IR and Theory

– Freedom of individual
• A reasoned account about what (international) life is about; • Freedom from domination
• We tend to forget that what we are told is only one representation of reality; • Freedom to act without hindrance
• Allows to understand systems of representation • Equality before the law
• Rule of law; constitutionalism
How Do IR Theories Differ? – Normative driving force: to realise lib. Values worldwide
1) The level of analysis; – Working for a world as it should be

2) The pu pose of so ial i ui p o le -sol i g , o ati e o iti al theo ;

Liberalism: Two Classic Statements
3) The appropriate methodology;
• Thomas Paine and The Rights of Man, Opposition of monarchical rule, promoter of

AN
4) Extent to which IR is distinct from or related to other disciplines international understanding and peace through freedom of commerce;
5) The state of nature • Ka t s T eatise o Pe petual Pea e: epu li a i stitutio s o stitutio alis , separation of
power, commerce, peace as a categorical imperative, need of a confederation;

KH
The Enlightenment • These provocative/ revolutionary ideas still shape policy-making today
• Core ideas of international liberalism from 18th C.;
Liberal Internationalism after the Great War
• A ode p oje t to u o e politi al t uth, do i ate atu e th ough s ie e a d ealise
• Draws on Enlightenment schemes
the ideal society
• A better thought-out system would avoid war (war as irrational)

D
The Enlightenment: Philosophy & Ideas Liberal Institutionalism (20s)

EE
• P og ess, atio al hu a ki d, a d u i e sal t uths i theo a d ethod; • WW1  How to guarantee that it will not happen again?
• Reason (science, education, secularism, civilisation and freedom); • Belief that in democracies people will reject war;
• HN is essentially benign; • Cooperation in international institutions (LoN)

AM
• Opti isti elief i the pe fe ti ilit of Ma a d so iet
Peace through Law
• Wood o Wilso s Fou tee Poi ts spee h Ja
The Enlightenment: Socio-Political Ideas – Transparent communication and consent
• Ratio al u de sta di g ealisi g the good life  utility, duty, disarmament, peace); – National self-determination

H
• Civilisation v. Barbarism – Free trade
• Harmony of interests; • Collective security

I
• War as a matter of conditions, not of human nature; it is caused by misunderstandings and – against balance of power
AL
– o e fo all a d all fo o e
aggressiveness of despots;
– do esti a alog
• Cobden and the phantasm (irrationality) of the B.o.P.
– International organisations (the League of Nations)
Liberalism
BY

The Enlightenment: Emancipation through the Economy • Belief that a dut e ists to sp ead these t uths a d alues u i e sall …
• Ada S ith s i isi le ha d; • Hea J.F. Ke ed : We ill pa a p i e, ea a u de , eet a ha dship, suppo t a
• J.S. Mill: the economic advantages of international commerce (trade); friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival of the success of li e t
• Commerce will render war obsolete, an idea that was discredited by WWI
Liberalism Today; Democratic Peace Thesis
• Liberal principles very much alive today, although new shades and pastels;
LIBERALISM
• Viewed as the most reliable means of securing peace;
• De o a ies ill al a s esol e diffe e es et ee peoples pea efull
Core Liberal Values and Premises
Theory or Politics?

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

 • Mi hael Do le s de o ati pea e theo  Democratic peace theory – peace depends on whether governments of major powers are
• Li e al de o a ies do t fight a s agai st ea h othe democracies
• War is legitimate against illiberal states  Security community – coalition of liberal democracies
• De o a ies do ot eed the a ge a d the adi alis that d ag do hole  Democracies do not go to war against each other Russett 1993
societies or expo t iole e R. Che e ;  Explanations for democratic peace:
• However, this democracy/ non-democracy dichotomy may hide issues of greater salience 1. De o a ies a e o itted to the p i ipal of esol i g politi al diffe e es o -
violently, and they adhere to this in their relations with other democracies no less than
The End of History i i te atio al poli ies
• Francis Fukuyama: The triumph of liberal democracy or American democracy - The West 2. Public, who would bear cost, is unwilling to support war against another democracy

AN
won the battle for the hearts and minds Institutionalism
• Some remain mired in history  Impressed by the increasing prominence of international institutions
• O goi g elief that the i te ests of all peoples a e ha o ious a d that, gi e the ha e…  Concerned with questions such as
• Post-CW NWO fuelled by liberal norms and values o What are their principle functions?

KH
o What determines their effectiveness?
Liberalism in the 21st Century: Expanding the Area of Peace? o Ho do the atte i.e. a e the o e tha just o e ie t ehi les fo the
• The Washington Consensus; exercise of power by their strongest members?)
• Overestimates cooperation and progress?  International institutions contribute indirectly to goal of promoting peace by fostering habits
• Militant Idealism of the neo- o se ati es Missio a ies i oots ;

D
of cooperation and a sense of shared interests
• I a a d e pa di g the a ea of f eedo to the G eate Middle East ;  Institutional theorists focus on information, norms and conventions as fundamental aspects
• I te atio al i stitutio s a d à la a te ultilate alis

EE
of IR
 Institutions make for a more predictable, cooperative and thus peaceful environment
Liberalism; Some Discontent
 Peacekeeping
• Unfair effects of free trade (globalisation) (A. Sen), Yachts versus row-boats;
 o ti ui g ele a e of a ea lie fo of li e al i stitutio alis a e see i the o t ast
• Liberal theories have a Western centric feel about them

AM
between the national consensus supporting the UN sanctioned Gulf War (1991) as against
the divisiveness of the 2003 invasion of Iraq which la ked the e do se e t of the UN
Some Conclusions
• Liberal theories focus on possibilities for peace, cooperation and progress in IS;
REALISM
• Rationality, individualism, freedom, tolerance and individual rights;

H
• Can be very aggressive
The Rise of Realism (Late 30s)
• The dogs of war reappear;

I
Liberalism – Text Book
• Liberal ought versus Realist is;
AL
 Modern philosophy of West
• The expectation that states would act for the collective interest was contradicted by events;
 Constitutionalism and democracy • Doubt that reason can deliver moral progress
 Democratisation, economic, interdependence, institutionalism
 Free trade, arms, reductions, adherence to international law Realism Takes Root
BY

IR Theory • E.H. Ca s ; the sea h fo i te atio al oope atio led o he e;

 Normative rather than empirical • Needs a politics of pursuing national power to oppose Hitler;
 Examines what is desirable or obligatory – what should be pursued, what norms should be • Reje tio of utopia is
accepted as binding • Rousseau s Stag Hu t
 Empirical: based on facts. What is the case?
Empirical Theory Edward H. Carr
 3 most prominent empirical things concerned with democracy, international institutions and • Moral scepticism:
interdependence • Rejection of universal ethical standards;
• Morality is relative and a product of power;

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

 • Critique of harmony of interests • Key to explain central problem to IP: the anarchical structure of the system;
• Law of the jungle  distribution of capabilities;
Realism - Basic Premises • States are security-maximisers, not power-maximisers
• Realism became a dominant proposition;
• Portrayed societies as struggling for survival; Neo-Realism – Key Components
• Human nature seen as competitive; • no trust is possible
• I.P. is a struggle for power • … Wa o u s e ause the e is othi g to p e e t it. A o g states as a o g e the e is
• States pursue self-interest & survival; no automatic adjustment of interests. In the absence of a supreme authority, there is then
• Power as central determinant (esp. military power); o sta t possi ilit that o fli ts ill e settled fo e .
• Self-help ea s i easi g o e s po e

AN
Neo-Realism - Three Characteristics of the Structure of the International System
Premise: Preserving the Status Quo 1. The ordering principle
• Realism in other words seeks 2. Character of the units

