vastly increased variety of member states
o Most important difference between strong states with a high level of empirical
statehood and weak quasi-states
- IR theory takes a major interest in the ways in which states do or do not ensure key
values (security, freedom, order, justice, and welfare)

The following chapters will introduce the theoretical traditions of IR in further detail. Whereas this
chapter has concerned the actual development of states and the state system, the next chapter will
focus on how IR as an academic discipline has evolved over time.
KEY POINTS
- The main reason why we should study IR is the fact that the entire population of the
world is living in independent states.
o Together, those states form a global state system.
- The core values that states are expected to uphold are security, freedom, order, justice,
and welfare.
o Many states promote such values; some do not.
- Traditional or classical IR scholars generally hold a positive view of states as necessary
and desirable.
o Revisionist scholars view them more negatively as problematical, even harmful.
- The system of sovereign states emerged in Europe at the start of the modern era, in the
sixteenth century.
o Medieval political authority was dispersed;
o modern political authority is centralized, residing in the government and the head
of state.
- The state system was first European; now it is global.
o The global state system contains states of very different type: great powers and
small states; strong, substantial states and weak quasi-states.
- There is a link between the expansion of the state system and the establishment of a
world market and a global economy.
o Some developing countries have benefitted from integration into the global
economy; others remain poor and underdeveloped.
- Economic globalization and other developments challenge the sovereign state. We can-
not know for certain whether the state system is now becoming obsolete, or whether states
will find ways of adapting to new challenges.

Chapter 2 (J, S, M): IR as an academic subject
This chapter
● How to think about IR since WW1.
● Theoretical approaches are an of their time: they address problems of IR that are seen
as the most important of their day
● Established IR traditions: realism, liberalism, international society, and IPE
● New voices in IR: feminist theory, green theory, theories from the global south
Introduction
● Traditional focus → focus on states and the relations of states helps explain why war
and peace form a central traditional IR theory
- However: contemporary IR is also concerned with other subjects such as
economic interdependence, human rights, transnational corporations,
terrorism, etc.
● Four major traditions in IR: realism, liberalism, international society, and IPE
● In recent decades social constructivism and post-positivist approaches have become
important
● The traditions/definitions are not objective truths but analytical tools created to
achieve overview and clarity.
● The WW´s and the Cold War between East and West, the emergence of close
economic cooperation between the West, and the persistent development gap between
North and South are examples of real-world events and problems that stimulated IR
scholarship in the 20th century
- 9/11, COVID-19, the financial crisis of 2007-08
● There have been three major debates since IR became an academic subject at the
end of WW1 (we are now well into a fourth)
1. Utopian liberalism and realism
2. Traditional approaches vs behavioralism
3. neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-marxism
4. (between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives)
Utopian liberalism: the early study of IR

● After WW1
● A widely felt determination never to allow human suffering on such a scale to happen
again
● Why had even the war started in the first place? → the answers that the new
discipline of IR came up with were profoundly influenced by liberal ideas
- Liberal thinkers thought that the war was attributable to egoistic and
short-sighted calculations and miscalculations of autocratic leaders in the
heavily militarized countries involved (Germany/Austria)
● Why was early IR influenced by liberalism? → US President Woodrow Wilson had a
mission to bring liberal democratic values to Europe and to the rest of the world. →
Wilson thought this was the only way to prevent a great war.

- Reforming the international system and also reforming the domestic structure
of autocratic countries is how to prevent disasters
● Woodrow Wilson
- Making the world “safe for democracy” - Wilson → wide appeal to normal
people in the aftermath of WW1
- President Wilson' ideas influenced the Paris Peace Conference
- Wilsonian idealism: through a rational and intelligently designed international
organization it should be possible to put an end to war and to achieve
permanent peace
- Two major points:
1. Promotion of democracy and self-determination (his logic →
democratic governments will not go to war against each other)
2. The creation of an international organization that would put relations
between states on a firmer institutional foundation than in the past →
league of nations
● IR developed first and most strongly in liberal states: US and UK
● The argument that liberal idealists make is that traditional power politics - so-called
“realpolitik” - is a jungle with dangerous beasts → while under the league of nations
the beasts are caged
- Immanuel Kant “perpetual peace”
● Normal Angell is a prominent liberal idealist
- 1909 “the great illusion”
- Territorial conquest is extremely expensive and politically divisive because it
severely disrupts international commerce: war therefore no longer serves
profitable purposes.
● War and use of force become of decreasing importance and international law develops
in response to the need for a framework to regulate the high levels of interdependence
● Human beings are rational and when they apply reason to IR, they can set up
organizations that benefit all
● Opening diplomacy to public scrutiny ensures that agreements will be sensible and
fair
● Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928
- An international agreement to abolish war: only in extreme cases of
self-defense could war be justified
● Why is it called utopian liberalism? It indicates that the liberal arguments were
nothing more than wishful thinking
- WW2 came (Wilson's hope for democratic civilization was shattered)
- The league of nations never became a strong international organization
- Refusal of the US Senate to ratify the covenant of the league (isolationism had
a long tradition in US foreign policy)
- Norman Angell´s hope for a smooth process of modernization and
interdependence also foundered on the harsh realities of the 1939s financial
crisis

Realism and the twenty-year crisis

● From the 1930s
● Interdependence did not produce peaceful cooperation: the league of nations was
helpless in the face of expansionist politics conducted by Germany. Italy and Japan.
These developments put wilsoniansim on the defensive
● Relevant thinkers in realism
- Machaivelli
- Thucydides
- Hobbes
● In “the twenty-year” crisis Carr argued that liberal IR thinkers profoundly misread the
facts of history and misunderstood the nature of international relations → according to
Carr the correct starting point would be to assume the opposite of harmony of interest
between countries (liberalism); we should assume that there are profound conflicts of
interest both between countries and between people
● Hans J. Morgenthau
- Brought realism to the US
- Human nature was at the base of international relations. And humans were
self-interested and power-seeking and that could easily result in aggression. →
In the late 1930s it was not difficult to find evidence of such arguments
● Reinhold Niebuhr drew on Christianity → . Humans have been endowed with original
sin since adam and eve were thrown out of paradise →
● Human nature is bad!
● The nature of international relations: Whatever the ultimate aims of international
politics, power is always the immediate aim → of world politics is anarchy (the 1930s
and 40s confirm this thinking)
● Britain, France and US were the “haves” in Carr´s terms and the “status quo” powers
who wanted to hold on to what they had. Germany, Italy, and Japan were the “have
nots” who wanted to change the status quo.
● In realism, it is seen as essential to maintaining an effective balance of power to
preserve peace
● Cyclical view of history: continuity and repetition. Each new generation tends to
make the same mistakes as previous ones (liberals have a positive that believes in
change)
● The utopian liberalism of the 1920s and the realism of the 1930s-50s represent the
two contending positions in the first major IR debate → won by realists (Carr and
Morgenthau)

The voice of behavioralism in IR

● The second debate concerns methodology
● Traditional/classical approach:
- the first generations of IR scholars were trained as historians or academic
lawyers and the approach is characterized by “above all by explicit reliance
upon the exercise of judgment”
- normative character
- Holistic and accepts the complexity of the human world and seeks to
understand it in a humanistic wat by getting inside it. → imaginatively
entering into the role of statespeople, and trying to understand their moral
dilemmas.
● Behavioralism:
- After WW2 developed as a methodological approach
- Endeavored to be “scientific” in the natural-science meaning of that term
- Find the “laws” IR → facts are separate from values!
- No place for ethics or morality because values cannot be studied objectively
● Though it would be wrong to say that behavioralists won the debate they certainly
placed the traditionalists on the defensive
Neoliberalism: institutions and interdependence

