International Relations Study Notes (IR notes)

1.

Home

2.

Up

Notes October 5, 1998 Suggested Questions for Essay 1 Answer one of the following: 1. Is the balance of power the only reliable basis for order in international relations? 2. Compare and contrast the League of Nations and the United Nations as international organizations. 3. Did decolonization after WWII undermine or strengthen the structure of the modern international society? 4. Why did the 'second Cold War' begin; and why did it end with the collapse of the USSR? 5. Are liberal theories of international relations necessarily utopian, and is this a problem? October 5, 1998 During the pre-Westphalian system, there was no real concept of sovereignty. There's no real distinction between "domestic" and "international." There was a central authority (the Pope), and a common language, Latin. Therefore, everything is somewhat unified.

Causes for change from Westphalian system Capitalism 



Emergence of a new type of class division, along with new workings between classes. The kings were "keen" on working with the upper capitalist class so that they could get land from the feudal lords and the kings could rule over a bigger area. Bodin - outlined sovereignty: 1) King has absolute authority over a certain area, and 2) externally the king has no authority over him.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.













Changes in thought (the Reformation/Renaissanc Reformation/Renaissance/Enlightenme e/Enlightenment) nt) 





Splits in the Catholic church that reduced the authority of the Pope. Ideas emerge that morals and laws are separate from the Church. Scientific knowledge expands, finding natural laws which further reduce Church authority. Change in perspective in art. (Ruggie did work on this.) The perspective may reflect the recognition of the world being split up into separate defined areas.

Changes in military 





Medieval system was based upon the concept of the knights, which ran around with different kinds of weapons. This sort of thing shifted to large, standing armies. (Give the peasants guns.) This brought programs of training and drilling. (Show the peasants how to shoot.) (Note that castles were no longer effective, and large structures needed to be built to protect large areas.)

All of this brought about the idea of states and reduced the authority of Christendom. This culminated in the Thirty Years War. Thirty Years War - a bunch of conflicts evolving around Catholic vs. Protestants. 





Catholics versus Protestants. Holy Roman Emperor versus France, Sweden, and a few Protestant Germany. Netherlands against Spain.

In Munster and Osnabruck, no less than 194 authorities were present. In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia basically made Protestants the winners. Important things about the Peace of Westphalia 

First recognition of sovereignty of states in Germany. General secularization of international relations, and a

















Origin of modern international law, again moving away from the previous single source of authority, the Catholic Church. Positive International Law , Law , where states can only be held to laws which the state agrees to.

This all brought about a new "mechanical system" of independent states, along with a system of rules for an international society. These are important concepts for this course: again, a system of sovereign states, and a society of states. The painting of the signing of the Peace of Westphalia, according to the speaker, reflected a new anonymization of the diplomat, no longer, "John Smith," but just a representative of a certain state.

Operation of the Westphalian System Balance of power - sort of like the free market economy. Everything is left to itself, and provides stability (but not necessarily peace) that guards against hegemony. The secondary function is to protect the independence of each state. This second function is secondary, because sometimes states are sacrificed for the balance of power (such as the partitioning of Poland). Balance of power just sort of automatically form because of natural interaction between states. It provides a minimum of order on which other organizations (international law, diplomacy, rules of war, etc) can flourish. The balance of power is makes an equilibrium, and it doesn't require any common moral agreement - everyone cooperates (more or less) not because they are the same, but because it is to each state's best interest. Other features of the Westphalian System: positive international law, diplomacy, rules of war (from jus (from jus ad bellum bellum to to jus jus in bello bello , whatever that means.) We see a balance of power emerging in 1815, when people bind together to stop the hegemonic attempt by France under Napoleon. From this brought a "Concert of Europe," a sort of club of states coming together to stop future hegemons. Furthermore, we see the Pax Britannica , the British control of the seas. These two mechanisms describe the things which bring about the "Hundred Years Peace," the long period in the 19th century where there were no major wars, just minor skirmishes. This was also a period of economic prosperity.