– to avoid war
– To contain revisionist powers
– To preserve order
• BUT… a s a es & the se u it dile
KH
3. The distribution of capabilities
• For a theory to be s ste i , all th ee ust e defi ed ithout efe e e to the u its
(states a e la k o es
a
Neo-Realism - Polarity Determines Behaviour

D
The Question of Anarchy • i.e. the number of poles
• The state of nature; • Multipolarity: Unstable balances;

EE
• Theories offer ways to tame the problem and the effects of anarchy • Unipolarity: Dangerous as great powers will rise;
• Anarchy is particularly important to those who give it importance • Bipolarity: The most stable
• Anarchy as basic framework  self-help

Thomas Hobbes
• A a h as the a se e of a o
• States a e aste less e ;
• Poor, nasty, brutish and short;
AM
Neo-Realism
• Pa si o ;
o po e to keep e i a e ; • Refi es thi d i age a al sis the s ste i ;
• Traditional theorists unable to recognise system, because they only looked at the behaviour

H
of the parts;
• Permanent state of insecurity and war  leads people to fear the worst and to act • U it-le el theo ies a e edu tio ist , as the do not study the impact of the system
accordingly;

I
Relative v. Absolute Gains
AL
Thucydides • Assuming Oz. and Indonesia are to choose between two models of cooperation, which
• The Melian Dialogue ~ 400BC; would you recommend?
• Insecurity of the international environment  obligation of self-defence; • Case One: Oz economy grows by 6% per year and Indonesia by 8% per year over ten years;
• The growth of Athenian power compelled the Spartans to war; • Case Two: Oz e o o g o s % pe ea a d I do esia s % i the sa e pe iod
BY

• The st o g do hat the ha e the po e to do, the eak suffe hat the ust
World Reality as Represented by Liberal Internationalists
Hans Morgenthau 1) Anarchical world;
1948 Politics among Nations 2) Survival imperative;
• Universal moral principles cannot be applied to the action of states; 3) Benevolent Human nature;
• Human nature dictates power politics, that is reality; 4) International institutions;
• I.P., like all politi s, is a st uggle fo po e 5) Cooperation is possible (absolute gains socialises participants);
• Fixed national interest 6) Security dilemma contained by collective security

Kenneth Waltz and Neo-Realism Theory of I.P 1979 Reality as Represented by Neo-Realists

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

 1) Polarity in an anarchical world explains everything; Classical Realism
2) Security imperative;  Emerged in the 1930s as reaction against wilsonian idealism and reflected a practical
3) All actors are and behave alike; reaction to the emergence of aggressive, nationalistic states (e.g. Nazi Germany)
4) Impossibility to read intentions  Idealist described world as what it ought to be rather than what it actually was
5) States compete to stay on top (positionality);  Sceptical that states would abide by internal law or that international organisations could
6) Relative gains are dangerous; curb the aggressive tendencies of states without enforcement power
7) Self-help  maximisation of power ensures maximisation of security  State as principal actor, interest had to be taken into account and peace relies on them
 States pursue their own interests in an IS that is anarchic
Critique of Realism  National interests of state at odds with each other, leads to conflict
• Takes the worst moments of human life and derive from them universal principles;

AN
 Balance of power system
• Takes one image and makes it reality;
• Blocks out other possibilities; Neo-Realism
• Is our thinking the problem?  Late 1960s early 70s widespread dissatisfaction with classical overlooking of interdependent

KH
• Military power a declining asset in 21st Century; of IS and the gradual development of international legal norms to govern and regulate
• Statecraft is mancraft; interstate relations
• Realism is not oriented towards the betterment of humanity;  Kenneth Waltz based on 3 key assumptions
• It is a conservative and amoral theory 1. Anarchy – self-help system. Security is highest goal of states
• Realism has been around so much that it is no longer seen as a theory;

D
2. States are the most important actors. Non-state actors play an important role, but state
• It appea s eal a d o o -se si al , et is a a tifi ial o st u t; is paramount
• Prevents other views to appear reasonable.

EE
3. States are rational actors.
 Offensive neo-realism
Critiques of Liberalism
o Limited capcity of states to know the real intentions of other states that might use
• Overestimates cooperation and progress?
force against them in the future
• States remain most important;

AM
o Encourages states to increase power to meet any future challenges
• Liberal theories have a Western centric feel about them;
o Co-operation can be thought of in terms of absolute gains – state only cares about
• Ca lead to iole t e e ole e
what it gains
o Or relative gains – how well it does compared to other states

H
Realism; Some Conclusions
o Fea of heati g hi de s states illi g ess to cooperate
• To survive, states must do whatever preserves their sovereignty and power;
 Defensive Neo-realism
• I.S. characterised by competition & conflict without archon;
o Acknowledge the role of other factors that can mitigate competition for security in

I
• War is a regular, legitimate human activity
the IS
AL
o Balance between offensive and defensive military technologies
Realism – Textbook
o The deg ee to hi h states see othe po e ful states as th eats
• Not a single theory, a general approach
o Role of institutions in deterring states using force to improve their power position
• Quite dominant in IR
o Defensive military postures allow states to protect themselves without threatending
BY

• Peace can only be maintained by a balances of power between the most powerful states in
others
the international system
o Emphasize search for security over search to enhanve power
• Anarchical conditions of IR – no overarching power to or state capable of controlling all the
o Prospects for cooperation are therefore higher
sovereign states
o Seek to overturn competition bias
• Anarchy accounts for insecurity of states, not higher authority to appeal to to protect itself
o Institutions can play an important role, particularly in the security arena
from a potentially aggressive neighbour
o Balance of threat theory as opposed to BOP
• Therefore IR domain is a self-help environment where states must provide for their own
security, either by themselves or in alliance with other states
FEMINISM
• Realism popular during times of high levels of tension or actual warfare

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

Feminism in Political Theory • Militarised prostitution became a powerful symbol of the way in which Filipino sovereignty
• Ma Wollsto e aft s Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) has been compromised;
• Warns that unless rights are shared equally by both sexes, both will remain vulnerable to • Gender issues of power affect the relations between occupier/ occupied, civiliser/ the one in
corruption; need of civilisation, military personnel/ indigenous civilians who support them
• Egalitarian and universalist recognition that denying rights to one class of persons
undermines the rights of all  education Example: Greenham: High and Low Politics
• Military bases are designed to keep women segregated; they must keep loyal and
Anne Tickner, Gender and IP respectable;
• Deconstructs realism from a feminist point of view; • In this respect, the women not only challenged the bases, but also the representation of
• Argues that key IR concepts are not neutral, but are based on gender dichotomies;

AN
women per se
• They belittle qualities typically associated with the feminine • Greenham women were portrayed in opposite ways

Gender and Security Greenham Common, So What?

KH
• Only when we understand that IR is much more than about states, power and anarchy might • From the proteste s poi t of ie , the a tio t igge ed a hole se ies of uestio s a out
we break out of the vicious circle that perpetuates the present state of affairs; mothering, safety, autonomy, heterosexuality, public and private fear;
• Questions that states act as protectors and women as protectees; • Military bases are about security, but women transformed the meaning of security in the
• Highlights o e s e perience of violence and war course of the protest;
World Politics; Where Are the Women? • From state security to security of the people

D
• 51% of world population; Gender and IR – Some Conclusions
• Wo e a e the o ld s poo est: / of the o ld s o ki g hou s, ea / of i o e a d • Feminism has added another voice to IR theory;

EE
own less that 1/10 of property (UNDP); • Wo e s e pe ie es sho ho people e pe ie e the politi al diffe e tl ;
• Victims – rarely perpetrators - of public and private act of violence • Challenges how we think about the world;
• Gender, ot hu a atu e , atte s;
• The person is political

