IR Week 1/ How to Think Theoretically?
 Because
What is Theory?
 a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle
or body of principles offered to explain phenomena: the
wave theory of light
 a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as
the basis of action: her method is based on the theory
that all children want to learn
 an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or
circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory: in
theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
 a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or
investigation; an unproved assumption
 the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a
science, or an art; abstract thought
 the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one
another
 Theory is not an ideology
 Theory is not a belief
 Theory has to be testable.
 Theory must be based on data. If there is not enough
data than it is not a theory but an ideology.
How and Why do we theorize?
 Theory is abstraction. Based on different observations of
the reality; we theorize it in order to communicate.
 Facts do not speak for themselves; they need
explanation.
 Social world is often too complex to be understood
singlehandedly.
The Use of Theory
 Abstracting  group together events, situations or
objects which are not identical but similar
 Generalizing  identify what these things have in
common
 Predicting  connecting (identifying cause and effect)
Theory and Methodology
 You have to know how to know before you know
something.
 For this reason method is prior to theory.
 (5-3)*2+3=?
Main Features of A Theory
 In social sciences theory is not completely separated
from the real world.
 Theory is a part of the reality that we theorize.
 Theorist is also a part of that reality
 Thus;
 There is no value free theory in social sciences
 Theory and practice can not be totally
separated
 All observations that we make are theory
dependent.
 Theory is time and space bounded. There is no timeless
and non-spatial theory.
 Idealism  Liberals Wilson/Angell after the
end of WWI.
 A theory can not explain everything.
 Because the process of theorization is a social
phenomena.
 It is affected by the time and space.
 Theory must be plural.
 Theories not theory!
 There can not be a single theory in social sciences.
 Because theory is not something that you do by
yourself.
 There is not a single theorist but theorists!
 There can not be infinite number of theories either.
 Because there are limitations such as language; social
environment and disciplinary boundaries.
 So no theory is superior to others.
 Three functions of a theory
 Describe = it describes actors; their qualifications;
environment that those actors live in
 Explain= it explains situations (environment or the world
those actors operate); events ; reasons for actors
interactions \ actions based on those descriptions
 Predict= based on explanations make predictions for the
future events
 Theories have different scopes like mid range theories;
limited theories and grand theories.
 Theory that explains `why I have a cold today` is a
limited theory.
 Theory that explains `why people on my age and medical
characteristics have cold` is a mid range theory
 Theory that explains `why people have cold` is a grand
theory.
What we know up to now about theories?
 Theorizing is abstraction
 Theories are based on reality
 Theories explain facts and help us to understand them
 Theories are social and we are part of the world that we
theorize
 Theories can not be separated from real world so theory
and practice are not complete strangers
 Theories are time and space bound
 Theories must be methodologically grounded
 Theories must be plural
 Theories vary in their scope.
IR Theories
 Ole Holsti describes international relations theories as
acting like pairs of coloured sunglasses that allow the
wearer to see only salient events relevant to the
theory; e.g., an adherent of realism may completely
disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce
upon as crucial, and vice versa.
IR Week 2/Theoretical Debates
Topics to Cover
 IR as an academic discipline
 The causes and consequences of anarchy in
international system
 How to categorize IR theories
 How to evaluate IR theories
Origins of IR as a Academic Discipline
 IR theory and real world events are interconnected
 Theories are developed and refined vis a vis
real world events
 World War I  Liberalism
 End of the Cold War  Social Constructivism
 2008 economic crisis  IPE
 Rise ISIS/International Terrorism  Human
Security
 Academics & scholars are not unaware to real world
events instead, they react to them.
What is IR all about?
 IR as a separate discipline began after the end of the
WWI.
 The main questions at the time when IR began was:
 Why do wars begin?
 What do wars achieve?
 What lessons can we learn from past wars to
prevent future ones?
 Today, the scope that IR students deal with has been
expanded
 From gender to water politics, from food
security to effects of crypto-currencies on
state sovereignty.
Anarchy in IR
 Despite the boundaries of the discipline has expanded,
anarchy remains central in IR studies.
 Anarchy means:
 The absence of a higher authority above states
in the international system
 Sovereignty means:
 Independent, territorially defined political
authority.
 Internal sovereignty: A political
authority exercises supreme
authority over the affairs and people
within its territory.
 External sovereignty: This authority
recognized by international
community.
 Anarchy is problematic because there are several
potential problems when these sovereign states come
together.
 If each state is sovereign, who has the power
& authority to shape their behavior so they
can live peacefully?
 What if one state/a group of states chooses to
attack another one?
 What if one state/a group of states do not
recognize the authority of another?
 What if a government turns on his own people
and harm them?
 What if a civil war breaks out? It is whose
responsibility to help out?
 Who or what regulates state behavior in this
anarchical environment?
 Anarchy is fundamentally important in IR
because it defines the very border of the
discipline.
 The border between domestic and
international politics.
 Political science  domestic politics
 International Relations  international politics
 How to Map IR Theories?
 How to tell the story of IR
 Who are the key actors? What are the key
events? Which themes dominated the
discipline?