Causes of World War I





















The 19th century saw a lot of capable rulers that could work with each other and work with the system, and after they were gone the system couldn't cope with it. Structure changed which upset the balance of power. This included technological changes, feelings of nationalism, and capitalism. The balance of power engenders militarism and alliances, which can cause the balance of power to fall upon itself. For this reason, a little incident at the start of World War I can start the entire process.

Was balance of power the cause of WWI? Since the balance of power was so effective in the 19th century, what happened to it in the 20 century? Just recently we've had and are having conflicts in the Balkans; why hasn't this escalated into something like WWI? October 12, 1998

Liberal Theories Questions: What exactly is a liberal order? Was the inter-war order truly a liberal order? Three main goals of a liberal society: peace, prosperity, and justice. Different liberals start with different aspects, trying to achieve the same goal: having an international system that extends what democratic societies have done domestically. Justice: Realists think that politics is an amoral power play. Personal morals and state "morals" are not necessarily the same. Liberals have two objections to this: 



States have consciouses and recognize certain moral values. They can share these values and have certain norms that can be incorporated in certain organizations. States don't live in a moral vacuum. Point: states share moral values. Critical Position Position - A sort of Kantian idea that, although states live in a moral vacuum, there are certain ways states should behave should behave and they should be forced to do so. This is referred to as cosmopolitanism . cosmopolitanism . Point: there are certain















1930's - David Mitrany - Classical functionalism that functionalism that died out and came back in the 1960's. - Institutions are created to fulfill needs. Societies create these institutions. In the 20th century, we need some sort of transnational regulation. All sorts of institutions build up and then spill over into bigger, connected institutions like the EU. Rightness of Democracy: Realists say that states can balance each other by trying to meet their needs. Liberalists say that states are different and democracies are more peaceful. Since democracies are ruled by the people, the people themselves are less likely to vote for war since they are the people actually losing things. These ideas come from Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace . Michael Doyle has updated this concept by discovering that democracies don't really go to war with each other , but they are still aggressive towards non-democracies. Free Market: The concept that everyone gains from free trade. Some countries are good at producing different things and trade will allow states to maximize efficiency; this connects states economically so that they are very unlikely to go to war with each other.

Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations Was the League too liberal, or was it not liberal enough?

Intentions of the Allied and Associated Powers The Allied powers gave two main reasons for WWI: 1) balance of power politics promotes military buildup and wars, and 2) the balance of power creates an inflexible system of secret diplomacy, making a tendency for little conflicts to erupt into a bigger conflict. (Remember that all these were debates within the victories powers, i.e. the US and the UK.) These liberals had mainly two "prescriptions": 



Constraints on the use of force by states - Arms control, the rule of law that control the use of force and back them up with institutions New way of conducting foreign policy - A more flexible system than the old balance of power, to provide a way to discuss, debate, and resolve disputes; and give ultimate control of the decisions to the people (i.e. no secret diplomacy).

Wilson brought anti-imperialistic ideas to the table:















The fate of Germany - Should we punish the Germans (the French idea)? The French wanted the kaiser (the ex-ruler of Germany) and put him on trial (they didn't get this). The French demanded a war guilt statement in the treaty, which they got. They demanded reparations, which they also received. (This reflected the French idea that Germans should be crippled so that they could never do the same things again. What kind of economic system - Rebuild the old economic system and just "tinker" with it so that it never gets to extremes? They tried to reestablish the old systems and stabilize currencies. (Remember that the idea was that free trade brings about prosperity.) The gold standard was used to try to do this. (The problem is that in the 19th century the gold standard was propped up by Great Britain.) They also wanted systems for international welfare to keep revolutions from happening.

The League Covenant Article 1: Membership - the defeated states and the Soviet Union weren't allowed to join. Articles 2-7: Organizational Structure: 



Assembly (all members) League Council (executive body) - This was supposed to be where the great powers got together and governed things. Sort of an institutionalized version of the Concert of Europe.



