Levels of Analysis-

International Relations
  states,

What does the  groups of states,

international  organisations,

system consists  societies or

 individuals within and across those societies
of
  How to look at various International Relations happenings
 Why a country went to war with the other?
 Why the financial crisis happened?
The problem of  Where do you start to look?
IR
 We can start out by looking at the levels of analysis
 WWI
 Lasted 1914-1918
 The most destructive conflict
 Industrial tech was applied to war on a global scale
 What caused the war– various traits of the leaders, Kaiser
William perceived sense of inferiority, lack of democracy,
imperialism, hidden alliances
 All these can be seen in level of analysis
  The system
 The state
 The individual

Three levels of  The heart of the debate is to know whether

analysis international inquiry should be focused at the
individual, state, international-system, or
other level.
 Who is the actor? Whether individual,
bureaucracy or state?
  seeking to divide complex international politics into smaller,
bite-sized, ‘chunks’.
 The levels of analysis tell several ‘stories’ about the way the
international system works.

Why do we do  the approach allows us to appreciate the various interactions

between and among the individuals and the larger political
that? environment.
 It also equips us with a framework for analyzing the interplay
between domestic- and international factors
 It provides stories about how the world works
Kenneth Waltz’ Three
Images
  In the First Image, the assumption is that the egotistical
human nature causes wars. This level of analysis
suggests that we do not need to go further than the
personal attributes of policy makers to appreciate the
First image causes of wars.
 According to the first image of international relations,
the locus of the important causes of war is found in the
nature and behaviour of man. Wars result from
selfishness, from misdirected impulses, from stupidity.
  focuses on the internal constitution of the state, such as
its ideological underpinnings.
 Arguments such as whether or not democracies are more
peaceful than autocratic states determine the way we
explain international events.

Second image  One explanation of the second-image type is illustrated

as follows.
 War most often promotes the internal unity of each state
involved. The state plagued by internal strife may then,
instead of waiting for accidental attack, seek the war that
will bring internal peace
  A shift from an individual level to a more collective
level.
 We go to the Third Image,
 anarchic nature of the international system.
Third Image  With many sovereign states, with no system of law
enforceable among them, with each state judging its
grievances and ambition according to the dictates of its
own reason or desire—conflict, sometimes leading to
war, is bound to occur
  This level is the most comprehensive of the level
 Encompasses all the interactions that take place within
the system
 Helps into looking at forming and breaking of coalitions
 Role of power
The international  Helps to examine IR as a whole
system as level  Looks at ‘states in the world’ as individuals in the state
of analysis of nature. They are neither perfectly good nor are they
controlled by law’
  In international relations, the sole interest lies in maximizing power
 States are therefore in constant struggle in maximizing power
 Actors are rational, meaning they are capable of making informed
decisions when faced with choices
 Actors are unitary, meaning that the proponents of this story are
concerned less with what happens inside a state, than what happens
when a state collectively formulates a policy. In other words, what goes
The system on inside the state is often left out of the story
 Waltz says that systemic factors are crucial in understanding
international politics
 focus should be firmly on the behaviour of states as unitary, rational,
actors, rather than what goes on inside them(Waltz, 1979: 62-63).
 Actors refer solely to states. it is the states who enjoy legitimate
monopoly of violence. Role of non-state actors such as Multinational
Corporations (MNCs) is less
 States are considered as unitary actors, meaning they are to be treated
as ‘things’. While role of groups, bureaucracy and interest groups
and individuals are recognized – such as the charisma of John
Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis or Trump’s twitter policy
bungles, these factors are less significant
 It also takes for granted that the international system is anarchic,
meaning there is no world government or world police.
 According to realists and neo realists, as states constantly
seek to maximise power
 Power in this case is Ability to influence others
 This includes physical ability to influence your opponent’s
thinking, such as possessing nuclear weapons; or it could
be psychological power—the ability to change others’
thinking without any physical or financial outlay on your
part
 The result is a constant competition for survival.
 Accordingly, cooperation between and among actors might
happen; but the fear of someone reneging on promises is
too great, to the extent that there is a constant fear of war.
 If everyone in the international system thinks this, the
logical conclusion is that wars can happen at any
moment.
 John Mearsheimer (1995) warns that, just because the
European Union (EU) provides a forum for member
states to negotiate their national interests, the EU is not a
world government, nor is it an international police force.
 EU cannot prevent war in Europe—if it ever comes to
that.
 This pessimism is the hallmark that international
system resembles a billiard table, where billiard balls
collide and react against one another
  the lack of insight into domestic actors, coupled with the
assumptionthat national interests of state actors are
predefined in terms of maximizing power
 Ends up taking a holistic, top down view

Critique  The state actors are effectively ‘black boxed’

 Black boxing of states:an assumption that considers
states to be unitary actors; and that only their foreign
policy outcomes matter in international politics. As such,
only a cursory attention is given to domestic politics.
 So what might read in the newspapers—such as the preferences of US
presidents colliding with those of the Congress in many American
foreign policy areas including China, Iran, and international trade—
these factors are recognized and yet trivialized.
 It is oversimplistic!
 And does not account the role of domestic politics in foreign policy
 So may be role of communism in Russian foreign policy, religion in
Iranian foreign policy, etc
 The more we think about what makes states act in the way they do; and
the more we wonder about what motivates presidents and prime
ministers to make decisions that they make, we need to start plying into
the black box of states.
 This story necessarily provides a macroscopic view of the international
system. It is a good start, but it begs more questions than it answers
  National state is our primary actor in international
relations
 It permits significant differentiation among actors in the
international relationship