 Answers to such questions would be different, that is
why we need to categorize IR theories, in order to tell a
`story` of IR.
 Two main ways to this:
 Great debates
 Positivist vs. Normative theories
Great Debates in IR
 Why do we need to get over them?
 They give us a focus
 They help to regulate our questions
 They help us to categorize and place scholarly
writing within IR`s borders
 For great debates:
 st
1 : Idealism vs Realism
 2nd: Behavioralism vs Traditionalism
 3rd: Neorealism vs the rest
 4th: Post-positivism vs. positivism .
1st Great Debate : Idealists vs Realists
 About the nature of international politics and the
possibility of peaceful change
 Liberals (Utopians/Idealists): Peaceful change is
possible through trade and international institutions
 Realists: Liberals overlooked the true nature of power
politics. It is all about survival and reoccurrence.
2nd Great Debate : Behavioralists vs Traditionalists
 A debate about methodology.
 Traditionalists: study of social world can not be done
with natural sciences methods/ no value free theorizing
 Behavioralists: IR could best be studied using natural
sciences methods/ value free theorizing
3rd Great Debate: Neorealists vs The Rest
 A harder debate to describe since who is involved and
defended which position is not that clear.
 Mostly a debate between neorealism vs. IPE schools
 IPE criticized neorealism for simplifying IR without
paying any attention to economic facts and events.
 Third great debate resulted in the reemergence of
theories such as Marxism and the English School
4th Great Debate : Post-Positivists vs Positivists
 Some argue that it is the genuine 3rd debate since the
other one basically all approaches involved share the
same commitment.
 Post positivists are critical of all mainstream approaches
to IR.
 Feminism, critical theory, postmodernists and
poststructuralists think that mainstream theories
overlook a variety of important issues in world politics
such as human security, gender issues, inequality etc.
Positivists vs Normative Theories
 Critiques of the `great debate` story telling of IR
 Not all great debates actually took place
 Great debates reflect only Western account of
IR
 Great debates ignore equally important and
interesting disciplinary controversies
 Giving a chronological context is risky because
actually there is none.
How to Evaulate IR Theories?
 What makes an IR theory a good one?
 How to decide benchmark for evaluating IR theories?
  IR theories` prediction capacity is limited
 Yet explaining capacity is powerful, and valuable.
 Comparing relative strengths and weaknesses of
theories is challenging.
 Theories are responses to particular issues.
IR Week 3/Classical Realism
Basic Realist Ideas & Assumptions
 a pessimistic view of human nature
 international relations are necessarily conflictual and
that international conflicts are ultimately resolved by
war
 National security and state survival are basic values in
international relations
 Skeptical view on progress in international politics
 All men and women have a ‘will to power’.
 In realist thought humans are characterized as being
preoccupied with their own well-being in their
competitive relations with each other.
 Human beings are basically the same everywhere
 So the desire to enjoy an advantage over others and to
avoid domination by others is universal
 International politics is no exception in this regard.
 acquisition and possession of power, and the
deployment and uses of power, are central
preoccupations of political activity.
 International politics is power politics = an arena of
rivalry, conflict, and war between states.
 In this arena defending the national interest; ensuring
the survival of the state; the security of its people;
repeat themselves over and over again.
 For realists  International system is an anarchy – a
system with no higher, overarching authority, no world
government.
 The state is the primary actor in world politics.
 International relations = relations of states
 All other actors in world politics are secondary; less
important or have no importance at all.
 There is a power hierarchy in international relations.
 All states are not equal; they differ in terms of their
power.
 The most important states in world politics are the great
powers.
 International relations are a struggle between the great
powers for security and dominance.
 Classical realism is a normative theory.
 It values national security and survival.
 State is considered to be essential for the good life of its
citizens
 State guarantee the security of individual which is a
prerequisite of human life.
 State pursue national interest in order to ensure its
security and survival.
 As all states seek their own interest; no other state can
be completely trusted or relied upon.
 There are no international obligations in the legal or
ethical sense of the word between independent states.
 The only fundamental responsibility of statespeople is to
advance and to defend the national interest
 That is why international relations is a self help system
and all states are security seekers.
 Progress in international relations is an impossible goal
to be achieved.
 Because of the human nature; states never change. They
will always be security seekers. Under these conditions a
rule based international relations is not possible. Power
is only rule.
 Based on this assumptions classical realism is a timeless
and spaceless theory that can be applied to any time
and any region in world politics.
Core Realist Thinkers
 Thucydides (400-460 BC)
 Ancient Greek general and historian.
 Wrote the book called `Peloponnesian War`
 For Thucydides international relations is inevitable
competition and conflict between ancient Greek city-
states (Totality of Greek city states is called Hellas) and
and between Hellas and neighbouring non-Greek
empires such as Persia and Macedonia.
 Those cities were not equal there was a power
hierarchy.
 The inequality among those states was natural
according to Thucydides. All states must adopt
themselves to this natural situation if they want to
survive and prosper.
 If they do not adopt themselves; they will be destroyed.
 International relations is an anarchy; there is no choice
for states other than obeying and following the
principles and practices of power politics.
 Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)
 Florentino thinker; political adviser
 His book is named Prince; which can be described as a