Permanent Secretariat



Permanent Court of International Justice (1921)



Agencies: e.g. International Labor Organization

Articles 8-17: Preservation of Peace - as opposed to the balance of power system, where hegemons were resisted, this collective security resisted power by the other states binding together against those who use force without the "permission" or the international community. There wouldn't be a need for alliances, because all states would be protected against agression - therefore, you could have disarmament. 

Disarmament (8)



Collective Security (10-11)



Pacific Settlement of Disputes (12-17)

Articles 18-21: Legal Status of Covenant

















of ability of self-determination (classes A, B, and C). German was made to pay reparations, demilitarized, and the Rhineland was turned into a demilitarized zone. Article 23: Social Welfare "Universal peace can be established only if it is based on social justice." Articles 24-25: League's Relation to Other Institutions Problems: The great powers did not properly back up the system. Germany was not included at first, and the Soviet Union wasn't ever included. The US didn't ratify the treaty and accept the League of Nations. For these reasons, the League's decisions couldn't be backed up and it was therefore delegitimacized. So collective security was flawed from the beginning. The economic order wasn't fixed, either. Great Britain was weakened and the US didn't hold up currencies. The US economy collapsed. Everyone tried to cling onto stable currencies, set up trade barriers, etc. and the global economy went down. The failure of the US to keep up the economy was, according to the lecturer, was more important than its withdrawal from world politics. Should the old order have been kept, and just modified, or should everything have been done away with and a new order created? October 19, 1998 E. H. Carr's work blames liberalism for WWI. He is utopian; he thinks that all IR thought should have some goal in mind. However, the thinks that liberalism was too utopian - he thinks that IR thought should also be realistic. Carr thinks that 19th century liberal harmony was kept together by British hegemony. Towards the end of the 19th century, there became a competition of interests instead of a harmony of interests. He sees the

















distribution; national character and moral; and the quality of its diplomacy and government) is universal in time and space. 





Tension between morality and successful political action. In this point, he is very much like Machiavelli, where states have a different set of morals. But he doesn't think they are completely immoral. His ethic of responsibility says that they are responsible for their citizens. He also thinks that statesmen should be prudent, and should, after establishing security in their state, should help secure international security. Universal moral principles are just cloaks for particular interests. Centrality of politics in analyzing international relations. This says that relative gains are more important than absolute gains. International relations is not about efficient behavior and helping the entire world, but about who wins and who gets what.

Morgenthau tries to give objective scientific principles about international relations, the endpoint of which says that the only system that will work is a balance of power. He sent a message to the US to work for the well-being of the US without worrying as much about whether the policies are moral.

The policy of containment and the origins of the t he Cold War Classical Position - The USSR's expansionism and ideological commitment to establish a worldwide revolution caused the Cold War. Revisionist Position - The USSR was exhausted at the end of WWII and their actions of Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe was justified to provide a buffer. Plus, the US had the

















1945 George Kennan (minister of the US Embassy in Moscow, seen by the US as their expert on the USSR) gives diplomatic advice on how US foreign policy should implement Morgenthau's principals. Between 1947-1950 on, "containment" started to take on a different meaning. "The Long Telegram" - Said that fundamentally, the USSR was not an ideological country, and the US should not be that worried about it. It is hostile to the US because its leadership needs an enemy to be able to give an excuse of keeping its hold over its citizens, but don't be afraid of this. Communism in itself is not a threat to the US. n 1947, he wrote an article signed, "Mr. X," which says: 



"We are great and strong, but we are not great enough or strong enough to conquer and hold in subjugation by ourselves all ... hostile or irresponsible forces." The US should not try to transform the world to be like the US, but should try to manipulate the balance of power. The main power centers are the USA, Great Britain, USSR, Germany and Central Europe, and Japan. If anyone were to dominate any three of them, they would be dangerous, so try to make each of them independent and be able to defend themselves. This therefore explains the actions of the US of rebuilding right after WWII. Stategic goal: Prevent Soviet domination of these power centers so as to protect US national security and way of life.

The US policy changes: 1947 "Truman Doctrine" - "It must be the policy of the US to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure." This starts to broaden the US' interests from a very specific region to the entire world. This is because of fear of the "domino" effect and because the Cold War is beginning to become an ideological situation.

