● Neoliberalism share the old liberal ideas about the possibility of progress and change
as liberals, but they repudiate idealism. Most of them also strive to formulate theories
and apply new methods which are scientific
● In short the debate between liberalism and realism continued by it was now colored
by the post-1945 international setting and the behavioralist persuasion
● In the 1950s a process of regional integration was getting underway in Western
Europe which caught the attention and imagination of neoliberals → intensive form of
international cooperation → cooperation in one transactional area paved the way for
cooperation in other areas
● In the 50s and 60s western Europe and japan developed mass-consumption welfare
states → entailed a higher level of trade, communication, cultural exchange and
transactions across borders.
● Sociological liberalism: emphasize the impact of these expanding cross-border
activities → Karl Deutch: interconnecting activities helped create common values and

identities among people from different states and paced the way for peaceful
cooperative relations by making war increasingly costly and unlikely
● Interdependence liberalism: In the 70s Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye further
developed such ideas → they argued that relationships between westerns states (inc
japan) are characterised by complex interdependence.
- military security does not dominate the agenda anymore
● Institutional liberalism: Interdependence leads to states dealing with the same issues
→ international institutions (WTO, EU) (formal and informal) can promote
corporations across borders
- Keohane and Young
- Institutions make up for lack of trust between states. They do that by
prvoididng a flow of information between states
- Is a theory of international relations that holds that international cooperation
between states is feasible and sustainable, and that such cooperation can
reduce conflict and competition.
- Insitutuions provide a sense of stability
● Republican liberalism: idea that liberal democracies enhance peace because they do
not go to war against each other. Influenced by the rapid spread of democratization in
the world after the Cold War
- Michael Doyle→ three pillars
1. Peaceful conflict resolution between democratic states
2. Common values among democratic states
3. Economic cooperation among democracies
● In the 1970s there was a general feeling among IR scholars that neoliberalism was on
the way to becoming the dominant theoretical approach in the discipline. But a
reformulation of realism by Kenneth Walts once again tipped the balance towards
realism.
Neorealism: Bipolarity and confrontation

● Kenneth waltz and “theory of international politics” (1979)
- A substantially different realist theory inspired by theoretical insights in
microeconomics → neorealism
- Attempts to formulate “law-like statements” based solely on the systemic
relations in the state system → departs sharply from classical realism in
showing virtually no interest in the ethics of statecraft or the moral dilemmas
of foreign policy (which is evident in Morgfenthaus writings)
- Waltz focus on the structure of the international system
1. The international system is anarchical: no world government
2. The international system is composed of like units: every state, small
or large has to perform a similar set of government functions (defense,
tax collection) → however! States are different in their powers and
what Waltz calls relative capabilities
● After WW2 came to the international system, then there was a bipolar system → now
moving towards a multipolar system → great powers will always tend to balance each

other. With the Soviet Union gone, the US dominates the system. But the balance of
power theory leads one to predict that other countries will try to bring American
power into balance
- Departs from the classical realist argument that human nature is plain bad –>
he terms this as reductionist explanations which cannot explain anything on
their own. For Waltz, states are power-seeking and security-conscious not
because of human nature but because of the international system
● During the 1980s some neorealists and neoliberals came close to sharing a common
analytical starting point that is basically neorealist in character; states are the main
actors in international anarchy and they are acting in their best interest → neoliberals
still argued that institutions, interdependence, and democracy led to more
cooperations than neorealists do.
● The debate is a continuing one
International society: The English School

● American scholarship completely dominated the IR discipline until a school in the UK
developed throughout the period of the Cold War
- It rejected the behavioralist perspective and emphasized the traditional
approach
- Rejected any firm distinction between realist a liberal view in IR
● Also called: international society (due to scholars from all over the world)
● They recognize the importance of power in IR. they also focus on the state and state
system. But they reject the narrow realist view that world politics is a Hobbesian state
of nature in which there are no international norms at all
● They view the state as the combination of a machtstaat (power state) and a rechtstaat
(constitutional state)
● International anarchy is a social and not an anti-social condition
● Importance of the individual and some argue that they are more important than states
● Regard IGOs and NGOs as margin rather than central features of world politics, even
the UN is seen as a “pseudo-institution” → states are the important actors!
● There are common rules and norms that most states can be expected to follow, in that
sense relations between states constitute an international society. But these norms and
rules cannot by themselves guarantee international harmony and cooperation
● Focus on the ethics of prudence → world politics is a world of states but also a world
of human beings
● They combine classical realist and liberal ideas and expand them in ways that provide
an alternative to both

● IR is about understanding, not explaining (not making “law”) → the exercise of

judgment
● Holistic and historical explanations
International Political Economy (IPE)

● Decades after WW2 a large number of new countries appeared on the map as the cold
colonial powers gave up their controls and the former colonies were given political
independence → many of the new states were weak in economic terms (third world).
● In 1970s developing countries started to press for changes in the international system
to improve their economic position in relation to developed countries. Around this
time, neo-marxism emerged
● IPE is basically about who gets what in the international economic and political
system.
● The third debate takes the shape of a neo-Marxist critique of the capitalist world
economy together with liberal IPE and realist IPE responses concerning the
relationship between economics and politics in IR
● Neo-marxism (IPE)
- Marxist theory → Neo-Marxists extend the analysis to developing countries
by arguing that the global capitalist economy controlled by the wealthy
capitalist states is used to impoverish the worlds poor countries
- Dependence is a core concept for neo-Marxists → rich countries can buy low
and sell high
- Andre Gunder Frank: claims that unequal exchange and appropriation of
economic surplus by the few at the expense of the many are inherent in
capitalism. As long as the capitalist system exists, there will be
underdevelopment in the world
- Immanuel Wallerstein: There is no room at the top for everybody. Capitalism
is a hierarchy based on the exploitation of the poor by the rich
● Liberal (IPE)
- Argue that human prosperity can be achieved by the free global expansion of
capitalism beyond the boundaries of the sovereign state and by the decline of
the significance of these boundaries

- Adam Smith, David Ricardo

● Realist (IPE)
- Frederich List
- Economic activity should be put into the service of building a strong state and
supporting the national interest. Wealth should thus be controlled and
managed by the state
- mercantilism/economic nationalism
- The smooth functioning of a free market depends on poltical power. Without a
dominant or hegemonic power, there can be no liberal world economy.
● These views in IPE show up in three important and related issues
1. Globalization: does it undermine the national economies by easing national
borders and subjecting national economies to global economy
2. Who wins and who loses in the process of economic globalization
3. How we should view the relative importance of economics and politics and
how the rules of the game are formulated and maintained in international
affairs
● The this major debate further complicates the discipline of IR because it shifts the
subject away from political and military issues and towards economic and social
issues, and becuase it introduced the distinct socioeconomic problems of developing
countries
Dissident voices: alternative approaches to IR

● The fourth debate: critique of established traditions
● The end of the Cold War changed the international agenda in some fundamental ways
→ number of diverse issues emerged in world politics
- State partition, disintegration, civil war, terrorism, democratization, national
minorities, humanitarian intervention, ethnic cleansing, mass migration, refuge
problems, gender inequality, environmental security
● Many IR scholars now take issue with Waltz claim that the complex world of
international relations can be squeezed into a few law-like statements about the
structure of the international system and the balance of power
● Social constructivism:
- An approach that has grown in importance since the 1980s. Construcutuvost
emphasizes the role of human agency and the importance of ideas in
international relations → stands in contrast to neorealists and neoliberal
theory, which focus on material power, such as military force, economic
capabilities, and interdependence
- Constucutivst argues that the international system is constituted by ideas, not
by material power
● Uneven globalization has helped create rising inequality in the world and has led to
mass migration. This has sharpened the focus on identity: who are we? And what are
our relations to other groups?
● Green theory

- Has ecology-centered though as its foundation → preservation of nature is put

before the promotion of human development
● Feminism
● Finally, it should be noted that there is vibrant debate today about world order →
wether things are getting better in the worse (are things moving backward or forward)
Criteria for good theory

● Best theory criteria:
- Coherence
- Clarity of exposition
- Unbiased
- Scope: the theory should be relevant for a large number of important issues
- Depth: the theory should be able to explain and understand as much of the
phenomenon that it wants to tackle
Chapter 3 (J, S, M): Realism

This chapter
● Takes note of an important dichotomy in realist thought between classical realism and
contemporary realism, inc strategic realsim as well as strucutral approaches
● How most contemporary realsits pursue a social scientific analysis of the structures
and processes of world politics, but they are incled to ignore norms and values
Introduction: elements of realism

● Basic realist ideas and assumptions:
- Pessimistic view of human nature
- Conviction that international relations are necessarily conflictual and that
international conflicts are ultimately resovled by force
- A high regard to the value of national security and state survival
- A basic sceptisim that there can be progress in international politics which is
comparable to that in domestic political life
● Humans are self-seeking and care about their own well-being
● Morgenthau: “poltics is a struggle for power over men, and what ever its ultimate aim
may be, power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining and
demonstrating it determine the technique of political action”
● International politics is above all; power politics (international system = anarchial)
● International relations are primarily relations of states. All other actors in world
politics are far less important/unimportant
● States are not equal! There is an international hierarchy of power among states → IR
is understood by realists as a struggle between the great powers for domination and
security. Lesser and weaker powers are of secondary importance
● The normative core of realism: national security and state survival
● Treaties and other conventions, laws, and so on are merely expedient arrangements
that can and will be set aside if they conflict with the interests of states