collection of advises to the ruler of Florence
 Power (the Lion) and deception (the Fox) are the two
essential means for the conduct of foreign policy.
 The supreme political value is national freedom, i.e.,
independence
 The main responsibility of rulers is to defend the
interest of state and ensure its survival.
 Achieving those ends require both strength and
cunningness.
 if a state is not strong it will be a standing invitation for
others to prey upon it;
 If rulers are not cunning; if they do not take advantage
of others; if they are not crafty they miss the
opportunity of bringing advantages to their state. They
might fail to notice the threats
 The world is both a dangerous and opportune place
 Exploiting the opportunities and being aware of dangers
is the key for survival.
 International relations theory is therefore is a theory of
survival.
 A leader must be aware of what is happening, do not
wait for things to happen. He/She anticipates the
motives and actions of others and do not wait for others
to act. He\she acts before others do.
 The responsible state leader must not operate in
accordance with the principles of Christian ethics (Be a
good person).
 These moral maxims are the height of political
irresponsibility
 A ruler carries the responsibility of his \ her state and
citizens. Rulers have to be both lions and foxes because
their people depend upon them for their survival and
prosperity.
 Political responsibility requires to act in accordance with
the guidance of power and security
 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
 His book is named Leviathan
 Men and women living in a ‘natural’ condition prior to
the invention and institution of the sovereign state.
 Natural condition = State of nature.
 State of nature is permanent state of war; war of every
man against every man.
 Nobody can be confident about their security and
survival in such a natural environment. Because human
nature is bad and power seeking.
 This state of nature is a pre civil condition.
 The only way to escape this condition is to establish
state  a civilized human condition.
 Men and women paradoxically cooperate politically
because of their fear of being hurt or killed by their
neighbours: they are ‘civilized by fear of death’.
 A peaceful and civilized life can only be enjoyed within a
state and it cannot extend beyond the state or exist
between states.
 Establishing sovereign state to end the state of nature
among individuals creates another state of nature
between states.
 This is called security dilemma. the achievement of
personal security and domestic security through the
creation of a state is creates international insecurity
that is rooted in the anarchy of the state system.
 There is no escape from the international security
dilemma, because there is no possibility of forming a
global state or world government.
 International state of nature is a condition of actual or
potential war.
 There can be no permanent or guaranteed peace
between sovereign states, no international peace.
 Only domestic peace is possible because The state is
organized and equipped for war in order to provide
domestic peace for its subjects or citizens.
 Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980)
 His book is named `Politics among Nations`.
 His thought is based on classical realist thinkers such as
Thucydides and Machiavelli.
 According to him humankind has a lust for power.
 Men and women are by nature political animals: they
are born to pursue power and to enjoy the fruits of
power.
 This brings people into conflict and war. But also it
creates a search for a secure political space.
 Which is state.
 Therefore security can only be enjoyed within state; not
beyond it.
 Politics is a struggle for power over men, and whatever
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.
 For independence you must have power, to enjoy
freedom from intervention you must defend your
interest
 Security and survival of state is valuable.
 Because anarchy invites conflict and conflict inevitably
takes the form of war.
 If wars are inevitable then use of force in human
relations is.
 How use of force can be justified in international
relations?
 Dual morality: morality for public and private sphere are
different.
 Political ethics allows some actions that can not be
tolerated by private morality.
 Mixing these two forms of ethics is irresponsibility;
which is fundamentally and morally wrong.
 Because political leaders have the responsibility of their
state and citizens.
 The heart of statecraft is being aware of the difference
between political and private ethics.
 Politics is rooted in a permanent and unchanging human
nature which is basically selfcentred, self-regarding, and
self-interested.
 Politics is ‘an autonomous sphere of action’ and cannot
therefore be reduced to morals
 Self-interest is a basic fact of the human condition.
International politics is an arena of conflicting state
interests. But interests are not fixed: the world is in flux
and interests can change. Realism is a doctrine that
responds to the fact of a changing political reality.
 The ethics of international relations is a political or
situational ethics which is very different from private
morality. A political leader does not have the same
freedom to do the right thing that a private citizen has.
That is because a political leader has far heavier
responsibilities than a private citizen.
 Realists are therefore opposed to the idea that
particular nations can impose their ideologies on other
nations and can employ their power in crusades to do
that. Realists oppose that because they see it as a
dangerous activity that threatens international peace
and security. Ultimately, it could backfire and threaten
the crusading country.
 Statecraft is a sober and uninspiring activity that
involves a profound awareness of human limitations and
human imperfections. That pessimistic knowledge of
human beings as they are and not as we might wish
them to be is a difficult truth that lies at the heart of
international politics
IR Week 4/Liberalism
Liberalism
 It is a name given to a family of related theories of
international relations.
 It is a theory that stresses the role of the varied social
interests and values of states, and their relevance for
world politics.
 Liberals argue that the universal condition of world
politics is globalization.
Liberalism : Core Assumptions
 Two assumptions liberal theory make are the
assumptions of anarchy and rationality.