AM
Peering behind the Camouflage
• Cynthia Enloe asks us to peer behind the traditional agenda of soldiers and diplomats;
• I.P., she says, depends upon the subjugation of women; Textbook
• The eal la ds ape of IP is less e lusi el ale tha it appea s ;  Lots of different feminisms in IR as in general
• What gets left out is ofte as i po ta t as hat gets put i  Common commitment to highlighting and addressing the disadvantage of many women in

H
international politics
The Gendered Workings of High Politics (Enloe)  Disadvantage

I
• War is gendered; o Lack of access to political and decision making power to economic recovery
AL
• False notions of femininity & masculinity; o Concerned with the ways in which IP discriminates against women
• Feminism makes women visible (highlights absences in IR);  These issues of disadvantage and discrimination set the agenda for feminists working in IR
• We eed to ask the uestio Whe e a e the o e ?  Feminist IR agenda
o Examines o e s e pe ie e of a , pea e de o a , e o o i s, de elop e t,
BY

E loe s Co t i utio justice, security and health

• Objective: to disturb the assumption that it is normal for women to be outside the official o Issues that affect mainly women (i.e. access to political power, sex trafficking,
discourse of I.P.; military prostitution, labour exploitation and sexual violence against civilians in war
• Ex: Afghanistan o 2nd type of gendered concern - issues where women and men have different
• Nothi g is atu al ; i othe o ds, hat has ee a e unmade; experiences with the same context
• Paying serious attention to women exposes how much power it takes to maintain the IP o E.g. women in the military more likely to be sexually harassed, different working
system in its present form conditions in same industries, diseas e.g. HIV/AIDS women four times more
vulnerable to infection than men
Example: Bases in the Philippines o 1990s feminist began to make their mark in international relations
o Goal to highlight the as uli e ias of the o e assu ptio s a d o epts of IR

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

 o Jan Jindy Pettleman and J. Ann Tickner demonstrated how the tehories and practices
of IR reflect and respect the experiences of certain mean and certain masculine
qualities
o Important concerns of IR like states, sovereignty, anarchy and military power all
reflect masculine traits
o Demonstrate how this masculine bias operates in a way that often privileges and
promotes aggression
o Reject the claim that these are universal experiences
o Much feminist IR scholarship is directed towards uncovering the experiences of
Marxism & IR
• Human nature is not immutable but historical; It changes in rel. to economic circumstances;
• Prime mover of history are people who, through labour, can transform the world they find;
• The nature of people thus depends on the conditions under which they labour
Looks at Human Suffering, Politics, Justice but above all Economic Theory
• Two key components:
1. Production – human history is linked to the struggle to satisfy basic needs -
Prevailing system: Capitalism, a system based on the private ownership of the

AN
people who are hidden by masculine bias means of production;
o Correct male-e e t i ias i IR aski g he e a e the o e ? 2. Class
o Red essi g i ala e i o po ati g o e s e pe ie es i to IR 1. Proletariat and bourgeoisie
o Adding women to the places where they are missing e.g. parliaments, positions of 2. Exploitation of some for the enrichment of others

KH
power
o Fo othe s this a t e do e ithout fi st addressing the patriarchal culture that Other Marxist Tenets
exists in IR • Surplus values; these are sucked by bourgeoisie from the work of workers for self-
 Liberal Feminism enrichment);
o Centrally concerned with equal rights between men and women • Alienation;

D
o Criticised for representing the interests of white women in western societies as • Prescriptive dimension: How to overcome alienation and achieve class-less society
universal • Co itted to e olutio a d e a ipatio of the hu a spe ies

EE
o Overlook subjective concerns and issues based on race, ethnicity, religion or socio-
economic background Marxism and IR
o Does t seek to ha ge the atu e of the o ld o l to ha ge o e s oles a d • Little direct writing on IR;
• Believed that division into N-S was dissolving (true today to some extent);

AM
opportunities in it
 Maternal and cultural feminism • Lenin: War happens because capitalism needs new surplus outlets
o Connection between women and peace, this connection should be exploited and ( imperialism);
emphasized to create a better world • Challenges core liberal belief that trade/ commerce automatically brings peace, freedom

H
o Connection to peace comes from role in private sphere as mothers, carers, moral and prosperity
guardians and nurturers
o Pea e is a o a s usi ess a d a is a a s What Sets Marxism Apart

I
 Critical and post modern feminism • Focus on economic factors;
AL
o Acknowledge and embrace differences between man and woman • Almost total lack of appreciation of cultural factors, role of N-S and state system;
o Different women may have different problems • Critique: too much focus on class oppression; neglects issues like gender or ethnicity;
o Gendered constructions pervade not just individuals but also institutions knowledge • 19C two classes; today society is more complex;
and political discourse • Still very influential theory
BY

o Institutions like the state, the economy, military are all gendered in ways that
promote masculine values subordinate feminine ones Dependency Theory
o Realist IR privileges masculine values, values states, anarchy, power, aggression and • One of the most influential Marxist approaches to IR;
rationality and devalues notions of cooperation, considered masculine. Privileged • Latin American scholars (mid-60s to mid-70s)
elite white men • Bring in issues of under-development that until then had been left out of IR;
o Margaret Thatcher, Condoleezza Rice, Madeline Albright successful because they
were able to conform to and demonstrate masculine qualities The Development of Underdevelopment
• Andre Gunder Frank: The dev. of under dev. is embedded in larger Marxist critique of
MARXISM society;
• Challenge not directed to IR theory but to the modernisation paradigm (W. Rostow);

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

 – Dev. as a process that goes through stages;
– All countries go through these stages; THE STATE, SOVREIGNTY, THE NATION AND NATIONALISM
– Under-dev. reflects countries that are not as advanced
The State
Core Assumptions • Territorialism: Practice of understanding the social and political world through the lens of
• Underdev. and inequality in W.P. are the direct result of development; bounded territorial geographical space;
• Development for some was only possible at the expense of under-development for others; • A historical phenomenon with a beginning
• Present is the result of historical economic and political interaction between:
– Satellite/ periphery v. metropolis/ core The Treaty of Westphalia
• These relations are part of the economic system • 1648 – Ended Thirty Years War;

AN
• Employs Marxist surplus theory not re. individuals, but re. state; • Central authority was replaced almost entirely by sovereignty;
• Each metropolis (core) serves as an instrument to suck capital (eco. surplus) of its own • Cujus regio, ejus religio
satellites (periphery);

KH
• Result: present underdev. in underdeveloped world results from its long participation in The State
world capitalist dev. • States are usually conceptualised as having:
1. Permanent population
Effects of that Relationship 2. Defined territory
1. In contrast to limitless metropolis, dev. in periphery is limited by its satellite status; 3. Central government

D
2. Eco. growth in periphery strongest when ties with core are weakest; 4. sovereignty
3. Most underdeveloped regions are those that had closest ties with metropolis;

EE
Uneven development will endure unless radical change Sovereignty
• The sta ti g poi t of IR is the e iste e of states, o i depe de t politi al o u ities,
Some Conclusions each of which possesses a government and asserts sovereignty in relation to a particular
• International realm is not a realm of anarchy, but one of hierarchy; po tio of the ea th s su fa e a d a pa ti ula seg e t of the hu a populatio Hedle

AM
• The logic of the market continues to penetrate all aspects of society; Bull 1977: 13)
• Dependency looks at states & world politics;
• Economic interaction does not lead to liberty and peace; Domestic Sovereignty
• Marxist Teleology: The Emancipation of the human species • Supreme rule: The state answers to no higher authority

H
• Comprehensive rule: The sovereign state governs all aspects of social life
Text book

I
 Expansion of capitalism (globalisation) International Sovereignty
AL
 Principal form of conflict would be between classes rather than nations or states • Unqualified rule: Sovereign states respect a norm of non-intervention
 A political revolution led by the working classes would overthrow the capitalist order and • Exclusive rule: The sovereign state does not share authority
usher in a worldwide socialist society free from the alienation, exploitation and • Mutual recognition
estrangement produced by capitalist structures • Sovereignty makes the state system an orderly society
BY