● Balance of power between great powers is a way of limiting war. Only when power
faces power is it possible to secure some order in the international sphere → Si vis
pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare for war)
● Social science realism, which includes strategic and structural realism as well as
neoclassical realism is basically a scientific approach
● Classical realism is the traditional approach and has a normative approach
Classical realism
● Thucydides
- IR= inevitable competition and conflict between ancient greek city-states
- All states, large and small, must adapt to that given reality of unequal power
and conduct themselves accordingly or risk destruction
- Emphasized the ethics of caution and prudence in the conduct of foreign
policy in an international world of great inequality, of restricted foreign policy
choices, and of ever-present danger as well as opportunity → foresight,
prudence, caution and judgement are the characteristic political ethics of
classical realism
- Justice is a special kind in international relations, it is not about equal
treatment of all, because states are unequal. Rather it is about recognizing your
relative strength or weakness: about knowing your prober place and about
adapting to the natural reality of unequal power
- Peloponnesian war between Sparta and Athens was inevitable because of the
growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused Sparta → the theory
of hegemonic war
- Two important claims
1. The structure of the international system affect relations between
states, inc ultimately war
2. Moral reasoning has little bearing on relations between states
● Machaivelli
- Power (lion) and deception (fox) are the two essential means for the conduct
of foreign policy
- The supreme value is natioanl liberty and poltical independence → The main
responsibility of the ruler is to always advantage and defend their state and
ensure its survival
- The rulers therefore must be a lion (ruthlessness in the pursuit of selfinterest)
but also a fox (if ruelrs are not astute, crafty, and adroit they might fail to
notice threat)
- The world is dangerous place but also a place of oppotunity (expolit the
opportunities quicker than your rival)
- The realist leader is alert to opportunities and prepared and equipped to exploit
them
- Must not operate in accordance with chritian principles
- Machiavelli rejects a system of morality

-Civic virtue: rulers have to be both lions and foxes because their people
depend upon them
● Hobbes and the security dilemma
- Pre-civil condntion as the state of nature → permanent state of war
- Hobbes believe there is an escape from the state of nature inot civilized human
condition, and that is via the creation and maintenance of a sovereign state
- Men and women paradoxically cooperate politically because of their fear of
being hurt/killed by their neighbour → driven by passion (emotion) not reason
(intelligence)
- Being secure and at peace theuy can pursue and enjoy felicity (well-being) →
however, a peaceful and civilized life can only be enjoyed within a state and it
cannot extend beyond the state or between states → simultaneously creates
another state of nature between states
- The security dilemma in world politics: the achievement of personal security
and domestic through the creation of a state is necessarily accompanied by the
condition of antioanl and international insecurity
- The main point of the international state of nature is that it is a condition of
actual potential war: there can be no permanent or guaranteed peace between
sovereing states - no interantniola peace
● They all agree on:
- Human condition is one of insecurity and conflict must be addressed and dealt
with
- There is abody of political knowledge or wisdom to deal with the problem of
security and each of them tries to find the keys to unlock it
- There is no escape from this human condition
● Morgenthay and classical realism
- Humans are by nature political animals → animus dominate (lust for power)
- Power politics
- Clearly follows Machiavelli and Hobbes → if people desire to enjoy a political
space free from the intervention or control of force, they will have to mobilize
and deploy their power for that purpose.
- Morgenthau stresses the need for a tempering balance of power among
nations, a message echoed by most later realists
- Central normative doctrine of classical realism: there is one morality for the
private sphere and another and very different morality for the public sphere →
political ethics allows some actions that would not be tolerated by private
ethics (especially during the war)
- Sacrifice a lesser good for a greater good
- Political wisdom: prudence, moderation, judgment, resolve, courage (they
recognize the tragic dimension of moral dilemmas in international politics)
- Morgenthau's six principles of political realism
1. Politics is rooted in a permanent and unchanging human nature that is
basically self-centered and self-interested

2. Politics is an autonomous sphere of action n cannot, therefore, be

reduced to morals
3. International politics is an arena of conflicting state interests
4. The ethics of ir is political or situational ethics which is very different
from private morality
5. Realists are opposed to the idea that particular nations can impose their
ideology on other nations (it is unwise)
6. Statecraft is a sober and uninspiring activity that involves a profound
awareness of human limitations and human imperfections
Schelling and strategic realism

● Since 50s and 60s new realist approaches have emerged. Many current realists hold
back from providing a normative analysis of world politics because it is deemed to be
subjective and thus unscientific (fundamental divide from classical realists)
● Strategic realism:
- Thomas Schelling
- Do not pay much attention to the normative aspect of realism
- Focuses centrally on foreign-policy decision making. When state leaders
confront basic diplomatic and military issues they are obliged to think
strategically if they hope to be successful
- Views diplomacy and foreign policy as an instrumental activity that can be
deeply understood by the application of a form of logical analysis called
“game theory” → is a solution that people tend to choose by default in the absence of
communication. people can often concert their intentions or expectations with others if
each knows that the other is trying to do the same" in a cooperative situation so their
action would converge on a focal point which has some kind of prominence compared
with the environment. However, the conspicuousness of the focal point depends on time,
place and people themselves. It may not be a definite solution.
- How to employ power intelligently → choosing between extremes is foolish
and reckless and therefore ill-advised
- Not about what is right or wrong, but about what will make the (foreign)
policy
- We need to communicate clearly → the actors involved should be acutely
aware of the dangers and opportunities
- It is the threat of damage that makes someone yield or comply (not when you
use it)
- For coercion to be effective, it requires that our internists and our opponent's
interest are not absolutely opposed → requires finding a bargain
- Strategic realism presupposes values and carries normative implications just
like classical realism, however, it does not examine them or explore them.
- Differences between Machiavelli and Schelling:

Waltz and neorealism

● Kenneth Waltz
● Seeks to provide a scientific explanation of the international political system
● He takes some elements from classical realism such as independent states operating in
a system of international anarchy. But he departs from that tradition by giving no
account to human nature and by ignoring the ethics of statecraft
● Waltz theory definition: “a theory is a picture mentally formed of a bounded realm or
domain fo activity” → theory thus constitutes its own reality, and so to think cannot
be tested against reality and thus not proven true or false.
- It can also do little to predict specific international outcomes for two reasons
1. The theory merely identifies a set of structural constraints which means
that certain actions are likely to be punished
2. Specific predictions require that some of the factors that the theory has
abstracted away from being taken into account
● Waltz on theory:
- The best IR theory is one that focuses on the structure of a system (!), on
its interacting units and on the continuities and changes of the system. In
classical realism international leaders and decisions are at the center → Waltz
calls this reductionist and instead poses what he terms a “systemic theory”
- Waltz view theory as a notion of ideal types → metal construct that recues the
observer from droinging in complex reality by simplifying it → ideal types
thus does not describe reality but abstract from it to capture the essence
● To summarize neorealism on theory: in neorealism, the structure of a system that is
external to the actors, in particular the relative distribution fo power, is the central
analytical focus!
● Waltz on states and the international system
- They are alike in all basic functioninal respects
- The state units of the international system are disniguuised primarily by their
greater or lesser capabilities for performing similar tasks → international
change - fpr instance, a change from multipolarity to bipolarity - occurs when
grat powers rise and fall and the balance of power shift accordingly
- You have great powers and lesser powers
- Bipolar system are more stable and thus provide better guarante for peace (!)
→ accorind to this view the cold war was a peaceful period

- This theory does not provide policy guidance to leaders and has little to say
about statecreaft and diplomacy
- Departs from Schelling who assumes rational behavior of statesmen and
focuses centrally on strategic choice
- Departs from calssical realsim which focuses on the polcitics and rehtics of
statecraft
● Normative aspects → Waltz operate with a concept of state sovereignty (being in a
position to decide/ independence) → each state is fomarlly equal and none is entitled
to command or obey
- Waltz: each state is formally equal (norm)
- States are worth fighting for (value)
● Criticism of Waltz
- Inability of neorealsim to explain change
- How Waltz abstracts away from reality in order to present a purely systemic
theory
● Stephen M.Walt - the level of threat that states pose to oneantoher is decided by
- Aggregated power
- Geographic proximity
- Offensive military capabilitites
- Aggressive intnetions
Mearsheimer, stability theory, and hegemony