 States (or other political actors) exist in an anarchic
environment and they generally act in a broadly
rational way in making decisions.
 Anarchy means that political actors exist in the
distinctive environment of international politics, without
a world government or any other authority with a
monopoly on the legitimate use of force
 Rationality  states and state leaders engage in foreign
policy for the instrumental purpose of securing benefits
provided by (or avoiding costs imposed by) actors
outside of their borders, and in making such
calculations, states seek to deploy the most cost-
effective means to achieve whatever their ends
(preferences) may be
Liberalism : The Differing Points & Unique Assumptions
 States represent social groups, whose views constitute
state preferences
 Interdependence among state preferences influences
state policy
 States Represent Societal Preferences
 states represent some subset of domestic
society, whose views constitute state
preferences.
 the state is a representative institution
constantly subject to capture and recapture,
construction and reconstruction, by domestic
social coalitions
 These social coalitions define state
“preferences” in world politics at any point in
time: the “tastes,” “ends,” “basic interests,”
or “fundamental social purposes” that
underlie foreign policy
 All individuals and groups do not wield equal
influence over state policy.
 Their (those social groups’) power varies
widely, depending on the context.
 Some states may represent the preferences of
a single tyrannical individual:
 (Hitler; Stalin; Kim Jong Un)
 Some states enjoy broad democratic
participation.
 Britain, Germany, U.S.A.
 Some states are in between those.
 The precise preferences of social
groups, weighted by their domestic
power, shape the underlying goals
(“state preferences”) that states
pursue in world politics
 Sometimes, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and other
actors may form transnational
alliances to assist social forces.
 “State-society relations”—the relationship
between a state and its domestic (and
transnational) society in which it is embedded
—lies at the center of liberal theory
 State preferences cannot be reduced to some simple
metric or preference ordering, such as seeking
“security” or “wealth”.
 States compromise security or sovereignty in order to
achieve other ends, or, indeed, just to save money.
 States rather strike complex and varied trade-offs
among economic, social and political goals.
 Interdependence among State Preferences Influences
State Behavior
 Liberals seek to explain variation in
preferences and its significance for world
politics
 States require a social purpose in order to
make all kinds of foreign policy.
 The critical theoretical link between state
preferences, on the one hand, and state
behavior, on the other, is the concept of policy
interdependence.
 Policy interdependence refers to the distribution and
interaction of preferences.
 that is, the extent to which the pursuit of state
preferences necessarily imposes costs and benefits
(known as policy externalities) upon other states
 Pluralism and competition among and within
states is inevitably existent to some extent
because of
 Scarcity of resources
 Divergent fundamental beliefs
 inequalities in domestic political
power among states
 However;
  Liberals do not assume these
divergent interests are uniformly
zero-sum.
 Liberals reject the utopian notion of an
automatic harmony of interest among
individuals and groups in international society
 Liberals argue instead that each state seeks to
realize distinct preferences or interests under
constraints imposed by the different interests
of other states
How Liberal IR Theory Works : Two Examples
 War
 Why do wars brake out?
 Both realists and liberals acknowledge wars
are bad.
 Practitioners also acknowledge that wars
should be the last resort in international
politics
 But liberals argue that wars break out
 Not because of imbalances of power,
incomplete information, or non-
rational beliefs and processes
 But because of states with
aggressive preferences.
 Trade policy
 Why states implement protectionism
international trade although it is widely
accepted that free trade is much more
beneficial for all states?
 Liberals explain protectionism by domestic social
preferences.
 Protectionism is generally backed by
producers who are globally uncompetitive
 Free trade by producers who are globally
competitive
 Even if the state is a net beneficiary from free trade,
domestic adjustment costs may be too high to tolerate
politically, or may endanger domestic social objectives,
such as domestic social equality or environmental
quality.
Utopian Liberalism
 First world war marks the beginning of IR discipline. (the
relationship between theory and practice)
 Millions have died, justification for all death become less
and less clear.
 Trench War
 Why did this war begin in the first place? What were the
motivation of countries involved?
 How to overcome conditions that led world to Great
War?
Woodrow Wilson
 Strongly influenced by Immanuel Kant’s Perpatual Peace
 Famous fourteen-point programme
 End to secret diplomacy
 Freedom of navigation on seas and free trade
 Armaments should be reduced
 Self determination of people
 Establishment of a general association of
nations (League of Nations)
Norman Angell
 The Great Illusion published in 1909
 Its main claim was that war serves profitable purposes is
completely wrong.
 Because
 Territorial conquest is expensive and politically
divisive
 It disrupts international commerce
 His ideas influenced later liberal thought.
 Modernization demands outside things
(goods, ideas, credits inventions)
 Interdependence may provide those instead of
wars
 through a rational and intelligently designed
international organization (League of Nations), it should
be possible to put an end to war and to achieve more or
less permanent peace,
 Realpolitik  Jungle
 League of Nations would tame dangerous animals like
states and turn the world politics into a zoo.
Why has it failed as a project for Peace?
 Why is it named as Utopian Liberalism?
 Political and economic developments of 1920s
and 1930s
 Great Depresssion
 Rise of Fascism (Germany, Italy,
Spain)
 Rise of Authotarianism (Poland,
Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia)
 Faliure of League of Nations
 Almost all of those related to mistakes done
at the end of the WWI.
IR Week 5/Strategic Realism, Neorealism and
Neoclassical Realism