 The state functions primarily to maintain and defend class domination and exploitation
 An instrument of class rule The State s Se e Mo opoly Powers
 War is the external manifestation of the internal class struggle which makes the problem of 1. Right to make laws:
war the fault of capitalism 2. Right to tax;
 Therefore abolishing of capitalism = abolishing of state, therefore, conflict will cease 3. Right to manage the affairs of the state;
 Marxism has little to say about many key issues in global politics including nationalism, war 4. Provides defence (external security)
between states and the persistence of the state system 5. Keep domestic order
 Overestimated the importance of class division and underestimated other important social 6. Demand political allegiance
divisions 7. International representation

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

Controversy of Modern State
• Essential term in contemporary political debates New Narratives
• State and violence • Resonates particularly with those who feel cheated by history;
– Elimination of non-state violence and other competitors to state authority • Elites manipulate these narratives with harmful consequences
• Future of the state? • Be edi t A de so s A gel of History
– Is the state adequate to contemporary social, political, economic problems?
Imagined Communities
The Nation • For the Yugoslav federal states, the years 1990 and 1991 constituted years of identity re-
• A collection of people whoperceive themselves to be members of one same group; creation;
• Attachment to a territorial homeland; • New metaphors, new stories, new silences, new events, new rules and new identities

AN
• Emphasis of cultural distinctiveness;
• P i o dial o I agi ed The Slide into Hell
• The Yugoslav territory used to be part of the Hungarian and Ottoman empires;

KH
Primordial • From neighbour to enemy
• Natu al , authe ti a d o je ti e; • Descent into madness
• Natural: ancient, timeless ethnic community
• Pre-political social bond; The Rejection of European Values
• Organic solidarity; • At the heart of Europe;

D
• Blood a d soil • Division about the recognition factor;
• Eth i lea si g ;

EE
An Imagined community • Disregard for human rights and the dignity of the individual;
• It only exists in minds; • A step back into the dark ages
• Myths and signs that create new memories;
• Conceived as deep common bond;

AM
Some Conclusions
• Civic dimension; • Important to differentiate nation and state;
• Nations do not pre-exist their articulation • Important to appreciate the meaning of sovereignty;
• The dangers of nationalism;
• History does not kill; religion does not rape women; the purity of blood does not raise

H
Nationalism
• Nationalism: Ideology that state and nation must be congruent; buildings and institutions do not fail; only individuals do those things
• A common sense of

I
– time; Textbook – The modern state and its origins
AL
– place;  Principal actor in IR
– belonging;  Not always a world of states – city-states, empires, feudal states, absolutist states, nation-
– destiny states
 Globalisation may be eclipsing the sovereign states
BY

Problems of Difference  Abstract entity comprising a government, a population and a territory

• What about those within who are different?
• They find themselves a minority that is looked upon with suspicion;
• Positive image of Self, negative image of Other
Enters Nationalism
• Deadly violent mix: nationalism, chauvinism, xenophobia;
• Associated pathologies (hyper-nationalism, ethnic cleansing, etc);
• New exclusive narratives (the stories we tell about Self and Other);
• The Je , the Musli , the A o igi e, the efugee, those ho do ot elo g i
 State = government and population and territory
 Modern state = state and sovereignty and nations
 Sovereignty denotes a single, supreme decision-making authority
 Origins of the modern state
 Mode state did t full de elop u til the th C after the birth of nationalism
 P io to the i ths of state so e eig t , Eu ope a pat h o k uilt of o e lappi g a d
intersecting layers of power, authority and allegiance
 E.g. pope, roman emperor, dukes and counts
ou spa e

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

  Fragmented, decentralised, known as feudalism • Cha gi g dist i utio of death
 Fragmentation of political power, public power in private possession, armed forces secured
through supreme and absolute Changing Nature of War
 Law and instruments of coercion work in tandem, laws not backed up by force are useless • Ne a s – (post-Clausewitzean)
and force without the backing of law is tyranny. Sovereign must therefore monopolise the • Obsolescence of war between major powers?
right to lay down and enforce the law • Failed states ith B eakdo of so e eig t :
 Peace within a state does nothing to diminish insecurity and violence among them – Ethnic violence – ethnic cleansing
 Close connection between state-building and organised violence – No declarations of war; no peace settlements
 Till : a ade the state a d the state ade a – Non-state a to s as et i al a

AN
 Monopolisation of the instruments of legitimate violence
 Monopoly to: Realism and War
o Manage the economy • For realists, it is the accumulation of power that can guarantee order;
o Make laws •  the security dilemma and the balance of power (alliances, C.o.W.s);

KH
o International representation • To reach precise political ends, such as to contain an enemy or to accumulate power;
o Border control • As such, war is an institution
o Political loyalty
 Globalisation – ending the sovereign state Liberalism and War
• International institutions designed to avoid resorting to violence;
 Failed states – states who no longer successfully claim the various monopolies over their

D
• Collective security, dialogue and persuasion;
jurisdiction because warlords, organised crime networks, or insurgents exert control and
• Role of trade & commerce;

EE
sometimes authority against the legitimate government
• Wa a e a tool to egi e ha ge ; De o ati pea e, eo-cons)
 Sovereign form of state fosters domination and exclusion

21Century Liberal Wars?

WAR AND SECURITY
• Progressive imperialism? War and democracy promotion;

AM
– Democracy-peace theory;
Karl von Clausewitz - On War (1831
– Democratic-transition theory;
• War is an act of violence intended to compel our enemy to bend to our will;
– Responsibility to protect  duty to intervene?
• A t ial of o al a d ph si al fo es ea s of the latte ;

H
• A o ti uatio of politi s othe ea s
Feminism and War
• State as war-maker
• The ultimate goal of feminism is to eliminate war;

I
• War as gendered;
Changing Nature of War
AL
• Women are the victims
• Revolution in military affairs (RMA)
– Hi-te h o e tio al eapo
Marxism and War
• S a t a d lea o s
• War as the result of capitalist competition for markets;
• Precision guidance systems
BY

• Le i : … the lass ha a te of a : hat aused that a , hat lasses a e agi g it, &
• Stealth technology
what historical & historical-e o o i o ditio s ga e ise to it
– St ike at e e e t es athe tha a ed fo es
• I pe ialist a s
Changing Nature of War - Western way of warfare in 1990s
Causes of War
• Localised wars;
• Waltz, in Man, the State, and War asks: What a e the ajo auses of a ? Whi h
• Enemy is regime, not people;
level?)
• Minimise collateral damage;
– i ages of a
• War at a distance;
– 1st image: human nature
• Risk-t a sfe ilita is ;

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

Causes – Security with, rather than agai st…
• 2nd image: the state – Palme Commission, Gorbachev, Evans
– Internal organisation of state – Common dangers demand collective responses
• 3rd image: anarchy – Ha its of dialogue
– Nothing to stop war – Confidence and Security Building Measures (CSBMs)
• Hidemi Suganami:
• Background conditions New Sources of Threat and Conflict
• Chance coincidence (Great War) • Non-Clausewitzian conflicts;
• Mechanistic processes (eg., security dilemma) • Intra-national conflict;
• Government actions (acts with belligerent intent and resistance) • From sec. as integrity of the national territory and institutions (Hans Morgenthau) to sec. as

AN
the elimination of unjust social relations, including unequal gender relations (Ann Tickner)
Definitions of security
• Latin: se (without) + cura a e ea i g ithout a e , a eless o e o fide e Human security

KH
• Security: condition of being free from harm/threats • Humans rather than states as referent
• Who/what is the threat? • State as inadequate provider of human security
• Who/what is being threatened? (referent) • Multidimensional nature of (in)security