The National  When actors are studied in detail, can generalisations be

State as Level made of a comparative nature
 this level looks into the role of institutions like the UN
of Analysis as well informal special relations between countries– US
and UK, US and Israel, etc
 The theorists of this level realise the long term effects of
cooperation
 An example in this regard is that of North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO)
 the Cold War has ended with the collapse of the Soviet
Union; but NATO has found new raison d’etre in Kosovo
and Afghanistan
 The proponents of the theory look at institutions as
working to maximise state interests
 international regimes may be valuable to their creators,
they do not necessarily improve world welfare.
 intergovernmental cooperation takes place when the
policies actually followed by one government are
regarded by its partners as facilitating realization of their
own objectives, as the result of a process of policy
coordination
 They also look at international system as anarchy
 but consider that international institutions can ameliorate
some of the worst excesses of international anarchy.
States are looked as rational actors
 they create international regimes as a way to ‘establish
stable mutual expectation about others’
 They help in developing working relations that will
allow the parties to adapt their practices to new
structures’
 One factor that makes this possible in the eyes of the
Neoliberals is the existence of norms—‘standards of
behaviour defined in terms of rights and obligations’
 international regimes are like international ‘market’ for
national interests:
 once the state actors agree to enter into that ‘market’, they are
socialized into the particular ways of behaviour expected of
them in that context.
 This way of thinking potentially opens up the level of analysis
to include non-state actors, such as MNCs with enough
economic clout to become a significant player on the world
stage
 The global financial crisis following the Lehman Shock of
September 2008 is a case in point: the idea that some banks are
‘too big to fail’ gains potency because they are recognized as
powerful actors in the international system
 their failures can precipitate a financial contagion; or because
the governments are heavily dependent on these banks to
underwrite their debts.
 There is a complex interdependence: an idea in which the
international system is comprised of states and non-state
actors interacting cooperatively (especially
economically), while maintaining a semblance of balance
of power (especially militarily).
 rational actors at various levels of analysis engage in
rivalry as well as cooperation.
 It is also looked at how different states are choosing
different national goals
 Whether a state is democratic or totalitarian.
 What are the domestic political, cultural, social cleavages
etc
 And what internal and external factors do in this regard
  The notion of policy entrepreneurs
 individuals who are charismatic and instrumental in
bringing about change.
 These can be PM, President, leaders of MNC, activists
the individual  These policy entrepreneurs provide convincing
level arguments and ideas that can influence the course of
international outcomes, such as the negotiations leading
up to the evolution of the EU in the 1980s and the 1990s
The Web of Social
Interactions
  The last one looks at states as intentional actors who are engaged in
social interactions, comparable to individuals within human society.
 Actors are assumed to be intentional, not just rational. This means
that actors have identities and use symbolisms in their interactions

Social context  Actors could be states, groups, or individuals, thereby opening the
of international way for an even more complex analysis of the international system.

system  States have allies and enemies-- allies and enemies are the products
of socialization—how states have behaved toward one another over
time.
 States expect allies to act in a particular way, invoking collective
defence when an ally comes under fire – those not with us are
against us!!!
 The way we are able to distinguish between the
subtle nuances in our daily lives; and even
within the international system, there are
subtleties in the form of ambiguities that
govern the way state actors interact with one
another.
 From where the Presidents are meeting
 How they are meeting
 Hugs that Modi and Trump shared
 Tweets that Trump and Greta shared
Case Studies
 The Iraq War
2003

US invaded Iraq post 9/11

Initially went to UNSC to authorize invasion claiming
Iraq had WMD
But when UNSC denied that
Bush went on a unilateral mission of sorts
Personality traits of Bush: Wanted to avenge Dad
Bush’s failure in toppling Saddam from power. Saddam
was irrational, miscalculated, evil leader
At the domestic level– US oil companies interests, US
protecting itself from WMD, from ensuring that al
Qaida doesn’t take hold of the region, ensure that
American dominance prevails in the Arab region, etc
At the system level– countering Iranian influence in the
region, American dominance in the post CW

Explanations draw from various levels and retain

elements from all the levels. No single level can explain
it.
  The systemic level– the global/ international level– global warming
how is that leading to increased temperatures. But, it also has a
disproportionate effect on certain regions. Such as the Arctic. Countries
that have interest in Arctic have formed an Arctic council. There are
different interests– interests of protecting the Arctic, interests of
opening shipping routes, find energy, etc..
 State: states come together to effect political issue. State have tried to
Issue of climate formulate goals or series of policies to reduce the effect of climate
change change. Kyoto protocol, etc
 Within states, there has been policies or attempts such carbon taxing to
reduce carbon imprint. How local areas are taking action. For example-
New Delhi’s pollution fight.
 Individual: people like Greta Thunberg. Or scientific community and
the debates that are taking place on climate change