Core Concepts and Assumptions of Classical Realism
 A normative theory
 A pessimistic view of human nature
 Emphasis on the power concept
 Survival and security are valuable
 State leaders’ responsibilities
 Independent states in an anarchical
environment
 Balance of power
 Peace can only be achieved by valuing power,
state, security, balance of power.
The difference between Classical and Neorealism
 Pessimistic view on human nature is at the
core of classical realism which is
 Unscientific and subjective
 An international relations theory must
be as scientific and value-free as
possible(behviouralist revolution in
social sciences)
 So this assumption must be removed
from the analysis
Strategic Realism
 Thomas Schelling-The strategy of Conflict &
Choice and Consequence
 Cold war environment
 His analysis concerns `how statespeople can
deal rationally with the threat and dangers of
nuclear war`
 Aims to remove normative analysis and uses
game theory in order to explain how leaders
must act in foreign policy.
 The link between interests and values are
taken as given in Schelling’s theory.
 When state leaders confront basic diplomatic
and military issues, they are obliged to think
strategically—i.e., instrumentally—if they
hope to be successful
 Foreign policy is instrumental and free from
moral choice
 In classical realism there is a strong link
between power and responsibilities.
 Unlike classical realism Schelling does not
focus on ethics but he concentrates on foreign
goals. `What is required for a foreign policy to
be successful?
 Important distinction between brute force
and coercion
 States must prefer coercion over brutal force
because brutal force is
 Difficult to use
 Less efficient
 Dangerous
 A state must put some options on the table in
order to find some bargain
 `A bargain requires that our interests and our
opponent’s are not absolutely opposed`
Structural/Neo-Realism
 Kenneth Waltz-Man, State and War; Theory
of International Politics
 In which level we should look for the reasons
of war
 Individual level
 State level
 Systemic level
 He finds the solution in his theory on the
systemic level
 Waltz’s theory is based on some elements of
classical realism such as
 International environment is an
anarchy in which states accept no
other authority above themselves
 International system is composed of
independent sovereign states
 Waltz puts no importance on human nature
and ethics of statecraft
 He completely discards these two classical
realist assumptions/arguments from his
analysis.
 A scientific explanation of international
politics
 Influenced by economic models  States are sovereign political organizations
but this does not necessarily mean they do
 `States are expected to behave in certain,
whatever they want. Sovereignty means
predictable ways`
states can decide for themselves whether or
 Focus structure of the international system not make alliances, war, peace etc.
which is external to the actors. Distribution of
 But structure constrain actor behavior. It
power in this structure is central analytical
rewards some actions and penalize others
focus
thus foreign policy choices are not
 Leaders and their policy decisions are unlimited.
unimportant because structure determine
 Waltz distinguishes between bipolar systems
leaders’ behaviors and their policy choices.
—such as existed during the Cold War
(the point neorealism departs from classical
between the United States and the Soviet
realism)
Union—and multipolar systems—such as
 The structure of international system is existed both before and after the Cold War
anarchy
 For Waltz bipolar systems are more stable
 States seek to ensure their survival in this and thus provide a better guarantee of peace
anarchical environment because it is a and security than multipolar systems.
prerequisite to achieving any goals.
 Because;
 States perform similar tasks in international
 the number of great-power conflicts is
relations
fewer, and that reduces the
 Collecting taxes; feeding armies; possibilities of great-power war
making laws; alliances; conducting
 it is easier to operate an effective
foreign policy etc.
system of deterrence because fewer
 The only thing they differ is their capabilities. great powers are involved
Greater the capability better they are at
 because only two powers dominate
performing those task; lesser the capability
the system the chances of
worse they are at performing them.
miscalculation and misadventure are
 Great capabilities  great powers. lower