Introduction: What does the question mean? What could count as an answer? What is the plan of the argument? Literature: What are the main theories? How do they differ? How could they be assessed? Argument: Logical structure, use of empirical evidence, make a case for a position. Conclusion: Summarize the argument, state the answer to the question, justify the answer on the basis of the argument. October 26, 1998 Two Traditions Realism

Liberalism

"Logic of anarchy"

"Logic of Cooperation"

Power vs. morality

Justice vs. order

Balance and stability

Cooperation and peace

Anarchic states-system

International society

Towards a Realist-Liberal Synthesis? Cooperation under anarchy The "utopian anarchy" Institutionalizing the balance of power

















Core Concepts 





International System (mechanistic/anarchic) - Two or more states in a setting where each has to take account of the other's behavior. International Society (international order) - They care to some extent about the other states, so they interact, not out of necessity, but according to certain rules and for certain goals. The issues of states are served. This is what Bull thinks exist now. World Society (world order) - (Cosmopolitan Society) - A universal community of mankind, where problems such as environmental issues and human rights are dealt with.

Components of International Society 

Common interests and common values. As long as the states have certain things in common, they can get together and make rules and institutions to realize their common interests.



Acceptance of common rules



Participation in common institutions

Conceptions of Justice 



Individual or human justice (solidarism) - Before justice, we must have some sort of order, and not just any order. Therefore, we shouldn't push the idea of justice too far because we don't necessarily have the order to back it up. International or interstate justice (international order)



















No membership rule

Sovereign statehood (i.e. only states possess sovereignty)

Primacy of natural law

Positive (volitional) law

Inchoate (ill-defined) and universalist rules of coexistence

Equal sovereignty and nonintervention Five key common institutions:

No defined set of institutions



Balance of power



Diplomacy



International law



Rules of war



Great power system

Main Stages in the Expansion of International Society 1648-late 19th Century: European international society



















Understanding Foreign Policy Changes: Three Models (from Graham Allison, Essence of Decision )

Rational Actor Model The state is seen as a rational actor, like a person. It is fully aware of its interests and how to try to achieve them. Foreign policy can change with changes in balances of power or in the makeup of the system itself. Allison doesn't find this adequate to define the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Organizational Politics Model Policy is the output of large organizations and bureaucracies. Each of these departments have their own area of speciality. It's the structure of their "standard operating procedures" that determines foreign policy; therefore, change is usually very slow and incremental. We look at these standard operating procedures and see how changes affect the overall foreign policy. Allison thinks this is an improvement, but it doesn't go far enough; it doesn't say anything about conflict between departments

Governmental (Bureaucratic) Politics Model



















neo-liberal approach, on the other hand, sees detente as a shift towards interdependence. Probably the biggest debate in America is the neo-realist vs. neo-liberal debate (personified by Waltz and Keohane, respectively). The neo-neo debate brings economics into the discussion. Taken from Baldwin's book, there are six points about what's at stake in the debate: 



Anarchy vs. Interdependence. How good are the prospects for international cooperation? This is probably the biggest difference between neo-realists and neo-liberalists. The neo-liberals believe that states understand reciprocity and will work together when there is a non-zerosum relationship.



Relative gains vs. absolute gains.



Maximizing behavior; military security or economic welfare?





Capabilities and Intentions: The role of domestic structure. (i.e. neo-liberalists are more pluralistic than neo-realists) The functionality of international regimes and institutions.

This is significantly different between the old realist/liberalist debate, that is, a



















Eisenhower, Dulles, and "Asymmetrical Retaliation." The core notion is how to maintain economic control while maintaining control around the world, and they see nuclear weapons as a cheap way to do this. Whenever the USSR "steps over the line," the US will come back with nuclear attacks. This is referred to as the "New Look." It's an attempt to keep the economic system under control.

Kennedy and the "Flexible Response" Kennedy says that the US will respond in a similar way - when the US does something, the US will respond in like manner, not necessarily using nuclear weapons. Kissinger's ideas about detente: Linkage: There are multiple ways in which states communicate, so there are multiple issues that a society must address in its own right. You can change things by manipulating other things. There is less of a scene for military action.

