Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory Robert W. Cox

Neorealist Assumptions Human beings are in a perpetual state of conflict and desire for power The actions of states are guided by a monolithic conception of national interest The relations between states are governed within a ‘balance of power’ framework

Critical Theory Problem-solving theories can only approach solutions within the existing framework, helping to legitimate dominant perspectives Critical theories allow us to question the perspectives themselves, and offer a wider range of insights and solutions

State/Society Complex Neorealism is ill equipped to study the state/society complex, which runs counter to the assumption that the state is an ahistorical, monolithic entity Historical Materialism offers us a better insight into the dynamic relationship between inter- and intra-state relations, by situating state/society activity in a particular historical, material, ideological and structural context. HM pays particular attention to the relations between productive forces

Structures, Historical Structures Structures Ideas Material Institutions Capabilities Historical Structures Social Forces Forms of State World Orders

Hegemony, Imperialism and Social Forces Hegemonic power is a product of the material capability/idea/institution dynamic The nature of Imperialism is historically contingent Imperial social forces do not necessarily stem from a state in itself, but from specific forces within and between states Petras argues the current imperial system is dominated by transnational capitalist interests, and that the individual states within that system are not only differentiated by power, but by function

How do Cox’s concepts of hegemonic power and the state/society complex apply to the Iraq invasion?

Internationalization Through the internationalization of the state and productive forces, neorealist conceptions of hegemonic power which emphasize the competing national interests of sovereign states start to break down Organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the OECD play a key role in the transnational harmonization of policy The internationalization of production has created global class interests that transcend state boundaries

How accurate is it to say that the new imperialism is transnationally economic rather than state-driven?

Has the expansion of international capital caused marginalization Has the expansion of international capital caused marginalization? If so, what have been the consequences?

History and Structure in the Theory of International Relations R. B. J. Walker

Walker’s Three Broad Conclusions History should be given priority The differences in approaches to world politics need to be looked at from the level of their basic developmental assumptions Contemporary analysis of world politics poses fundamental questions about political theory

Keohane argues we need to incorporate history into the rationalist approach. Walker believes that if we need to adapt the rationalist approach, we need to rethink everything about International Relations.

Contrasting Perspectives History VS. Structure

Puzzles in Historical Narratives The contrasting narratives of history. Competing accounts of when the modern states-system arose The ‘Great Tradition’ of International Relations theory claims unchanging truths about the “eternal game of relations between states”. The fact that concepts which we see as natural and inevitable were once contested.

How have competing historical narratives played a role in specific international political issues?

Structure Do structures really exist in concrete form or only in theory? Metaphors are used to help clarify certain concepts but sometimes do not take into account cultural and political contexts. Is human action more a product of structures or are structures more a product of human action? Structural terms are informed by historical concepts.

How are history and structure as outlined by Walker relevant to the Israeli/Palestinian statehood debate?

How do Walker’s ideas about structure coincide with or differ from Cox’s perspective on structure?