Definitions Changing (Non-Traditional) Security Issues

D
• I tellige e: elatio ship et ee se u it a d k o ledge f ee Joh : e t a e to CIA • From war-fighting to crime-fighting
foyer • Failed states

EE
• Si pl put, i tellige e is k o ledge a d fo ek o ledge of the o ld that su ou ds us – Re o figu atio of state s o ga izatio of iole e
(CIA Booklet, Intelligence: The Acme of Skill) – Blurring of inside/outside, police/military.
• National security state Combine intelligence services and armed forces) – Milita Ope atio s Othe Tha Wa

AM
Traditional conception Textbook
• Security tied to sovereign state  Realism – atio s se u it dete i ed a ilit to defe d itself agai st th eats to o e o
• State as container acquired values
– Body politic metaphor

H
o Integrity of the national territory and its institutions
– Spatialization of security o State as object of security and see threats as primarily emerging from the military
– Emphasis on border security and economic competition between states

I
– Naturalizes distinction between internal and external security issues o Dis ou t i te atio al oope atio , so e phasize self-help th ough de elopi g
AL
strong military forces and strategic alliances
Traditional Threats & Insecurity  Liberals
• Military threats o International rules and cooperative institutions to govern state behaviours and
– International insecurity/ anarchy punish wrong doers
BY

– states as aste less e
– state of atu e is a state of a
– A ed fo es: If ou a t pea e, p epa e fo
Alternative conceptions
• Collective security
– O e fo all a d all fo o e
– Meet lawlessness with collective action
• Community (rather than balance) of power
• Common security
1. Collective security – efforts to build rules and laws at the international level,
decision-making bodies and institutions to act in concert to and to enforce
a those rules
2. Common security – meant to replace mutual deterrence, achieve security
not against the adversary but with them
3. Cooperative security – fold collective, common and comprehensive security
into a conceptual whole
4. Human security – individual must be secure (out of misery, hunger, disease,
repression, safe from sudden and harmful disadvantages to dairy life). States
can be threats to their citizens

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

 • Westphalia, sovereignty and independence
LAWS, NORMS AND INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
A Society of States?
G otius Laws of War & Peace (1625) • Hedle Bull s puzzle: States eha e as if the e e e e s of a o de l so iet ;
• Rules of war to protect non-combatants and improve the treatment of hostages & prisoners; • Moderated by rules, Law, norms, institutions;
• All nations are bound by the principles of natural law; • Not an anarchical system but an anarchical society
• Father of international law
A Society of States as a Co pa t of o-E iste e
International Law • Members accept that they have responsibilities towards one another and the society as a
• The law which regulates the intercourse of nations - Law as the basis of civilisation

AN
whole;
• The principles and rules of conduct which states feel themselves bound to observe and • Expressed in mutually accepted rules of the game;
therefore do commonly observe in their relations with each other •  progress

KH
International Law; Functions Society of States
• I.L mitigates anarchy; • A society of states (or international society) exists when a group of states, conscious of
• Helps regulate activities of states (predictable, civil & orderly); certain common interests and common values form a society in the sense that they conceive
• Helps states know what is acceptable them-selves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and
share in the working of common institutions (Bull 1995: 13)

D
I.L – the Sceptics •  prudence and moral obligation v. power
1. Power dominates law– power, self-interest, no moral or legal constraints;

EE
2. Dependent upon the will of the most powerful states; they write the rules that serve their Primary Goals of Society
own ends • Rules civilise/ socialise states (Grotius);
3. Given the diversity of cultures, no international legal system is possible; • All states, in their dealings with one another, are bound by the rules and institutions of the

AM
4. No legal system can exist without authoritative enforcer society they form;
• The purpose of I.S is to preserve order from which law, justice, harmony & prosperity flow
International Law • Any society requires basic arrangements that promote order and certain values, such as:
• Still, most of the states, observe most of the rules most of the times; • The possession of things must remain stable
• Why? – institutional habits, obligations (treaties), custom; • Promises, once made, should be kept

H
• Also ofte the ules a e internalised ; • The limitation of wanton violence (Bull, 1977: 4-5)
• Violations have their costs

I
Likewise International Society
AL
System of States • Stabilization of property through mutual recognition of sovereignty;
• Fo ed he t o o o e states ha e suffi ie t o ta t et ee the , a d ha e suffi ie t • Limitation of violence (ethics of war);
i pa t o o e a othe … to ause the to eha e … as pa ts of a hole Bull : ; • Keeping of promises (pacta sunt servanda);
• The eha iou of ea h as a e essa ele e t i the al ulatio of the othe s… • States choose to follow these rules for reciprocity sake & fear of retaliation
BY

International Law - Function I te atio al So iet Defi es…

• International law can be understood as a proposition to replace a system that had been • Legitimate Actor: the sovereign state
ordered by vertical hierarchies of power, with horizontally defined rules applicable to states – Mutual recognition
(theoretically) equal before the law • Legiti ate o du t
• Minimal moral code
System of states – Coexistence
• Hierarchical: Greek, Roman, Chinese, British Raj  suzerain state systems; – Rights and duties
• Hegemonies
• Managing the coexistence of large communities of people; Evidence of international society

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

 • SOVEREIGNTY  Hedley Bull on system and society
• Diplomacy o System of states (state system) – formed when two or more states have sufficient
• International law contact and impact on each other to come then to become as two parts of a whole
• Laws of war (just war) o Society of states (I.S.) – group of states, conscious of certain common interests and
• International institutions common values from a society in the sense that they consider themselves to be
• Collective restraint bound by a common set of rules their relations with one another, and share in the
working of common institutions
Five Primary Institutions of I.S.  States are not the only actors in worl politics
1. The BoP (as a conscious policy and diplomatic design)

AN
2. International law THE COLD WAR
3. Diplomacy
4. War Features of C. W
5. G eat Respo si ilities ; • Intense rivalry between US & USSR short of war;

KH
• These ules defi e the ga e, the a e o stituti e ; • Structure of East West relations based on ideological rivalry
• The ultimate good maintenance of system, its rules, norms & organisation – Bipolarity
– Arms race and nuclear deterrence
Rejoining the Society Game – Stability (?)
• Take No th Ko ea… • Physical division of Germany, Europe, Korea, Vietnam, China;

D
• "It's up to Kim Jong Il as to whether or not we're able to sign a peace treaty to end the • Global spread
Korean War. He's got to get rid of his weapons in a verifiable fashion. And we're making

EE
progress toward that goal. It's up to him." Cold War; Origins
• Unsettled post-WW2 world?
Secondary Institutions • Inevitable?
• U.N, WTO, ASEAN; EU…; • Result of mismanagement?

AM
•  regulatory rules; • A atu al i al ?
• Membership in I.S. can be conceived as a covenant between States • Ideological reasons?
• Geopolitical reasons?
• Misperception?