The Role of China Try to strengthen China so that you foster differences between communist countries, resulting in a tripolarity instead of a bipolarity. The USSR's rapprochement is therefore a reaction to differences with China and the US' new relations with China.



















Classical Marxism IR should be considered as a product of capitalist/socialist relations as a whole. There are three core propositions to this (in a very short, crude, explanation) 





Class relations - This relates to positions of people in terms of method of production. The people who do the work (the direct producers) don't have ownership of the means of production. Expropriation is kicking the peasants off the land, depriving them of the ownership of the land, and give them no choice but to sell their labor. Separation between the political and the economical - Once the peasants have been expropriated, the capitalists don't have to have political control over the peasants because they extract funds from them because they don't have any land. Commodification of social relations - all social relations are actually relations between people, but there is a depersonalization and we think of our social world in an impersonal, abstract way. Marxism had to show that what is going on here is actually a direct exploitation among people.

Lenin's Theory of Imperialism





















"Neo-Gramscian" Theories (Cox) These other theories don't provide for change. Cox says that we need to bring back in notions of the hegemon and of class. In 1945 we see a neo-liberal economic order with an internationalization of production, with multinational corporations, etc. This is similar to Keohane's argument of a regime staying around after the decline of a hegemon.

Inter-Systemic Conflict (Halliday) 



Socio-economic heterogeneity of capitalism and communism. Two different socio-economic systems. Socio-economic/political composition of states determines foreign policy decisions.



















Inter-Paradigm Debate The 3 Traditions (Wight) Realism

Realism

"Billiard ball model"

"Hobbesianism" or "Machiavellianism"

State-centric

State of War

Pluralism

Rationalism

"Cobweb model"

Grotius/Locke

Transnationalism

International Society





















Capacity to defend commitments.



Willingness to use the weapons.

For deterrence, you have to make it clear that using nuclear weapons is perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances.

Mutually Assured Destruction The key to MAD is the assurance of a retaliation that would be devastating. You have the delivery system to delivery a retaliatory strike. You have to have large numbers of delivery systems, dispersed over a large area. You need them to be protected. You need to conceal them. (e.g. submarines). Making them mobile would be nice. You need some sort of active defense system. Therefore, instead of protecting your population,

























Both sides remained very much aware that the weapons were special kinds of weapons and that the situation was special. Highlights the need of senior leadership. (Such as the shooting down of a plane over Cuba.) Significantly improved superpower relations. There is somewhat of a "learning curve." Kissinger said that "superpowers have an obligation not to humiliate each other" or something like that.

Assumption of Effective Crisis Management 

Single event or a time series: is the game iterated? Crises are always events in a series of events. A classic event is



















November 30, 1998

The UN Charter System of International I nternational Law All law systems are in some way related to and constructed by the political system it seeks to regulate. Hedley Bull makes a distinction between a pluralist and solidarist conception of international society. In this view, states are still the main actors. Bull thinks realism ignores the normative aspect of international relations, but he thinks





















Bull thinks that power politics still dominates relations between states, and international society is divided because of cultural pluralism, so the solidarist conception is premature. He thinks that order comes before justice, because we can't push the limits of the multiple cultures to the breaking point.



















norms. As Higgins says, the UN has become a vehicle for creating new international laws. 

Universal principles which represent the backbone of the whole corpus of international rules.



















The US is still a hegemon, but there are reasons that suggest that this hegemony may be in decline. (It's hard to measure whether a hegemon is in decline, however.) What kind of world order can we expect now?

Theories of Hegemony (Review)





















Something else (my computer battery died here...)

Internal Reasons for US Decline Advanced during the 1980's The US is too liberal in its welfare, etc.



















Intergovernmental Organization - An international organization in which legal membership is solely open to states, and the decision-making authority lies in governments. An association of states, in other words. International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) - Others besides governments

























































































































































































































































International Relations Study Notes (IR notes)

Recommend Documents