 Great powers are so important in Waltz  On national interest;

theory that he explains change in the system
 Classical realists argue that leaders
with the rise and fall of them.
must follow the guidance of national
 Changes in the distribution of powers interest and act according to it in
means change in the system. The order to make successful foreign
composition of a system changes with policy
changes in the distribution of
 Waltz and neorealism on the other
capabilities across system’s units.` So
hand argues that states would
great powers determine the change in
automatically follow their national
the system.
interest because they have no other
 The states that are crucially important for options. It is similar to robotic
determining changes in the structure of the processes, national interests are like
international system are the great powers. signals that are given to robots in
order to make them act according to
 A balance of power between states can be predefined schemes.
achieved, but war is always a possibility in an
anarchical system. Great powers maintain
themselves and this means in bipolar systems;
 Neorealism- to what extent it is scientific?
maintaining the system.
  Values are not explicitly discussed in
neorealism they are usually taken for granted
such as sovereignty, independence, equality,
state security and survival
 In addition, neorealism makes normative
claims
 Great power management is
worthwhile
 International order is important
 And international order is better
achieved by bipolar international
systems.
Stability Theory-Hegemony-Mearsheimer
 John Mearsheimer- Back to the future:
instability in Europe after the Cold War; The
Tragedy of Great Power Politics
 Strategic realism and neorealism  aims to
explain and understand Cold War
international politics. (think about link
between theory and practice)
 The Cold War ended in 1990. How would
realism would respond to this significant
change in world politics?
 Mearsheimer argues that neorealism is still
relevant in international relations even in the
post Cold War era.
 As he thinks that neorealism is a general
theory, he applies neorealist arguments to
both past and future.
 The question he deals with is  what would
happen if the bipolar international system
were replaced by a multipolar system?
 Mearsheimer  `The next decades in a
Europe without the superpowers would
probably not be as violent as the first 45 years
of this century, but would probably be
substantially more prone to violence than the
past 45 years.`
 Because the peace between 1945 and 1990 in
Europe was the result of
 the bipolar system of military power
in Europe
 the approximate military equality
between the United States and the
Soviet Union
 the reality that both of the rival
superpowers were equipped with an
imposing arsenal of nuclear weapons
 There must be another Cold War in order to
ensure peace and stability in Europe
 If not the bipolar system will turn into
multipolarity. New great powers such as
Germany, Britain, Russia and Italy will rise.
This which will result in a system that is prone
to instability.
Defensive Realism vs Offensive Realism- Mearsheimer
cont’d.
 Mearsheimer Although he acknowledges
the importance of the structure in
international politics, still regards Waltz’s
neorealist theory as a defensive form of
realism. Because
 Waltz argue that state seek power for
security and survival and if they seek
too much power it becomes
counterproductive since seeking too
much power provokes other states to
take action to the power seeking
country.
 Mearsheimer defines his version of realism as
offensive realism. Because;
 According to him states always seek
hegemony and more aggressive than Waltz
thinks.
 All major powers try to dominate the system
because if they ensure their dominance no
one and no alliance would think to go to war
against it.
  Neorealist stability theory argues that for
that reason being a world hegemon is the
ideal situation for great powers but it is
almost impossible because;
 the world is too big to dominate alone
 And oceans are great barriers in front
of world domination
 For this reason states can only be hegemons
in their own regions
 China in East Asia
 Germany in Europe
 Iran in Middle East
 Russia in Asia and East Europe
 Nigeria in Africa
 Etc.
 However;
 States that have the will for world hegemony
would not allow regional hegemons to rise.
Thus offensive realism argues that  great
powers ‘are always searching for
opportunities to gain power over their rivals,
with hegemony as their final goal`.
 That is why great power politics is a tragedy.
 International relations recurs and repeats
itself all the time.
Neoclassical Realism
 It is a developing (not established) theory that
tries to bring together the best elements of
Neo-Liberalism
classical realism and neorealism in order to
respond some arguments associated with
liberalism.
 Anarchy (common)
 Significance of structure (neorealism)
 Relative power of states (neorealism)
 Importance of leadership (classical realism)
 Importance of foreign policy choices and
making .(classical realism)
IR Week 6/ Liberalism Part 2
Liberalism vs. Realism
 Pessimistic view of realism vs optimistic view
of liberalism
 Realism negative view on human nature
 Liberalism
 Recognize self interested and