H
Some Conclusions
• An international society has emerged from the int. system; • Security dilemma fed by distrust and inability to know the othe s i te ts
• Order is maintained through rules, laws, norms and institutions;

I
• The function of I.L is to make states eha iou p edi ta le a d o siste t ith e tai Explanations
AL
common standards • Orthodox
Textbook – Blame either USSR or USA
 Refers to both influential concept and an actual society of states • Marxist
 Cultural, religious and political difference are not seen as sources of conflict as long as there – Soviet insecurity, growing US power
BY

are rules of coexistence to guide states in their mutual relations – US hostility to areas outside world market
 IS constitutes a moral community that members, at least in theory, treated each other as • Revisionist
they would be treated – No blame
 Great powers are central actors, have both privileges and duties e.g. to contribute to – Mutual benefit of inter-systemic rivalry
international order
 Society of states Truman Doctrine (12-03-47)
 Territorial sovereign states with common interests form a society • Kennan Telegram (Feb 46): incompatibility of views + fear + ambition = need for
 Society of mutual recognition – the e og ise ea h othe s ights to e ist a d ha e f eedo containment;
of a tio s as lo g as the do t th eate the sovereignty of another state • Two interpretations, two ideologies, two systems, two hostile alliances
 Non-intervention the cardinal rule of state • Ideological goals: the communist telos and the wind of history;

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

 • Poland, Greece, Turkey and the Straits 4. Stagnation: zero-growth, lack of incentives, bottlenecks, economy of shortages

The Marshall Plan New Thinking

• The Marshall Plan (12-07-47): a secure America needed peace and prosperity in Europe; • Sti ulus to de elop e t: hu a ita ia atio alisatio ;
• Would facilitate European rejection of communism; • Assumption that society can only be built up by sensible people;
Benefits sixteen countries to 31-12-51 • Last ditch effort to salvage the system & catch up with the West?
• No one was prepared for such rapid change;
Germany & Berlin • Glasnost and Perestroika: openness & reconstruction
• Yalta, Postdam and the German question;
• From Bizonia to Trizonia to the Federal Republic;

AN
Glasnost
• The Berlin Blockade (June 48 to May 49). • Contemporary problems open to public discussion;
• Acknowledgement of past crimes;
The Plot Thickens • Purpose: to realise a normal modern society by exposing social wounds

KH
• NATO (the Atlantic Treaty) 04-04-49;
• China, Korea; Perestroika
• 1955 - Germany joins NATO; • Short term measures to improve Soviet economy;
• Creation of the Warsaw Pact; • From Homo Sovieticus to Homo Economicus;
• 1957: Sputnik & ICBM capability Growing inter-allies feeli g of a i ale e a d dista e; • To demonstrate the superiority of Soviet socialism;

D
• The Berlin Wall • As e dis a tle the Stali ist s ste , e a e ot et eati g f o so ialis , e a e o i g
to a ds it Time Magazine May 1990).

EE
Soviet Goals in E.E
• So iet ie : the g eat i to o e fas is as paid ith Russia lood ; Glasnost & Perestroika
• The most immediate geopolitical issue; • Aim: to revitalise socialism by improving the ability of communism to address the
• Chu hill s Fulto spee h - : a i o u tai had des e ded… ight th ough the iddle

AM
fundamental needs of the Soviet Union & its people
of Eu ope
Foreign and Military Policy Reforms
Three descriptions of the CW • St u tu es, ideas a d Mo al e t ep e eu s ;
• Downgrades the class struggle;

H
Hans Morgenthau:
• The Cold Wa is a p i iti e spe ta le of t o gia ts e ei g ea h othe ith at hful • New view about what constitutes security;
suspi io . … Thus o tai o e o tai ed, o ue o e o ue ed, dest o o e • Re-imagine the security dilemma;

I
dest o ed . • Unilaterally withdraws troops from Eastern Europe, Afghanistan
AL
Henry Kissinger:
• The supe po e s ofte eha e like t o hea il a ed li d men feeling their way around a Stepping back: The Brezhnev Doctrine
room, each believing himself in mortal peril from the other whom he assumes to have • Co te t: A. Du ek s So ialis ith a hu a fa e
pe fe t isio . … Of ou se, o e ti e, e e t o li d e a do e o ous da age to • Ea h Co u ist pa t is f ee to appl the p i iples of Ma is -Le i is … ut it is ot f ee
BY

ea h othe , ot to speak of the oo . to de iate f o these p i iples if it is to e ai a Co u ist Pa t Leo id B ezh e –

George W. Bush: 03/08/68)
• Whe I as o i g up it as a da ge ous o ld a d e k e e a tl ho the the e e. •  Ope atio Da u e o alises Cze hoslo akia s P ague Sp i g / / to / /
It as us e sus the a d e k e e a tl ho the as. Toda e e ot so su e ho the when 50,000 WTO troops intervene
the a e, ut e k o the e the e .
The Sinatra Doctrine
Political, Economic & Social Conditions in the USSR to 1985 • 29/09/89 Ge adi Ge asi o : E e ou t de ides o its o hi h oad to take ;
1. Industrial decline; • Politi al st u tu es ust e de ided the people ho li e the e
2. Internal legitimacy;
3. External legitimacy: Afghanistan, Poland, etc Hope-Reality Disconnect Revisited

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

 • However, economic chaos, hyper-inflation; – Liberalism: Trade and interdependence
• Demands for freedom cascade;
• The question of nationality and break-away republics; Interdependence
• The August Coup; • Situation of mutual (though not necessarily equal) dependence or sensitivity between two or
• The S.U. collapses in Dec. 91; more states;
• Had Glasnost outpaced Perestroika? • Made o e o ious ith glo alisatio
• …
Why is it important to learn about the Cold War in this course?
• A quick work about structure and agency; IPE & IR Theory (2)
• Is the Cold War still visible today, and if so, in what ways? • Marxism: Two sides of same coin;

AN
• Feminism: Both are reflections of patriarchy
Textbook
 Rivalry between Soviet Union and US IPE & IR Theory (3)

KH
 1945 -1991 • International Society approach
 Ideological communism vs capitalism – Looks at rules and norms associated with IPE, their related institutions and their
 Driven by traditional concerns about security (each felt the other was threating its survival effects upon order
and interests) as well as by ideological antagonism Institutions of Modern World Economy
 Contest over social systems, competition for strategic influence and nuclear superiority • IMF

D
 Beginnings – stable international exchange rate regime
– balance of payments emergencies

EE
o Break down of American-Soviet relations post WWII
 Truman more anti-soviet than Roosevelt • World Bank
 August 1945 defeat of Japan saw the end of the need of the alliance aimed – IBRD
at defeating the Axis powers – assist developing world
• GATT/ WTO

AM
 Mistrust and suspicion developed into geopolitical and ideological competition
 Korean War 1950-53 – forum for trade negotiations
 Cuban Missile Crisis 1962
Making Sense of IPE?
 Arms race, nuclear weapons
– State versus market;

H
 Space race
– Power/ authority v. wealth creation;
 Vietnam War 1965-73
– Visible hand v. invisible hand
 Cold War and IR

I
– Intervention v. trickle down
AL
o Many of the disciples theoretical developments were a definition of changes in the
dynamics of conflict
Globalisation
• Ba lis a d S ith: P o ess of i easi g i te o -nectedness between societies, such that
INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY AND GLOBALIZATION
events in one part of the world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far
BY

a a ;
Parameters of Understanding
• Reflects the intensification of economic, political, social and cultural relations across borders
• International Political Economy (IPE): Branch of IR that looks at the rel. between the political
& the economic realms;
Globalisation: Its Manifestations
• A u e of glo al IPE issues a e o o a di g atte tio i IR
• Communication and information:
– Ti e-space o p essio
IPE & IR Theory (1)
– Distanceless and borderless social relations, de-linkage from territory
• IPE and IR theory: negotiating the economics/ politics cross-over
– Action at a distance
– Realis e a tilis : Auto o a d p i a of the politi al, e o o useful to
• Growth of non-state actors, new norms, globalisation of threats
increase military power
• Social and cultural: fashion, films, sports, music - towards a global culture?

