1. International Relations Spring 2007
Christy Story
Why IR?
There are no overlying governments in the international arena: instead, there are thousands of actors in the form of states, nations, IGO's, NGO's, multinational corporations, and regimes, which constantly vie for power, projecting their power struggles through war, trade, and diplomacy.
For the first several thousand years of human history, international relations consisted of epic wars and alliances between mighty and not-so-mighty kingdoms and empires. There were few formal structures in place, and in most cases, government held only tenuous power over subjects. In Western Europe, the Vatican had a degree of power above that of individual monarchs. Elsewhere, most people lived in empires, again subservient to a distant metropole of which they had only a passing knowledge.
Just to review:
Go to my website
3d exercise of Chap 1

2. IR is not Politics on Global scale
Realism: Hobbes (need gov’t/arbiter)
Neo-realism: who regulates? => chaos
Realpolitik: Morgenthau
Balance of Power
Liberalism: Rousseau (social contract) = UN
Basic dilemma = Power vs. Justice
Which should win?
Realism: Hobbes is the best example: nasty, brutish and short unless you make a covenant. That usually creates what? A gov’t
Of course, Hobbes described the actions of ind’ls … we need to look at states. Do they act the same as gov’t? Let’s assume not, but we’ll follow the analogy and see what we get:
Ind’l act out their independent agendas: I need more garden space; my neighbors need a safe way to walk to town … who mediates those interests? In int’l setting what are the issues?
International relations are amenable of objective study. Events can be described in terms of laws, in much the way that a theory in the sciences might be described. These laws remain true at all places and times.
-The state is the most important actor.
-The first corollary is that the international system is one of anarchy, with no common sovereign.
- A second corollary is that the state is a unitary actor. The state acts in a consistent way, without any sign of divided aims.
-Further, state behaviour is rational - or can be best approximated by rational decision-making. States act as though they logically assess the costs and benefits of each course open to them.
- States act to maximise either their security or power
- States often rely on force or the threat of force to achieve their ends.
- The most important factor in determining what happens in international relations is the distribution of power. Ethical considerations are usually discounted. Universal moral values are difficult to define, and unachievable without both survival and power.
This way leads to LIBERALISM
LOCKE, and even George Bush
a liberal internationalist is someone that believes that the use of force can (and should) be eliminated or minimised by appeal to human nature. They do not see fundamentally the disestablishment of nation states although they can see a possibility of some diminished role. This aversion to war and faith in human nature makes the liberal internationalist an optimist almost by definition. And almost always PROGRESSIVE (what does this mean?)
Another group of commentators saw that peace would eventuate through developments in ideas, beliefs and attitudes throughout the world. Changes were taking place in humankind that made them less likely to go to war. The major change was the widespread adoption of liberal democratic forms of government.
And if Realism sounded like basic economic principles, liberals rely on free market as well. The invisible hand works without conflicts.

3. Levels of analysis
System-level - socio-economic-political structures and accepted norms dictate state’s actions
State-level - states are primary actors
Ind’l-level - great leaders make great policy

4. How did we get here? Treaty of Westphalia (1648) Imperialism
Nation states
Sovereignty
Imperialism
Multipolar
Balance of Power
Modern international relations really began with the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years' War and gave the various states of the Holy Roman Empire individual sovereignty. After Westphalia, there were many new states that had full control over themselves.
For the next handful of centuries, imperialism was the name of the game, and Europe was where its epic battles were fought. Since European states were now sovereign, battles turned from ideological ones (the Crusades to liberate Palestine) to power struggles (Napoleon Bonaparte's attempt to take over Europe). States now acted in defense of their national interests. Modern international relations had begun.
the 17th century, when the science of international law took shape at the hands of Grotius and his successors, that the theory of the balance of power was formulated as a fundamental principle of diplomacy. According to this the European states formed a sort of federal community, the fundamental condition of which was the preservation of the balance of power, i.e. such a disposition of things that no one state or potentate should be able absolutely to predominate and prescribe laws to the rest; and, since all were equally interested in this settlement, it was held to be the interest, the right and the duty of every power to interfere, even by force of arms, when any of the conditions of this settlement were infringed or assailed by any other member of the community.
During the greater part of the 19th century the series of national upheavals which remodelled the map of Europe obscured the balance of power; yet it underlay all the efforts of diplomacy to stay or to direct the elemental forces let loose by the French Revolution, and with the restoration of comparative calm it once more emerged as the motive for the various political alliances of which the ostensible object was the preservation of peace.
Any state sufficiently powerful can ignore international law and upset the Balance.

5. 20th Century WAR Post-war War economy Nationalism
Liberalism vs. communism
Post-war
Bi-polar (Cold War) 1st vs. 2d world
End of colonialism - NAM 3d world
From the 18th century to the 20th century, international relations theory changed very little. But War and especially WWI created the “crisis of liberalism” (Carr) After World War I, however, some liberal intellectuals like Woodrow Wilson sought to change the old system. They believed that the sovereignty of states was not the be-all and end-all of international relations: that there should be an element of idealism as well, to enfranchise the world's peoples and guarantee them rights and freedoms. The first attempt to accomplish this was the unsuccessful League of Nations, which collapsed in the face of World War II and was resurrected after the war as the United Nations.
The sweeping changes brought by World War II, primarily the destruction of Europe's infrastructure and the rise of weapons of mass destruction that accompanied the onset of the Cold War, completely changed international relations. After a brief honeymoon of Pax Americana, isolationism ceased to be a viable option for most states, as they found themselves needing to fall under the nuclear umbrella of one country or another. In 1946, the Cold War was officially underway, and in its wake came globalization. The need to maintain collective identity vs. the need to achieve rights of “statehood.
1st, 2d 3d world
Balance of Power= super power and “NAM”

6. What do we have here. Realism. Neorealism. What if it were today
What do we have here? Realism? Neorealism? What if it were today? And Irag was getting knocked out?

7. 21st Century Multipolar? Non-state actors: need new level of analysis
Politics of Development
Poverty
Human rights
Coca-colonization
Security
Liberalism vs. fundamentalism
OK if cold war equaled “bipolar” world, what we have since is really a uni-polar world. But what would say France or Russia or even the smaller states want? “multipolar” how to achieve it requires working together
Since 1990’s we also need to look beyond just states, ind’ls, and IGOs: need new level of anlaysis. Why? Al qaeda, Shell Oil, Ford Motorcompany, EU where doe these fit in?
Also, Economic trade … it benefits everyone, but not equally trade is not fair. Yunus came to speak … what issues did his talk suggest for Int’l relations and theory?
Coca-colonization … what is the Big Mac index?
Security: does old fashioned military might still provide for security?
If liberalism came under attack after WWI for not being adequately prepared in the face of a state willing to use military might. What happened to liberalism after Sept 11th? Fundamentalism: is this an ideology? What are the levels of analysis required to add these new players and terrorism to the theory?