competitive nature of individuals up
to a point
 But also believe that individuals share
many interests and can collaborate.
 Progress in international relations
 Realists  International relations is a
recurring phenomenon. Because of the
limitations of human nature and systemic
constrains
 Liberals
 Early liberals entirely optimistic
 Neo liberals cumulative progress.
Especially for individuals. Political and
social aspects of life.
 State
 Realists  Machstaat: state is first and
foremost concentration and instrument of
power
 Liberals  Rechtstaat: state is a constitutional
entity which establishes and enforces the rule
of law that respect the rights of citizens to life,
liberty and property.
 A renewed version of earlier liberalism which
avoids its utopian excesses.
 During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, a good
deal of international relations concerned
trade and investment, travel and
communication, and similar issues which
were especially prevalent in the relations
between the liberal democracies of the West.
 Based on these developments liberals started
to formulate an alternative to realism.
 Share basic liberal ideas such as
 Progress (limited)
  Change
 Reject idealism
 Peace through democracy and free
trade
 A universal international organization
can bring an end to wars
 Neo Liberals also aim to adopt a `scientific`
study of international relations
(behavioralism)
Neo Liberalism 4 Versions
 Sociological Liberalism
 Interdependence Liberalism
 Institutional Liberalism
 Republican Liberalism
Sociological Liberalism
 IR is not only about state–state relations; it is
also about transnational relations
 Relations between
 People, Groups, Organizations
in different countries
 Transnationalism: the processes whereby
international relations conducted by
governments have been supplemented by
relations among private individuals, groups,
and societies that can and do have important
consequences for the course of events.
 Relations between people are more
cooperative and more supportive of peace
than are relations between national
governments because
 People share many interests based on
interdependence among them. They
establish more cooperative relations
among them
 States are exclusive and their
interests do not overlap and cross cut.
 Karl Deutsch 1950s. Security Community
 High degree of transnational ties between
societies leads to peaceful relations that
amount to more than the mere absence of
war.
 Security community means a group of people
which has become integrated (a sense of
community achieved).
 In this communities problems can be resolved
without resort to large scale physical force
 Security community is achieved in the North
Atlantic area because in that region there is
increased social communication; greater
mobility of persons; stronger economic ties;
high degree of mutual human transactions
 John Burton 1970s World Society-Cobweb
model
 Transnational relations between people from
different countries help create new forms of
human society which exist alongside or even
in competition with the nation-state.
 Nation states  different social groups 
different interests different ties with groups
in other states
 Map of patterns of communication and
transactions between various groups
represents more accurate view of world
politics than a simple political map of the
world.
Cobweb model points to a world driven more by
mutually beneficial
cooperation than by antagonistic conflict because
cross cutting and overlapping group memberships are
more beneficial for individuals and therefore conflicts
are muted.
 Rosenau 1990s. Transnational Relations-
Multicentricism
 Individuals extended their activities and have
less ties to their states because
 Better communication technologies
 Access to better education
  Travel
 States capacity to regulate and control
decreased in this complex world.
 A profound transformation of the
international system that is underway from
state centric world of sovereignty bound
actors to multicentric world of sovereignty
free collectivities.
Interdepence Liberalism
 Interdependence  peoples and
governments are affected by what happens
elsewhere, by the actions of their
counterparts in other countries.
 Higher level of transnational relations
 Higher level of interdependence
 Richard Rosecrance 1980s
 Military force and territorial expansion vs.
development and foreign trade.
 For highly industrialized countries
development and foreign trade are less costly
ways of achieving prosperity and prominence
 Because costs of using military force increased
and benefits decreased.
 Modernization changed the character of
production
 From territory and natural resources to
qualified labor and capital.
 A high division of labour in the international
economy increases interdependence between
states, and that discourages and reduces
violent conflict between states
 Wars occur in less developed countries
because of the lower levels of economic
production, land based economy and weak
modernization and interdependence.
 David Mitrany 1960s. - Functionalist Theory
of Integration
 Greater interdependence in the form of
transnational ties between countries could
lead to peace.
 Cooperation should be arranged by technical
experts not by politicians.
 Because experts can resolve common