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

 • Internationalization
• Intensifying connections among nations HUMAN RIGHTS, NON-STATE ACTROS AND THE UN
• Most evident in economics (uneven development)
What Human Rights Are
Globalisation; Cultural Effect • A set of principled ideas about the treatment to which all individuals are equally entitled by
• A e i a izatio -glo alizatio F ied a ; virtue of being human;
• Branding - images • Inalienable claims against the state
– Nike, Coke, Le i s, M Do ald s, Sta u ks
• Homogenization o glo alizatio ? Rights in Modern History
– o a- olo izatio ? • For American and French Revolutionaries, H.R. were grounded in nature, individualism and

AN
– Threat to cultural identities? rationality;
• Glo al pillage ? • Failure to observe the rights was the cause of all public misery
• McDonaldisation

KH
– cf Ritzer: process by which the principles of fast-food restaurant come to dominate society The Institutionalisation of Rights
(education, family, leisure, politics) • Some, challenged the theory of natural law with the claim that law is based on a historical
community;
How New Is Globalisation? • The logic was pushed to its extreme in the 20th Century;
• I. Wallerstein: It all started in 1492! • People s H.R. had to e p ote ted f o the state

D
• Eras of rapid development in transnational trade and communication: 1870 to 1914 era (cf
N. Angell); The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10-12-1948)

EE
• A qualitative and a quantitative change in how the world works (it is transforming the way • The Holocaust prompted a profound rethink of the rel. between H.R. & international peace;
we and our neighbours live) • H.R. were linked to the rel. between the rulers and the ruled  limitations on behaviour and
• New actors: media, MNCs, NSAs, terrorists; on scope of authority
• New issues: environment, injustice, human rights/ wrongs, population growth, new diseases,

AM
glo al i e, di e po e t , et ; The Preamble & Article One
• Increased visibility of these issues • All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with
reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

H
Challenges to the State?
• The te ito ial state is less a d less a le to eet its itize s e pe tatio s; UDHR Article Two
• Reduces state capacity to control non-state actors; 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without

I
• Reduced state capacity to set the international agenda; distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
AL
• Unevenness of impact; atio al o so ial o igi , p ope t , i th o othe status… No disti tio shall e ade o the
• North/ South gap widens basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which
a pe so elo gs…
Globalisation; Some Negatives
BY

• Exacerbates wealth differentials; UDHR Articles 3, 5 & 6

• Mobility of trade and investment undermines capacity of states to protect their citizens; 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
• A new stage of Western imperialism? 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
• Can help breed resentment (religious fundamentalism, ethnic nationalism which translate in punishment.
fragmentation and parochialism) 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law

Globalisation; Some Positives Human Rights; Some Discontents

• Enhanced opportunity for development and expansion of wealth; • Political v/ cultural and economic rights;
• Enhances opportunity to move beyond the physical and cultural confines of the state; • Are H.R. Western?
• Helps spread norms/ values such as democracy and HR – Universalism or cultural relativism

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

 • Tension between sovereignty and H.R. • How to end the menace of international war and guarantee peace & security?
– Cf Oz and the UN • General acceptance of principle of collective action to regulate interstate relations;
• … to p o ote so ial p og ess & ette sta da ds of life i la ge f eedo  Peace, H.R.,
Non-State Actors justice & development
• Non-state actors; a challenge to realists;
• Multinational corporations Two Stated Purposes – Chapter One: Articles 1 and 2
• Two categories: • To ai tai i te atio al pea e a d se u it , a d to that e d to take effe ti e olle ti e
– Intergovernmental Organisations (IGOs) measures for the prevention and removal of th eats to the pea e…
– Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) • To de elop f ie dl elatio s a o g atio s ased o espe t fo the p i iple of e ual

AN
rights and self-determination of peoples, & to take other appropriate measures to
Focusing on IGOs; What They Are st e gthe u i e sal pea e.
• Institutional structures created between governments for the conduct of regular political
interactions The U.N & Sovereignty

KH
• They can be universal • The UN is no Leviathan;
• They can be Regional • It relies for enforcement on the good will of the great powers;
• The a e ultipu pose • Article 2: 1 - The o ga isatio is ased o the p i iple of the so e eig e ualit of all its
e e s;
Intergovernmental Organisations • 2: 7 - Nothi g o tai ed i the p ese t Cha te shall autho ise the UN to intervene in

D
• Members: States atte s hi h a e esse tiall ithi the do esti ju isdi tio of a state .
• Regular meetings, permanent institutions, decision-making procedures; • UN Charter established

EE
• Manage particular problems on global agenda; 4 major issue areas:
• Decisions depend on states Development, Peace and Security, Economic, Social and Cultural Affairs,; Humanitarian
Assistance

AM
IGOs; What Do They Offer
• They make International law 6 principal organs:
• They provide fairness, certainty & predictability; The Security Council;
• They inspire common purpose and belonging; The General Assembly;
• They signal commitment and reinsurance;

H
The Trusteeship Council (cf Namibia, East Timor);
• I.O.s and N.G.O.s often collaborate The General Secretariat;
The Economic & Social Council;

I
IGOs: Are They Real Actors? The International Court of Justice.
AL
• They are dependent upon states to function;
• States expect them to perform certain tasks (IAEA, IMF, WB); Security Council
• They constrain and enable • The P5 plus 10 others rotating on a 2 year basis in regional/ geographical representation;
• Issue of unilateralism versus multilateralism; • Each of the 15 has one vote. On procedural matters, an affirmative vote suffices. On all
BY

• The UN was created to deal with these matters other matters, decision-making also requires a simple majority of affirmative votes, but must
include a unanimous position by the P5.
Multilateral Economic Institutions
 International Monetary Fund Security Council Responsibilities
 World Bank • The executive of the UN;
 World Trade Organisation • The only branch that can authorise military action;
 IMF, WB formed at Bretton Woods conference July 1944 • Arbitrates ceasefires and establishes peacekeeping missions;
 General agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), replaced WTO 1995 • Appoints Secretary General

Laying the Foundations of Lasting Peace The General Assembly (G.A)

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

 • O e-state - o e ote ; • Soldiers must obey the laws of war
• Decisions are taken on a 2/3 majority of members present and voting;
• A ti le : The G.A a ake e o e datio to the e e s of the UN a d the S.C. o to Humanitarian Intervention
oth o a uestio o atte ; • The th eat o use of fo e a oss state o de s a state o g oup of states ai ed at
• Primary body for addressing social & economic problems; preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of
• Operates through committees individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the states within whose
• In 1945, ¼ African/ Asian states; by 1985, well over half. E-W issues are replaced with N-S territory force is applied" (Holzgrefe 2003)
issues;
• 192 members Humanitarian Intervention and the UN Charter: is it allowed?
• • Article 2(4): prohibition on the use of force

AN
S.C decisions binding to all members; G.A recommendation power only
• All e e s shall ef ai i thei i te atio al elatio s f om the threat or use of force
Reforms agai st the te ito ial i teg it o politi al i depe de e of a state
• Many contend that war is linked to poverty & underdevelopment  An Economic Security • Article 2(7): non-intervention

KH
Council? • Nothi g o tai ed i the p ese t Cha te shall autho ize the U ited Natio s to
 A Human Security Council? intervene in matters which are essentiall ithi the do esti ju isdi tio of a state… ut
• A more just representation; this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter
• Corrupt institutions? VII.