● Neorelaism s a general theory that applies to other historical situations besides that of
the colrd war. It is relevant to multipolar situations as much as bipolar situations of
world polticis
● Mearsheimer build on Waltx argument concerning the stability of bipolar systems
compared to multipolar systems
● Three basi reasons why bipolar systems are more stable and peaceful
1. The number of great-power conflicts is fewer and that reducues the
possibilities of great-power war
2. It is easier to operate an effective system ofr deterrence becaus efewwer great
powers are involved
3. Only two poers dominate the system, this means that miscalculations and
misadventure is less likely
→ bipolar system: the two rival superpowers can keep their eye steadily ficed on each other
without the distraction and cofnuision that would occur with a larger number of great powers
● What could be expected to happen when a bipolar system is replaced by a multipolar
system? → substanially more prone to violence (compared to the era of the cold war)
● “The long peace” between 1945-1990 was due to the bipolar system
- The cold war was responsoibile for tranforming a hustoircally violent region
into a very peaceful place
● Agrees with waltz on that the behavior of states is shaped by the anarchiacl structure
→ but disagree with Waltz and what he calls defensive realism (someone who
recognizes that states seek power in order to be secure and survive, but who believes

the excessive power is counter predictive because it provokes arms build up by other
states)
● Mearsheimer argues that states seek hegemony, and that they ultimately are more
aggressive than Waltz and Walt describe
● BUT: the planet it too big for a global hegemon (the seas are too big and no state
enough power) → the solution is: regional hegemons!
- Regional hegemons can see to it that there are no similar regional hegemons in
any other part of the world
- Offensive realism: rests on the assumption that great powers are always
searching for the opppotunitnies to gain power over their rivals, with
hegemony as their final goal
- International conflict and struggle between great powers are inevitable
● He argues that US-led liberal order was bound to faul because the active attempt to
spread liberal democracy begets opposition and sometimes leds to disastrous watch
which weak theliberla hegemon
- The lofty ingernatioanl ambitions tend to overshadow or even aggravate the
pressing domestic concerns, and they terfore spark internal opposition from
citizens who feel they are footing the bill for making the world democratic
- In sum: the unversalistic liberal foreing policy is self-defeating, it creates more
problems than it solves
● Mearsheimers theory of offensive realism has met criticism
- Fail to explain peaceful change and cooperation between great powers such as
UK and US
- Virtually no examples of states conquering and annexing other states in these
days
- Does not point out empirical regularities such as how liberal democracies
almost never go to war with each other
- Fails to recognise that there are not only advantages about being the regional
hegemon → look at germany and japan
● remember!
- Waltz = Defensive realism
- Mearsheimer = Offensive realism
Neoclassical realism
● Combines the framework of neorealsim and classical realism
● IR is basically an anarchical system
● Acknowledges the importance of the structure of the international state system (waltz)
● Importance of domestic factors (classical liberalism)
● Emphasis on national and international level!
● They want to retain the structural argument of neorealism. But they also want to add
to it the instrumental argument of the role of foreign policy decision makers and to
factor in internal characteristics of state, on which classical realism places its
emphasis

● Anarchy gives states considerable latitiude in defining their security interests, and the
relative distribution of power nerely sets parameters for grand strategy, so anarchy
and the relative power of states do not dictate the specific foreing policies of state
leaders → however: leaders who consistently fails to respond to systemic incentives
put the survival of their state at risk
● Neoclassical realsits emphasize four clusters of domestic variables:
1. Strategic culture
2. The images and perceptions of foreign policy decision-makers
3. Domestic institutions
4. State-society relations
● Neoclassical realists focus on explaining what goes on in terms of the pressures of
international structure on the one hand and the decisions made by state leaders on the
other. → neoclassical realists want to introduce an element that all other realists seem
to ignore = internal characteristics of the state
● Neoclassical realism: seeks to explain why, how, and under what conditions the
internal characteristics of states - the extractive and mobilization capacity of politics -
military institution, the influence of domestic societal actors and interest groups, the
degree of state autonomy from society, and the level of elite or societal cohesion -
intervene between the leader's assessment of national threats and opportunities and the
actual diplomatic, military and foreign economic policies those leaders pursue
● Why do states fail to respond effectively to external threats? = underbalancing
(happens when there is an important division within society due to low social
cohesion or divided elites) → therefore, only when the state-society relationship is the
standard of the neorealist model of the unitary actors can we expect that external
threats lead to effective balancing
Rethinking the balance of power

● Classical balance of power: promotes security that upholds the order between nations
- EU has been able to generate perpetual peace → so the classical notion of
balance of power is not over!
● Hard balance of power: military power
● Soft balance of power: the military power of states or international org is not the main
focus, as it is for both classical realists and international society theorists → it
emphasizes tacit or informal institutional collaboration or ad hoc cooperation among
states for the purpose of joint security against a foreign threat
Research prospects and program

Integrating international and domestic factors

Article: Samuel P. Huntington - The Clash of Civilizations? (1993)
The Next Pattern of Conflict

- World politics entering a new phase - the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries
between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of
tribalism, globalism etc.
- Hypothesis: The fundamental source of conflict in the new world will not be primarily
ideological or economic
- The cultural divisions between humans are the main source of conflict and the clash of
civilisations will dominate global politics
- Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs
- Principal conflicts of global politics occur between nations and groups of different
civilisations
- Conflict between civilisations will be the latest phase of the evolution of the modern world
- For a century and a half after modern international system (with peace of Westphalia)
conflicts were mainly between monarchs
- After French Revolution nation states were created which created conflicts between nations
rather than monarchs
- 1773: “The wars of kings were over; the wars of peoples had begun”
- This pattern lasted util WW1
- Then after Russian Revolution conclit of nationals yielded conflict of ideology (communism
vs nazism)
- During the cold war - the conflict of ideolgoies became emobdied in the struggle between two
supowerpowes
- With the end of the cold war the international politics moves out of its western phase
The Nature of Civilisations:

- During cold war world was divided into 1st, 2nd and 3rd worlds
- Those dimensions no longer relevant
- More meaningful now to group countries in terms of politcal and economic system
- What do we mean when we talk of a civilization?

- Cultural entity
- Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups etc.
- Cultures greatly differ around the world
- A civilisation is the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of
cultural identity people have
- Civilisations can be large or small
- Civilisations are dynamic (they rise and fall - divide and merge)
- Civilisations disappear and are buriend in the sands of time
Why Civilizations will Clash

- Civilisation identity will be increasingly impirtant in the future
- World will be shaped in large measure by the interactions among 7 or 8 major civilisations

- Western, Confucian, japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and

possibly African
- The conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating civilizations:
Because:
1. Different civilisations have different views in relation to religion

2. The world is becoming a smaller place
3. The process of economic modernizsation and social change are separating people
from longstanding social identities - weakens the nation state source of identity
(Religion has moved in to fill this gap)
4. The growth of civilisation-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West
5. Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily
compromised and resolved rather than political and economic ones
6. Economic regionalism is increasing
- People define their identity in ethnic and religious terms

- The end of idolicially defined states in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union permits
traditional ethnic identities and animostieis to come to the force
- Differences in culture and religion create differences over policy issues - ranging from human
rights to immigration etc.
The clash of civilisations occurs at two levels:

1. Micolevel - adjacent groups along the fault lines between civilizations struggle over the
control of territory
2. Macrolevel - states from different civilizations compete for real ative miliary and economic
power, struggle over control of international instituions and third parties
The Fault Lines between Civilizations

- Fault lines between civilizations are replacing the political and ideolgoical boundries of the
Cold War
- Conflict along these fault lines occurs often
- Conflict along the line between western and islamic civilisations has been going on
for 1,300 years
- The crescent-shaped Islamic bloc, from the bulge of Africa to central Asia, has bloody
borders

Article: Why John Mearsheimer blames the U.S for the crisis in Ukraine
Mearsheimer is a famous critic of US foreign policy since the end of the cold war, known for
the book “Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”.
Mearsheimer believes in great power politics:

A school of realist international relations that assumes in a self-interested attempt to preserve
national security, states will preemptively act in anticipation of adversaries.
His key argument is that the US pushing NATO to establish relations with Ukraine increases
the likelihood of war between nuclear armed powers and laid the groundwork for Putin’s
position towards Ukraine.
-> US is at fault
The start of the Ukraine Russia situation was in 2008 at the NATO summit, where Russians
made it clear that Ukraine becoming a part of NATO would be a threat. This is because of
Ukraine expanding into a pro-American liberal democracy.
Russia’s issues are:

- EU expansion
- NATO expansion
- Turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy
Should expansion happen in a different constellation, say there were no NATO expansion or
EU expansion, Russia would most likely accept it.
Is it imperialism to tell Ukraine that they cannot decide to be a liberal democracy, and rather
that America has that power?
- Ukrainians want to be a part of Europe but must be careful with how Russia perceives
them as to not evoke an attack, hence why they may be ‘turned into a democracy’ by
America, rather than doing it by choice.
- This means that America has some sort of power over how democratic countries run their
business
- E.G, overthrew democratically elected leaders during Cold War because were unhappy
with policies; this is how great powers behave
The US and Russia should create foreign policies where they do not behave in this way.
However, doing this results in disaster.
- E.G Bush Doctrine during the unipolar movement in Iraq, stating that creating a liberal
democracy there would have a domino effect on Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Until 2014, NATO expansion and EU expansion was not aimed at containing Russia.
Ukraine, Georgia and other countries turning into liberal democracies was aimed at creating a
zone of peace throughout eastern and western Europe. However, when the crisis broke out
someone had to be blamed, and Russia took the fall, and the story of being bent on aggression
and creating a better Russia was invented.

Explained: Putin was not seen as an aggressor before February 22, 2014. The idea that he
was, was created for America to have someone to blame, and is hence America’s fault.
Regarding the current crisis – it is hard to tell what Putin’s goal is with Ukraine, but it is
likely that he is not attempting to conquer Ukraine. He also is likely interested in taking the
Donbass, as well as taking Kyiv for the purpose of regime change rather than permanently
conquering it.
Putin is not going to recreate the soviet union or try to build a greater Russia, as this image of
him being so aggressive is invented. He will not invade Baltic states as they are a part of NATO.
Russia does not have the economic might to build a really powerful military, and hence there
is no reason to fear Russia. A competitor worth fearing is China, and the policy in Eastern
Europe is undermining the ability to deal with them.
America should be
- Pivoting out of Europe to deal with China
- Creating relations with Russia
If China, Russia and the US are the three great powers, the goal for the US should be to have
Russia on their side. However, America's foreign policies in EU has caused Russia and China
to align, violating the Balance of Power Politics.
When push comes to shove, strategic decisions override moral decisions. Ideally, Ukrainians
would be free to choose their own political system and foreign policy, however this is not
feasible.
Key Points;
- great power politics: A school of realist international relations that assume in a

self-interested attempt to preserve national security, states will preemptively act in
anticipation of adversaries.
- If Russia thinks Ukraine is a threat to them because they are aligning with the US, it will
cause a large amount of damage to Ukraine, which is what is happening right now. It
would be wise for Ukraine to break off relations with the west to accommodate Russia.
- If there had been no decision to move nato eastward to include Ukraine, Crimea and the
Donbass would be part of Ukraine today, and there would be no war in Ukraine.

Week 2
Chapter 4 Liberalism (J, S, M) - Anna
Summary
● This chapter sets forth the liberal tradition in IR
● Basic assumptions are
○ A positive view of human nature
○ A conviction that IR can be cooperative rather than conflictual
○ A belief in progress
● In their conceptions, libera, theorists emphasis the different features of world politics
● Sociolical liberals
○ highlight transnational non-governmental ties between societes, such as
communication between indiviuals and groups
● Interdependce liberals
○ pay particular attention to economic ties
● Institutional liberals
○ underscore the importance of organized cooperation between states
● Republican liberals
○ Argue that liberal democratic constitutions and forms of government are of
vital importance for inducing peaceful and cooperative relations between
states
This chapter discusses these four strands of liberal thought and a debate with neoliberalism to
which it has given rise. The concluding section evaluates the prospects for the liberal
tradition as a research programme in IR.
Introduction: Basic Liberal Assumptions

● Most keenly debated issues in IR: pessimistic view of realism vs optimistic view of
liberalism
● The process of modernisation unleashed by the scientific revolution led to improved
technologies and more efficient ways of production which was reinforced by the
liberal intellectual revolution which had great faith in human reason and rationaitly
● The basis for the liberal belief in progress:
○ The modern liberal state invokes a political and economic system that will
bring, in Jeremy Bentham’s famous phrase “the greatest happiness of the
greatest number”
● Liberals convinced that rational principles can be applied in IR
● Liberals recognize that individuals are interested and competitive to a point but
believe that they share many interests and can thus engage in collaborative and
cooperative social action
● Conflict and war are not inevitable; when people mploy their reason they can achieve
mutually beneficial cooperation not only within states but also across international
borders

● The belief in progress is a core liberal assumption - but also a point of debate among
liberals
○ Progress for liberals is always progress for individuals
● The core concern for liberals is the happiness and contentment of individuals
In summary, liberal thinking is closely connected with the emergence of the modern con-
stitutional state. Liberals argue that modernization is a process involving progress in most
areas of life. The process of modernization enlarges the scope for cooperation across inter-
national boundaries. Progress means a better life for at least the majority of individuals.
Humans possess reason, and when they apply it to international affairs greater cooperation
will be the end result
Sociological Liberalism
● For realists IR is the study of relations between governments of sovereign states
● Sociological liberalism rejects this view as too narrowly focused and one-sided
● Many sociological liberals hold the idea that transnational relations between people
from different ccountries help create new forms of human society
● If we map the patterns of communication and transactions between various groups we
will get a more accurate picture of the world because it would represent actual
patterns of human behvaiour rather than artificial boundaries
● IR is not only a study of relations between national governments; IR scholars also

study relations between private indivuals, groups and societies.
● Overlapping independent relations between people are bound to be more cooperative
than relations between states because states are exclusive amd, according to
sociological liberalism, their interests do not overlap and cross-cut
● A large number of transnational networks will thus be more peaceful.
Interdependence Liberalism
● Interdependence = mutual dependence
● Interdependence liberals are more balanced in their approach than some other liberals
for whom everything has changed for the better and the old world of violent conflict
etc. is gone forever

● In adopting this middle-of-the-road position interdependence liberals face the problem

of ddeciding exactly how much has changed, how much remains the same, and what
the implications are for IR
● Modernisation increases the level ans scope of interdependence between states
● Under complex interdependence, transnational actors are increasingly important,
military force is less useful instrument, and welfare-not security- is becoming the
primary goal and concern of states. That means a world of more cooperative
international relations.
Commonality: the degree to which expectations about appropriate behaviour and

understanding about how to interpret action are shared by participants in the system
Specificity: the degree to which these expectations are clearly specified in the form of rules
Autonomy: the extent to which the institution can alter its own rules rather than depending
on outside agents
Institutional Liberalism
● This strand of liberalism picks up on earlier liberal thought about the beneficial
effects of international institutions
● The role of institutions:

○ Provide a flow of information and opportunities to negotiate
○ Enhance the ability of governments to monitor others compliance and to
implement their own commitments – hence their ability to make credible
commitments in the first place
○ Strengthen prevailing expectations about the solidity of international
agreements
● Transnational conflicts and international institutions:

○ International institutions are overtaxed in a double sense:
○ Their basis of legitimacy is too small for the responsibilities they need to carry
out
○ International institutions are too weak, for example, to regulate international
financial markets or to effectively combat climate change and its impacts.
● International institutions help promote cooperation between states and thereby help
alleviate the lack of trust between states and states’ fear of each other which are
traditional problems associated with international anarchy
● The positive role of international institutions for advancing cooperation between
states continues to be questioned by realists.