problems such as transportation,
communication, finance etc.
 This collaboration between states would
expand to other areas and citizens would
transfer their loyalty to international
organizations as a result of realizing the
welfare improvements provided by them.
 In that way, economic interdependence
would lead to political integration and to
peace.
 Ernst Haas - Neofunctionalist theory of
International Integration.
 Rejects the notion that ‘technical’ matters can
be separated from politics.
 Integration is a process whereby ‘political
actors are persuaded to shift their loyalties . . .
toward a new center whose institutions
possess or demand jurisdiction over the
preexisting national states`.
 Spillover effect  Increased cooperation in
one area leads to increased cooperation in
other areas.
 Spillover would ensure that political elites
marched inexorably towards the promotion of
integration.
 Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye 1970s –
Complex Interdependence
 Relations between states nowadays are not
only or even primarily relations between state
leaders
 there is a host of transnational relations
between individuals and groups outside of the
state.
 Thus;
 International relations are no longer
directed by state leaders dealing with
other state leaders.
 Use of military force is less preferred
option in case of conflicts
 high politics’ of security and survival
had priority over the ‘low politics’ of
economics and social affairs.
  International relations are becoming more like
domestic politics.
 Different issues generate different coalitions,
both within governments and across them,
and involve different degrees of conflict.
 In those conflicts use of military force is often
irrelevant.
 Power resources other than military ones are
of increasing importance
 Based on these reasons;
 Transnational (i.e. NGOs) actors will pursue
their own goals free from state control
 Power resources will most often be specific to
issue areas
 Importance of international organizations will
increase
 In sum;
 Modernization increases the level and scope
of interdependence between states.
 Under complex interdependence,
transnational actors are increasingly
important, military force is a less useful
instrument, and welfare is becoming the
primary goal and concern of states.
 That means a world of more cooperative
international relations.
Repuclican Liberalism
Institutional Liberalism
 Based on the earlier liberal thought of
beneficial effects of international
institutions.
 International institutions make cooperation
easier but do not guarantee the total
transformation of ir.
 An international institution is an international
organization, or it is a set of rules which
governs state action in particular areas, such
as aviation or shipping
 These institutions help to promote
cooperation between states.
 Scope and depth of international institutions
are important in measuring their
effectiveness.
 Scope number of issue areas in which there
are institutions
 Depth 
 Commonality
 Specificity
 Autonomy
 Institutions help to reduce mistrust between
states by
 Providing flow of information
 Providing a forum of negotiation
 Fostering cooperation
 In sum;
 International institutions help promote
cooperation between states and thereby help
to lighten the lack of trust between states
and states’ fear of each other. Thus they help
to stabilize ir and provide peace and stability.
 Based on the claim that liberal democracies
are more peaceful and law-abiding than are
other political systems.
 Democracies do not go to war with each
other.
 As the number of democracies in the world
has increased rapidly in the post cold war
international relations will be more peaceful
and characterized by cooperation instead of
conflict.
 Why democracies do not go to war with each
other?
 Existence of domestic political
cultures based on peaceful conflict
resolution.
  Democracies hold common moral  institutions, the influence of domestic societal
values actors and interest groups, the degree of state
autonomy from society, and the level of elite
 Peace between democracies is
or societal cohesion—intervene between the
strengthened through economic
leaders’ assessment of international threats
cooperation and interdependence
and opportunities and the actual diplomatic,
Michael Doyle 1980s – Democratic peace theory military, and foreign economic policies those
leaders pursue.
 Republican liberals are optimistic that peace
and cooperation will eventually prevail in
international relations, based on progress
towards a more democratic world.

 What are examples that this theory does not

work?

 New democracies?

 Lack of democratic culture?

 Different levels of economic

development?

 Democratic peace (pacific union) does not

automatically established between countries
as soon as they meet a minimum definition of
democracy

 Peace is built over a long period of time

 There can be setbacks

 In sum; 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.

 They accept that structure of the

international system constrain states but
they also argue that it does not ultimately
dictate policies.

 Neoclassical realism seeks to explain why,

how, and under what conditions the internal
characteristics of states—the extractive and
mobilization capacity of politic-military