D
Some Conclusions Humanitarian Intervention debates: Case study – Rwanda 1994
• U ited Natio s? • An estimated 800,000 people were killed

EE
• Massive undertakings on shoestring budget; • The UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda was withdrawn after the genocide began
• The entire UN budget is inferior to the budget of the police of New York City or the Tokyo • The UN Security Council did not have sufficient political will to act
fire service; • By the time France offered to send a peacekeeping force the rate of killing had dropped
• significantly – there are questions over how effective the French mission was, given that it

AM
Why should Australian Citizens have to submit to an outside authority?
• Need for reforms is acknowledged and reforms are ongoing; was deployed so late
• Reluctance of G.P.s to let go of their privileges.
Case study – Kosovo 1999
• Threatened veto within the UN Security Council

H
HUMANITARIAN WAR
The Just War tradition • NATO intervened without UN Security Council authorisation
The Just War tradition is made up of two parts; • Commission found intervention to be illegal ut legiti ate

I
• Jus ad bellum – looks at political decision to go to war • Much opposition to NATOs intervention from UN member states
AL
• Jus in bello – looks at soldiers conduct in war
Sovereignty as responsibility
Jus ad bellum – reasons for going to war • It is through accepting their responsibilities that sovereign states derive their legitimacy
1. Just cause • States have the primary responsibility for protecting their people
BY

2. Right authority • If states are unable to fulfil their responsibilities they should ask for help
3. Right intention • International assistance can then be seen as helping states to fulfil their responsibilities,
4. Proportionality rather than as a violation of sovereignty
5. Last resort
6. Declaration of war Kofi A a s Challenge
• "… if hu a ita ia i te e tio is, i deed, a u a epta le assault o so e eig t , ho
Jus in bello should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica - to gross and systematic violations of
Three principles of Jus in bello hu a ights that affe t e e p e ept of a o o hu a it ?… Su el o legal principle -
• Soldiers must be discriminating not even sovereignty - can ever shield crimes against humanity."
• Principle of proportionality

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
• epo t The Respo si ilit to P ote t
• Focused on the human rights of victims, rather than the rights of interveners
• States have the primary responsibility for protecting their own people
• If they fail the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to
protect
• Posed a continuum of measures; prevent, react, rebuild
• RtoP has different layers of responsibility
• RtoP holds that force is an option, but it is a last resort
• P o ides a a ge of optio s othe tha se di g i the a i es, o doi g othi g
• Humanitarian intervention
• Humanitarian intervention focuses on the rights of states to intervene
• Humanitarian intervention assumes the use of force (it is, by definition, military
force for humanitarian aims)

The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty Recent General Assembly debates on RtoP

Three part strategy; Prevent, React, Rebuild
1. Prevention includes; early warning, direct prevention, and root-cause prevention
2. Reaction includes; coercion, up to and including the use of force. Humanitarian military
intervention could only occur where large scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing were occurring
AN
Themes from the debates
1. Only four countries sought to weaken what had been agreed in 2005
2. The majority of states affirmed that it was necessary for the Council to take timely and
decisive action where a state was manifestly failing to protect

KH
or imminently likely to occur, and where precautionary principles were met
3. Rebuilding includes; security measures such as disarmament, having an exit strategy,
restoring justice systems
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
3. States were clear that RtoP was limited to the four mass atrocity crimes; genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity
4. Stressed the importance of prevention as the most important aspect of RtoP
5. Strong support of RtoP came from all regions of the world
6. Concerns over the need for Security Council reform and restraint on the use of veto powers

D
The Question of Authority by permanent members
• The legal autho it to autho ise ea tio omes from the UN Security Council 7. Specific measures for implementation

EE
• The challenge is to make the Council work better, not to find alternatives to the Council
• Permanent Council members should refrain from using their veto unless their vital state Case study: Darfur 2003 - ?
interests are at stake Timeline
• If the Council is deadlocked, a General Assembly resolution could confer some legitimacy • 2003 – conflict escalated

AM
• If the Council fails to act in a timely manner it will undermine its own credibility • In July 2004 the Security Council gave the government of Sudan 30 days to disarm the
janjaweed militia
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty • In March 2005 the UN Security Council referred the case of Darfur to the International

H
Strengths and Weaknesses Criminal Court
• Shifted focus to the rights of individuals, rather than the rights of states • In May 2006 the Darfur Peace Agreement is signed
• Provided a continuum of measures • In August 2006 the UN Security Council authorises a 23,000 strong UN-led peacekeeping

I
• Did not provide clear guidance on how prevention could be carried out force to go to Darfur
AL
• Did not solve the problem of what to do when the Security Council is deadlocked • In July 2007 authorises UNAMID with up to 19,555 military personnel

Three pillars of RtoP; Where does this leave us?

• Pillar one – each state has the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war • There is strong support for RtoP at a rhetorical level
BY

crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity • There are on-going problems with political will when it comes to implementing RtoP in
• Pillar two – the international community has a responsibility to help states meet their response to specific crisis's
obligations • Mu h p og ess has ee ade… u h o e eeds to e do e o the i ple e tation of
• Pillar three – the international community is prepared to take timely and decisive action, in RtoP to o e f o o ds to deeds …
accordance with Chapter VII, when a state is manifestly failing to protect its population from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity TERRORISM AND THE WAR ON TERROR

RtoP is not Humanitarian Intervention • Terrorism: the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear for political
• Responsibilty to protect ends.
• RtoP focuses on the rights of individuals and the responsibility of states – A tactic, a means to achieve political goals

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN

 – Inflicts physical and psychological harm • Gua ta a o: a o st ous failu e e ond the rule of law, beyond the protection of any
Who is a Terrorist? ou ts, a d at the e of the i to s Lo d Ste ;
 T o t pes: Te o is f o a o e state te o is a d te o is fo elo o -state • Rendition – Handing terror suspects over to intelligence personnel of countries that tolerate
terrorism) torture
 O e pe so s f eedo fighte is a othe s te o ist
Post-9/11 World
Parameters of Understanding • Subjecting the use of force to the rule of law was the monumental international experiment
a. Competing narratives; any debate about terrorism must address the issue of legitimate/ of the 20th C.
illegitimate violence; • The ou se of this atio does ot depe d o the de isio s of othe s G.W.Bush -);
• Can a democratic state operate outside of the limits of the rules of the international game?

AN
b. Many people oppose terrorism, yet sympathise with Chechen, Kurdish, Nepali or Palestinian
armed groups; • Remember liberalism was devised to regulate evil means (war) and control evil people
c. Also o side the Nazis…
d. What a out D esde , Hi oshi a a d M Lai… Conclusions

KH
• 9/11 has precipitated us into a world of violence and counter-violence;
Old Terrorism • The war on terrorism appears to be self-perpetuating;
a. Old terrorism - harmful intention at service of precise political gain; • The world appears less safe now than before Feb. 2003
b. Protest, separatism, (inter)communal violence, assassination, self-determination, guerrilla
warfare, etc Textbook

D
 Difficult to define:
New Terrorism  General features

EE
• Apocalyptic violence by people who reject Enlightenment values & base their worldview on o View violence as having purposive value, used to generate fear in a community in
faith & divine power; order to force political change
• Religious Fu da e talists do ot ope ate atio all ; the do ot a e a out this life o Violence is directed at achieving political goals

AM
o Against civilian targets
Rise of the New Terrorism o Tactic employed not only by non-state actors but also by some governments against
• Religious motivation; their people or against the people of other states
• Greater lethality of attacks;  o e a s te o ist is a othe a s f eedo fighte B ia Je ki s
• Greater technological and organizational competence;

H
• Desire to obtain WMD; EXAM
• Problem: How far can liberal democratic states go to protect themselves?

I
Five short answer questions, answer three. 250 words each.
AL
Fighting Terror with Terror Five questions will be taken from this list:
• Ro a adage: The safet of the people is the fi st la ;  As is relates to IR write about liberalism or realism.
• In the name of safety, the Romans were prepared to sacrifice all other laws;  State sovereignty.
• What law would survive if Rome itself was to perish?  The nation as an imagined community.
BY

• Ig atieff: Rights e ist p e isel to set li its to hat fea ful ajo ities a do  New Thinking.
 Three negative aspects of globalisation.
Fighting Terror with Terror  Write about Marxism or IS in how it relates to IR.
• Ro a adage: The safet of the people is the fi st la ;  The Cold War.
• In the name of safety, the Romans were prepared to sacrifice all other laws;  The security dilemma.
• What law would survive if Rome itself was to perish?
 The UN Security Council.
• Ig atieff: Rights e ist p e isel to set li its to hat fea ful ajo ities a do
Two essay questions, answer one, 1000 words.
The War on Terror
 Wo e s e pe ie es sho ho the politi al is li ed diffe e tl e a d o e .

EDITED BY ALI HAMEED KHAN