Republican Liberalism
● Is built on the claim that liberal democracies are more peaceful and law-abiding than
other political system
● Republican liberalism has the strongest normative element
● For most republican liberals there is not only confidence but also hope that world
politics is already developing and will develop far beyond rivalry
● Democracies do not go to war against each other owing to their domestic culture of
peaceful conflict resolution, their common moral values and their mutually beneficial
ties of economic cooperation and interdependence
● These are the foundation stones upon which their peaceful relations are based
● For these reasons an entire world of consolidated liberal democracies could be
expected to be a peaceful world
● Neorealist Critiques of Liberalism

○ Liberalism’s main contender is neorealism
○ A main point in the debate between liberals and realists is “human nature”
○ Classical realists have a non-progressive view of history
Key Points of Chapter

● The theoretical point of departure for liberalism is the individual. Individuals plus various
collectivities of individuals are the focus of analysis; first and foremost states, but also
corporations, organizations, and associations of all kinds. Liberals maintain that not only
conflict but also cooperation can shape international affairs.
● Liberals are basically optimistic: when humans employ their reason they can arrive at
mutually beneficial cooperation. They can put an end to war. Liberal optimism is closely
connected with the rise of the modern state. Modernization means progress in most areas of
human life, including international relations.
● Liberal arguments for more cooperative international relations are divided into four differ-
ent strands: sociological liberalism, interdependence liberalism, institutional liberalism, and
republican liberalism.
● Sociological liberalism: IR not only studies relations between governments; it also studies
relations between private individuals, groups, and societies. Relations between people are
more cooperative than relations between governments. A world with a large number of
transnational networks will be more peaceful.
● Interdependence liberalism: modernization increases the level of interdependence between

states. Transnational actors are increasingly important, military force is a less useful
instrument, and welfare, not security, is the dominant goal of states. That ‘complex
interdependence’ signifies a world of more cooperative international relations.

● Institutional liberalism: international institutions promote cooperation between states.

Institutions alleviate problems concerning lack of trust between states and they reduce states’
fear of each other.
● Republican liberalism: democracies do not go to war against each other. That is due to
their domestic culture of peaceful conflict resolution, to their common moral values, and to
their mutually beneficial ties of economic cooperation and interdependence.
● Neorealists are critical of the liberal view. They argue that anarchy cannot be eclipsed and
therefore that liberal optimism is not warranted. As long as anarchy prevails, there is no
escape from self-help and the security dilemma.
● Liberals react differently to these neorealist objections. One group of ‘weak liberals’
accepts several neorealist claims. Another group, ‘strong liberals’, maintains that the world is
changing in fundamental ways that are in line with liberal expectations. Anarchy does not
have the exclusively negative consequences that neorealists claim: there can be positive
anarchy that involves secure peace between consolidated liberal democracies.
Chapter 7 ( (J, S, M)
(Yvonne)
Global Europe: Holman (p. 21-43) - Guro

Introduction
● The first trip after Trumps inauguration fits into a pattern: Trump seems to want to put
an end to the legacy of his predecessor in terms of both foreing and domestic policies
- Withdraw from the paris agreement
- Recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
- Confrontation of North Korea
- Calling african countries “shit countries”
➔ Trumps coming and goings illustrate the reach and influence of a
global player synch as the UD, the kind of impact a change of course
in a global players external relations has, and the extent to which a
global players foreing economic and political-military interests are
inextricably intertwined
● The question of whether the 28 current states of the EU are capable of developing
such a capacity of multitasking - with or without brexit - and if this “would be” role as
a global player should be given concrete form
A brief history of the EU's external relations

● Start of EU (views on caesura)
- Treaty of Lisbon 2009
- Maastricht treaty 1993 (Common Foreing and Security Policy “CFSP”)
- Treaty of Rome 1950s

- Germany´s ambition with respect to Eastern Europe were imbedded in a new

mechanism called European Political Cooperation (EPC) - the first step of
which was taken during the European summit in the Hague in 1969
➔ If we conclude in our analysis what is officially called external relations, the
external dimensions of internal policy, the CFSP, CSDP, and althoug not
prominently, the external relations of individual EU memeber states, then we
would have to conclude that instead of sudden changes brough on by specific
events and treaties, what we really have is a continuous movement
● EU has become a hybrid, polycentric entity
● Nonetheless, this book does make use of a caesura: 1980s - beginning 1990s
- Economic integration
- Not only free movement of goods, but free movement of people → made legal
under the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice
- A single currency (EMY)
- Maastricht treaty → the Common Foreing and Security Policy (this cannot be
seen in isolation from what was going on in eastern and central europe)
- Period between 1985-1993 is called the period of extended relaunch
(considered a break with the past)
● Treaty of Lisbon 2009
- Was the next drastic change
- Created a new permanent post of president of the European Council (rotating
presidency)
- The need for an integrated and more consistent approach to external relations
was recognised → EU had to cooperate across horizontal and vertical domains
● EU´s total budget is disproportionate with expenditures that fall under internal policy
areas such as structural policy and agricultural policy
- Bear in mind that the US federal budget as a percentage of GDP is far larger
than the EU budget
Approaches within the field of IR

● Mark Pollack contends that theorisation within the field of IR and European
integration studies have moved towards each other and he identifies the
above-mentioned extended relaunch as the tipping point
● Although the EU does not qualify as a sovereign state, these insights will give us a
better understanding of the possibilities and limits of the EU as an effective global
player
● Neorealism:
- Course of the 20th century
- Hobbes, machiavelli, Thucydides
- The “neo” in realism refers primarily to the scientification of what was
originally a political-philosophical current under the influence of
behaviourism in political science
- Tied to state-centric thinking

- Since the Peace of Westphalia 1648 → states have been the only relevant
actors in the international system, a conclusion that is also fostered by the
assumption that states exercise monopoly over formal violence and thus have
the exclusive right to wage war → anarchy because there is no overarching
authority
- The most important tasks of the state: national security, protect its citizens,
defend its territorial integrity
- Security dilemma: to protect its citizens and its own territory, a state must
develop capabilities that deter other states to a sufficient degree → arms race
- The realists came with the solution that does not lead to a permanent state of
conflict: balance of power
- This means that states will forge coalitions to prevent a third state from
believing it can act as primus inter pares (first among equals)
- Key words: permanent competition, struggle for power, political-military
power
- Competition → Gives rise to copycat behaviour
- The concept of national interest
- Cooperation between states is only an option if there is an external threat (cold
war) or when states can be kept in line by a hegemon (Bretton Woods system)
→ mutual mistrust and diverging interest will surface time and again
● Neoliberalism:
- Stress cooperation rather than conflict
- The world is of complex interdependence: states as well as actors within states
are increasingly dependent on each other as a result of transnational trade and
investment flows → transactions between states should be deregulated →
which means that supranational regulations must take place (international
organisations such as WTO and IMF)
- International organisations take the form of quasi-state structures
- It is in states mutual interest to cooperate: economic development makes
democratisation possible and democratisation facilitates international
cooperation
- Faith in progress, in cooperation between states, in transnational contracts
between non-state actors and in integration → we can learn from past mistakes
and history
- Resolve the permanent state of anarchy by giving international organisations a
role in the regulation of interdependence and market integration
● Both the two approaches have one important aspect in common
- They both assume that states act rationally and make rational decisions
- Selfish motives based on self-interest
- Schematically, neorealists are focused on political-military power and
territorial integrity (power), while neoliberals are more on economic gain via
cooperation (prosperity)
- The one focuses on national sovereignty and stateness, and the other on
interdependence and market integration (without state building)

European integration theories

● We have up until not seen that realism is a theory of non-integration and has over the
years failed to offer a plausible theoretical analysis of European integration
● Neoliberal scholars generally limit themselves to an analysis of economic cooperation
and integration, excluding foreing and security policy from their analysis
● Liberlal intergovernmentalism
- Andrew Moravcsik “The choice for Europe” 1998 (important book for liberal
intergovernmentalism)
- The playing field is pluralistic: that is, various groups can lobby for
issue-specific interests. It is curricula to add that Moravcik is referring here to
economic issues/interests
- Due to economic interconnectedness national economies begin to look more
like each other
- LI is a theory built on three steps (each step is a phase in European
integration)
1. Establishment of National preferences (formed as a result of input
from civil society)
2. The phase of interstate negotiations (Moravcsik owes much to the
two-level game analysis of Putnam. → domestic negotiations, as well
as negotiations with other countries, take place → inextricably lined →
the negotiator operating on behalf of a state does so on the basis of a
national coalition of relevant stakeholders → an agreement between
states can only be reached when they manage to win domestic approval
→ the state remains the most important actor)
3. Making credible agreements/credible commitments (the agreements
must adhere to government, but also future governments! → For
example, the European Court of Justice is an institution made for
safeguarding the system of credible commitments)
- The playing field is pluralistic: that is, various groups can lobby for
issue-specific interests. It is curricula to add that Moravcik is referring here to
economic issues/interest
- Due to economic interconnectedness national economies begin to look more
like each other → national interests naturally being to converge as well
- Moravsik critics neoliberalism by stating that international organizations have
no further role than being a monitor, and sometimes they are
counterproductive
● Neofunctionalism
- Intergovernmentalism is diametrically opposed to supranationalism and
implies that the EU is an interstate confederation of sovereign entities with no
place for higher authorities
- The most important counterpart to intergovernmentalism has traditionally been
neo-functionalism

- Neofunctionalism assign an added value to European institutions in their role

as initiators. The notion of spillover plays a crucial role in this theory → the
concept can be broken down into different subcategories
1. Functional spillover (the word functional here best understood as
pertaining to a particular policy domain or to a part of a policy domain.
This means that an initially restricted, sector by sector step in the
direction of integration almost automatically leads to the need to
decide on integrative steps in other policy arenas → example: Europe
´92 ambition and “one market, one currency!”)
2. Political spillover (European integration has evolved considerably in
the last 60 years and the Europan institutions have played an
increasingly important role in that process)
- Ernst Haas is the founder of neo-functionalism, and defined
integration as a process “whereby political actors in several
distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties,
expectations, and political activities towards a new centre,
whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the
pre-existing national states”
3. Geographic spillover (refers to the allure of a successful integration
project between two or more countries on geographically adjacent
countries that at first see little point in participating, or do not (yet)
meet the requirements for joining, but after a while want to take part →
, for example, Sweden after the Cold War or “the big bang” of eastern
European countries that joined after the soviet union dissolved.)
Institutionalism
● Neofunctionalism ascribes much value to the role of transnational or supranational
institutions. While Moravcis (Liberal intergovernmentalism) refers to European
institutions as watchdogs.
● Hall and Taylor distinguish three approaches within new institutionalism
1. Historical institutionalism (Paul Pierson)
- Notion of unintended consequences → certain decisions taken place in
the past might have consequences in a later period that were not
foreseen at the time of decision-making
- This approach thus confers the same initial value to institutions as LI
does but give a more dynamic analysis of what can happen afterwards
2. Rational choice institutionalism
- Actors have a fixed, exogenously determined set of preferences that
they try to realise instrumentally → key element: strategic calculation
- The analysis of institutions has a heavily instrumental character:
institutions are established in order to get the most benefit out of
cooperation at the lowest transactional cost
3. Sociological institutionalism (SI)
- Broder perspective on institutions: material interests and preferences
are less crucial and are in any case not exogenously determined

- Understands institutions and institutes not only as formal byt also as

informal (implicit) values and norms
- Not only why are institutions set up; what is important is what form
and substance they have and norms they disseminate
Social constructivism
● Concepts such as history, ideas, norms and values an identity are key to this approach
● International politics - and therefore European politics - must be interpreted in more
than just material terms
● Ideas are made up in the mind (constructed) → “Anarchy is what states make of it” -
Alexander Wendt
● A constuctivist focuses on social interacion, for example betweens states. Though,
interaction on the basis of shared values and norms
● States can adjust because national preferences constructed and therefore susceptible to
change (decostruction is an option)
● State and non-state actors construct each other through their cross-border relations
and thus contribute to the further construction of the EU
International Political Economy/critical approaches

● Proponents of critical political economy (CPE) disagree with the positive-sum
assumption of neoliberalism. → economic cooperation of integrations does not
necessarily benefit all participating parties → trade liberalisation will lead to both
winners and losers → also CPE is critical about the rigid zero-sum approach of
neorealism
● What is considered by realists to be the general or national interest does not exist in
reality → behind the facade of the nation-state, there are special interests that are
represented by societal forces whose relationships are in turn hierarchical
● This has consequences for the assumption that states are rational actors, an
assumption that is shared by both realsits and neoliberals
● The national and general interest, dos not exist, and as a consequences the rational
choices does not exist either; there are always particular interests involved that, in
order to be successfully represented, must be formulated as the general interest
● What is most important here is simply to note that both power an welfare are
unequally distributed both within countries and between countries: this is, as it were, a
transhistorical reality
● CPE gives institutions an important autonomous role but always in conjunction with
aspects of power and welfare distribution
● Decision-making takes place at various levels, with institutions (at subnational,
national, or supranational level) functions as independent variables for integration
● The book refers to the practise of multi-level governance: we can conclude that some
policy areas have been effectively transferred to the European level (eurozone) while
other areas are considered t be the ecøusive competence of national governments
(social policies)
● CPE as an approach is its emphasis on transnational processes

- Particularly within the eEU

- Many examples of NGOs in the field of development cooperation (also unios,
environmental groups) who have been combining forces = political spillover
Article: Taylor (Dutch Republic)
Week 3
Global Europe Chapter 2 – Foreign policy theories and the external relations of the
European Union – Anna
The study of foreign policy
● Rational Choice Theory

○ Neoliberalism and neorealism start from the primacy of the national interest
and take a state-centric perspective
○ All possible criticisms of RCT approaches apply to the EU
■ The national state cannot be regarded as a unitary actor
■ The assumption or rational behaviour among decision-makers is based
on the optimal acquisition of knowledge, which is difficult to realise
even in coherent national decision-making centres
■ Psychological factors and cognitive limitations can influence the
actions of decision makers
■ Crises represent another challenge
● Bureaucratic Politics Approach
○ Important step beyond the view of sovereign states as unitary actors
○ An essential element is the assumption that foreign policy in the preparatory,
decision-making, and implementation phases is partly determined by
non-elected civil servants or public and semi-public officials
Actors playing a role in the development of the EU’s external relations
State Actors Non-state Actors
Subnational Cities Civil society actors (local)

Regions/Provinces Political parties (local
National Member states Civil society actors

(national)
Political parties (national)

Intergovernmental European Council -

Council of Ministers
High representative of CFSP
Supranational European Commission -

European parliament
High representative/ VP
European external action
service
European court of justice
Transnational Public sector bodies Business

Committees Trade unions
NGOs
European political parties
(EP)
Lobby groups
Table 2.1 gives an overview of the most relevant state and non-state actors at four different
levels (a distinction is made between national and intergovernmental, but in fact this amounts
to one and the same decision-making level).
Article Buzan and Lawson - Anna

Global turbulence
● General agreement that the world is changing
● Power shift from West to East
○ US and China
● Transition from an era of bipolarity to unipolairty, multi or non-plolarity
● Globalisation, US militarism, dynamics of revolution and counter-revolution, finance capital,
climate change, the rise of non-state actors, new security threats, disclocating effects of
information and communication tech
● We argue that the problem with many of these analyses is that they eiter give only a weak
account of how the contemporary international order came into being or irgmore this process
altogether
Mapping ideal types of capitalist governance

Hobsbawn chapter
Global Europe chapter 6
1) Holman: Chapter 6
● The policy and ideological shift from Keynesianism to neoliberalism and the
transition from a bipolar confrontation towards a multipolar and international state
system characterised by complex interdependency, led to a significant change in most
policy domains related to the EU’s external relations.
● Holman argues that 1) the neoliberal shift in EU member states and 2) the relaunch of
the integration process (by completion of the internal market and establishment of the
EMU) were inextricably linked to each other. Also argues that both are at the root of
growing socioeconomic inequality as well as rising social discontent in the EU.
● The Pax Americana was the logical consequence of the decisive role that the US played in
the Allied victory over Hitler’s Germany. It gave the US a political and moral leverage over
the political leaders and populations of the countries freed by American troops. American
hegemony was based on two building blocks: an economic and a political-military one.
Roosevelt’s New Deal and the change in microeconomics had a lot of consequence on how
the XXth century became the American one.
● The Marshall Plan and NATO seems to be two political-military pillars under American
hegemony. The NATO was supposed to offer a “security community”: a political community
of states that was established for peaceful change, based on a sense of community and
institutions and practices that were strong enough to guarantee its population long-lasting and
dependable expectations of peaceful change. The trans-Atlantic integration within Pax
Americana was an example of this type of security community.
● Coming “primus inter pares” means having hegemonic power that determines the rules of the
game in consultation with the other states. It was the case of the US after WWII for example.
At the time, it was trying to solve the free riding problem. Both political-military leadership
and economic processes are needed for hegemonic powers.
● Despite the overwhelming power of the US, the countries within the American sphere of
influence retained their own identity and pursued their national interests as far as possible
● Between the 1980es and the 1990es, there was a transition from Keynesianism to
neoliberalism, due to many elements, such as enlightened self-interest becoming the main
motive.
● In neoliberalism, governments withdraw from the welfare state and are less involves in areas
such as entrepreneurship, deregulation and liberalisation. Privatisation of state functions in the
economy has altered the balance between states and markets, which is one of the many
features of neoliberalism. There was also a shift in decision-making from the national to the

sub-national and supranational level. One last feature that can be mentioned is the
erosion of democracy and the deterioration of social cohesion.
● The decision to complete the internal market, taken in 1985, arose from the crisis of
the 1970es and the American policy aimed at improving competitiveness (which
challenged European economic and political elites to copy this policy). However, this
has led to asymmetrical regulation within the EU, even if it was lightly the case before
that (through the monetary union for example).
● Three mechanisms/policy options remained possible for the Eurozone to assess this
asymmetrical regulation: austerity measures, regime competition and micro-economic
structural adjustments on the supply side (flexibilization and reform of the labour
market).
● Security is perceived as the absence of threats. This individualisation of security
resonates with the concept of societal security: the ability of a society to persist in its
essential character under changing conditions and possible/actual threats.
Securitisation has become the process of transforming subjects into matters of
security.
- Here are the different capacities and policy means that the EU possesses in terms
of security and defence policy:
● Military capabilities to defend its own territory
● Military capacity to carry out military operations outside its own territory to bring
largescale violations of human rights to a halt and to bring regime changes
● Military, logistical and financial means to carry out military and civilian peacekeeping
operations in conflict and war zones outside the territory of its member states
● Material and immaterial capabilities and policy instruments to settle current and
future conflicts with third countries
- The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is the EU security policy; the
third element of the aforementioned list belongs to it. It was introduced in the
post Cole War EU organisation, and four reasons explain its launch:
1) The end of the Cold War and the corresponding change in the American attitude
towards Europe
2) The change in opinion about the desirability of military interventions in the

domestic affairs of a sovereign state
3) The war in the former Yugoslavia

4) Internal factor: the EU wanted to be a single market and currency but also to play a
role as a political actor (functional spill over)
Defence spending and numbers:
- The US accounted for 35% of total global defence spending in 2017 (610 billion of
dollars) -
- France, GB, Germany and Italy are the countries with the highest expenditures within
NATO, after the US
- The total military expenditure of the 29 NATO members amounted to 900 billion of
dollars
- While Russian’s expenditure decreased between 2016 and 2017, the one of Europe
rose
- Total global defence expenditure amounted to 2.2% of total global gross domestic
product.
Four reasons why the EU launched security initiatives since 2013:
1. The changing relationship with the US

2. A different view of the use of military means has emerged
3. The period of increased activity coincides with the end of the dramatic euro crisis of
2008-2013
4. Actors such as the European Commission and the defence industry have played a role
as well
- So, in conclusion, the changes in US foreign policy have led to the end of the period
of hegemonic stability, which has then allowed the EU to reflect on the consequences
of those changes, implementing the CSDP. Since then, there’s been a movement
towards enhanced cooperation in the field of defence.
Mead article - Anna
Stages of Capitalism:
Early Capitalism - during feudal time and affected merchants + producers
Victorian Capitalism - With Industrial Revolution - Brutal factory life, state regulations barely present
- think Oliver twist
Fordian Capitalism - More gentle and regulated than the one before - Destroyed by reagan and
thatcher first in a conscious manner
New System of Capitalism = sometimes called Millennial capitalism - some consider higher
technology/innovation others consider it more unequal.

Millennial Capitalism:
Old economic institutions such as labor unions etc are seen as impediments instead of help as they did
before. Globalization plays a big role in the break down of fordian capitalism as well
It is more than deregulation but also reconstruction of new systems to replace the old. The role of
regulation is to protect the existence and efficiency of markets in order to allow wider access to their
benefits. For example Where Fordism tried to prevent monopoly with preventative regulations,
Millennial capitalism does so by trying to breed competition.
Though national regulations may lower, international regulations are on the rise. Free-trade
agreements are much more than trade agreements; they create new transnational forms of regulation
and justice.
It is partially driven by the shrunken population growth which means we need to adapt as the old
models of welfare for example are no longer tenable. One can consider Millenial capitalism to by the
natural outgrowth of fordian capitalism. As there is more money to spend, the basic needs are
satisfied, people start buying items to express cultural preferences etc and this falls out of the fordian
framework.
As the US moved from Fordism to millennialism, both its government policyThe shift away
fromFordism has much greater implications for world politics and,especially, for America's
Hegemonic power than we often realize.Summer and, perhaps more importantly, its corporations and
investors exerted increasing pressure on the world to move toward millennialism. This caused a
conflict between the cosmopolitan capital of global millennial capitalism and the national capital of
countries.
The shift away from Fordism is hated by 3 groups:

The government and the ruling elites around them
Globalization:
It is not the same thing as Millennial Capitalism but is closely related.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Stuvia 2320572 International Relations Assigned Readings Part 1 Ir

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stuvia 2320572 International Relations Assigned Readings Part 1 Ir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Relations: Assigned

readings part 1 (IR)

Gedownload door: marcuspoelstra | Marcus.poelstra@outlook.com € 912 per jaar

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS - ASSIGNED READING NOTES

Three main topics of chapter:

International Relations in Everyday Life

- Can be both a theoretical subject and practical policy

Gedownload door: marcuspoelstra | Marcus.poelstra@outlook.com € 912 per jaar

- To understand the significance of IR it is necessary to understand what living in sates involves

Gedownload door: marcuspoelstra | Marcus.poelstra@outlook.com € 912 per jaar

Order and Justice:

Socioeconomic wealth and welfare:

Moments that heightened awareness for these major values:

Gedownload door: marcuspoelstra | Marcus.poelstra@outlook.com € 912 per jaar

Gedownload door: marcuspoelstra | Marcus.poelstra@outlook.com € 912 per jaar

International Society Order and Justice

IPE theories Welfare

Traditional View Alternative or Revisionist View

Brief Historical Sketch of the State System

The Roman Empire

Gedownload door: marcuspoelstra | Marcus.poelstra@outlook.com € 912 per jaar

City-states and Empires

200 BCE – AD 500 Roman Empire

306 – 1453 Orthodox Christianity: Byzantine Empire, Constantinople

500 - 1500 Catholic Christendom: The Pope in Rome

1299 – 1923 Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, Istanbul (Constantinople)

Other Persia, India (Mongul), China

- Different aspects of IR emphasized by realism and liberalism

The Christian commonwealth of medieval Europe

Religious Hierarchy Political Hierarchy Centralized modern

Pope = Emperor = Government

Archbishops, bishops and Kings and other

Priests and other common Barons and other

Ordinary Christians = Common people of People

- There was no distinction between civil war and international war

Gedownload door: marcuspoelstra | Marcus.poelstra@outlook.com € 912 per jaar

What did the political change from medieval to modern involve?

Power and authority were concentrated at one point:

The Thirty Years War 1618-48

- Europe was fighting its first continental war.

The Peace of Westphalia 1648

Gedownload door: marcuspoelstra | Marcus.poelstra@outlook.com € 912 per jaar

- This traditional/classical view has been questioned by a revisionist view

o The story of Westphalia is a historical myth created by IR scholars who wanted to

The Global State System and the World Economy

Gedownload door: marcuspoelstra | Marcus.poelstra@outlook.com € 912 per jaar

1. European states made expedient alliances with non-European political systems—such as

Global Expansion of the State System

1700s North America (Western system)

1800s South America, Ottoman Empire, Japan (globalizing system)

1990s Asia, Africa, Caribbean, Pacific (global system)

IR and the Changing Contemporary World of States

The state as a country: Actual, empirical statehood:

Gedownload door: marcuspoelstra | Marcus.poelstra@outlook.com € 912 per jaar

Territory, government, society Legal, juridical statehood

Recognition by other states Political institutions, economic basis, national

Strong/weak states – strong/weak powers

Strong State USA, China, France, UK, Denmark, Switzerland, New

Weak State Russia, Pakistan Somalia, Liberia, Chad etc.

Insiders and outsiders in the state system

Gedownload door: marcuspoelstra | Marcus.poelstra@outlook.com € 912 per jaar

Gedownload door: marcuspoelstra | Marcus.poelstra@outlook.com € 912 per jaar

Chapter 2 (J, S, M): IR as an academic subject

Utopian liberalism: the early study of IR