Chapter One: Understanding International Relations Course Name: Global trend Instructor; Asafa Tasgara (MA in peace and security studies ) Mettu University1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States 1.2. Understanding International Relations 1.3. The Nature and Evolution of International Relations 1.4. Actors in International Relations 1.5. Levels of Analysis in International Relations 1.6. The Structure of International System 1.7. Theories of International RelationsAfter completing this chapter, you will be able to: Define the meanings and nature of nation, states and nationalism Describe the meaning and evolution of International Relations Acquaint yourself with different perspectives, approaches and paradigm of intemational relations Identify and analyze the roles different actors play using the three levels of analysis Examine the structure of international system and the laws governing its operation1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States Nationalism * the most influential force in international affairs Y outbreak of revolutions and wars across the globe ¥ collapse of age old empires v marker for new borders & emergence of new states doctrine that asserts the nation as the basic political unit in organizing society. nations are historical entities that evolve organically out of more similar ethnic communities and they reveal themselves in myths, legends, and songs. constitutes a community of people joined by a shared identity and by common social practices. »> ‘nation’, ‘state’ and ‘country’, not the same > United Nations----misnomer/wrong connotationDifferences between Nationalism, Nation and State Nation Nationalism State -People with more -Abeliefin nations -An entity having common as supreme and at population, its own backgrounds the center of every government, defined political actions/ territory and decisions sovereignty > The 1776 American war of independence > The 1789 French Revolution > Westphalia treaty=== Inter-state (1648) > Bentham=== Inter-national(1789) > 1848 nationalist uprisings quickly spread across EuropeIRs ab 2p Haderstandiog datergationals IRs BRelatiosssiudy (discipline)- the study of who gets what, when and how at global level. Subsequently, the first university chair of international relations was founded at the University of Wales in 1919. {Participation in international relations is inescapable & Distinction between domestic and international politics: real but declining & Philosophical debates on human nature analogy to IRs: Hobbesian vs Lockean €realist(anarchic) vs liberal(ordered))Today, international relations could be used to describe a range of interactions between people, groups, firms, associations, parties, nations or states or between these and (non) governmental international organizations v Example; = sending international mail = buying or selling goods abroad = choosing an Olympics host or awarding a film Oscar v events such as: «international conflict « inter-national conferencesthere are legal, political and social differences between domestic and international politic > Domestic law ¥ is generally obeyed, and if not, the police and courts enforce ¥ agovernment has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force > International law(politics) v rests on competing legal systems, and there is no common enforcement v¥ noone has a monopoly of force, and therefore « international politics has often been interpreted as the realm of self-help = BUT some states are stronger than othersThere are philosophical disputes about the fundamental nature of international relations: ” Hobbesian versus the Lockean ¥ Realist versus Idealist > Hobbes « state of society to be continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short > Locke optimistic view strongest bond between men — men were equal, sociable and free nature did not arm man against man, and that some degree of society was possible even in the state preceding government % Hobbes and Locke are still able to divide approaches to theHow is international peace and order maintained? Who is responsible for maintaining international peace and order? International politics is also about maintaining international order. But that order has to be maintained in an anarchical world. - self-help system - No sovereign body to rule over others1.3. The Nature and Evolution of International Relations Struggles in the process of rise to state Catholic church for long ruled Europe Holy Roman Empire (a kind of loose federation) Evolving of Protestantism after Reformation 16th C onwards, rising states to protect interests of their peasants European states emerged in the midst of struggle and strife The Thirty Years’ War, 1618-1648, was the bloodiest and most protracted military confrontation of the era. Was a religious conflict since Catholic states confronted Protestants The Treaty of Westphalia, 1648, which concluded the 30 years of warfare, has come to symbolize the new way of organizing international politics (based on Sovereignty).Cont... From this point onwards, international politics was a matter of relations between states and no other political units. All states were sovereign, meaning that they laid claims to the exclusive right to rule their own territories and to act, in relation to other states, as they themselves saw fit. All states were formally equal and they had the same rights and obligations. Taken together, the states interacted with each other ina system in which there was no overarching power. Sovereignty and formal equality led to the problem of anarchy. In order to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary conflicts, the different rulers began dispatching ambassadors to each other's courts.Cont... This diplomatic network provided a means of gathering information, of spying, but also a way of keeping in touch with one another, of carrying out negotiations and concluding deals. The practices of diplomacy soon expanded to include a number of mutually advantageous provisions: - the embassies were given extraterritorial rights and legal immunity, - diplomatic dispatches were regarded as inviolable and - ambassadors had the right to worship the god of their choice. * These originally north Italian practices gradually expanded to embrace more states and by the middle of the seventeenth century, the system included France, Spain, Austria, England, Russia, Poland, Denmark, Sweden and the Ottoman Empire.Cont.... Diplomatic practices were never powerful enough to prevent war, indeed wars continued to be common, but they did provide Europeans with a sense of a common identity. A European state was, more than anything, a state that participated in the system of shared diplomatic practices. On the other hand, most of what happened in Europe before the nineteenth century was of great concern to the Europeans but of only marginal relevance to people elsewhere. It was only in the nineteenth century that relations between Europe and the rest of the world were permanently transformed. The reason is above all to be found in economic changes taking place in Europe itself.Cont... At the end of the eighteenth century, new ways of manufacturing goods were invented which made use of machines powered by steam, and later by electricity, which made it possible to engage in large-scale factory production. As aresult of this so called ‘industrial revolution’, the Europeans could produce many more things and do it far more efficiently. As cheap, mass-produced goods flooded European markets, the Europeans began looking for new markets overseas. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, other European countries joined in this scramble for colonies, not least in Africa. Colonial possessions became a symbol of ‘great power’ status, and the new European nation-states often proved themselves to be very aggressive colonizers.Cont... France added West Africa and Indochina to its growing empire, and the Germans and Italians also joined the race once their respective countries were unified. This explains how, by the time of the First World War in 1914, most parts of the world were in European hands. There were some exceptions to this rule — China, Japan, Siam, Persia, Ethiopia and Nepal, among others - but even in these ostensibly independent countries, the Europeans had a strong presence. It was instead through the process of liberating themselves from the colonizers that the European models were copied. Since the Europeans only would grant sovereignty to states that were similar to their own, the only way to become independent was to become independent on European terms.1.4. Actors in International Relations ‘v_ Who are the dominant role players in IRS? v_ What are roles/ways of affecting interactions used by eachin IRs? 1.4.1, State Actors In old times, States were the only actors. Now, are not the only but the primary one States conduct IRs as sovereign through declaring war, concluding apeace, negotiating atreaty, and many other things 1.4.2. Non-State Actors ‘Those interactions that happen b/n and among bodies other than States global firms(MNCs), international governmertal institutions, and non-govemmental organizations ‘The majority of global interactions ~ be they related to global finance, production, education, personal and professional travel labor migtationor terroriem ~ no longer occur vig state channels the way they once did.Cont... We could say that the increased focus on non-state actors and cross-border issues has marked a close-to-revolutionary turn in IR; something that could be interpreted as a shift away from the international (‘between-states’) to the ‘trans-national’ (‘across/beyond-states’ and their borders) Thinking about world affairs in ‘trans-national rather than in purely ‘international’ terms therefore seems more of an analytical necessity than just a choice. Advancement in Science and Technology is an engine behind the transition Social media provide accessible platforms of communication Random individuals can potentially start a revolution from their homes, bypassing any conventional conceptions of power and transcending spatial and material boundariesCont... 1.5. Levels of Analysi International Relations Have you ever thought that a single international political phenomenon can be analyzed at different levels? How? In the early days of IR - say, from 1919 until after the Second World War - a lot of what could be called traditional or conventional IR was not concerned with any potential distinctions between different levels of analysis or theoretical perspectives From the 1950s onwards, more and more IR scholars endeavored to specify the focus of their analysis more clearly. Keneth Waltz: A theoretical Analysis of Man, the state and War (1959) is a pioneering theoretical ground Level of Analysis is all about triangulating why something happened from d/t levels (from global, state, group, individual roles) that our search for evidence will need to be comprehensive There are 4 levels: System, State, Group and Individual levelq The individual level emphasis the “great man in history” concept. q In this view, the very personalities, behaviors, motivations, beliefs and orientation of the individual leaders shape foreign policy q The most obvious example of individual level analysis is explaining WWII through Adolf Hitler's leadershipAnalyzing IRs from the perspective of individuals sychology and emotions behind people's actions and decisions, their fears and their visions as well as thelr access to information and capacity to make a difference affects IRS 1.5.2. The group level § try and break the analysis down into certain kinds of groups, how they relate to the state level and where they position themselves with respect to the global dimension of the issues they are dealing with § would be more interested in the actions of groups of individuals, such as all voters of a country, political parties, or social movements forming to counter the effects of the crisis on societyA Group-level analysis focusing on foreign policy would look, for example, at the role of lobbying groups and the way they influence national decision-making on an issue. A Group-level analysis would be more interested in the actions of groups of individuals, such as all voters of a country and the way they express their views in the general election, political parties picking up on the issue in their campaigns or social movements forming to counter the effects of the crisis on society. A group-level analysis could be interested in activist/ pressure groups like ‘Anonymous’ that seek to influence the global debate about the winners and losers of globalization and capitalism, and so forth. OMAN, $HCF,17,20261.5.3. The state level is referred to as the relative ‘state-centrism’ of the discipline i.e. so conceive of the state as a point of reference for other types of actors. Interested in states’ preferences, policies(mainly foreign), relations, roles, capabilities, geographical positions, historical ties and experiences, etc It was an era in which much of international affairs appeared to be run via state channels and in line with particular state interests. From this perspective, the state acts as the arena in which state officials, politicians and decision-makers operate. the state also being the main location of power within the international sphere States form the primary kind of actor in major international organizationsContinued... v_ Although the Cold War has long since passed, a lot of today’s political life remains managed in the state framework, based on issues like national security, domestic cohesion or internal stability. v Key indicators of the foreign policy of states would be the policies proposed and decided by governments, statements of top-level politicians Vv Astate level analysis might be interested to look at any one of the following: v_ it may look at how states interact with each other to deal with the crisis — in other words, their foreign policy; v_ how they cooperate in the framework of international organizations1.5.4. The system level (a level above the State) System level analysis argues that all foreign policy can be understood without even looking at internal characteristics of nations or individuals. conceive the global system as the structure or context within which states cooperate, compete and confront each other over issues of national interest. v It views international system is ‘anarchic’. v An anarchic system is one that lacks a central government global circumstances are seen to condition the ability and opportunity of individual states and groups of states to pursue their interests in cooperative or competitive ways include developments that are even outside the immediate control of any particular state or group of states, such as the global economy, transnational terrorism or the internet NB: complete understanding of IRs requires studying 4 of the levelspolitical power is usually distributed into three main types of systems They reflect the number of powerful states competing for power and their hierarchical relationship 1) Uni-polar system There is one state with the greatest political, economic, cultural and military power and hence the ability to totally control other states in both bipolar and multipolar systems there is no one single state with a preponderant power and hence ability to control other states States in such systems are forced to balance each other's power2) bipolar system there are two dominant states (super powers) less powerful states join either sides through alliance and counter alliance formations problem with bipolar system is that it is vulnerable for zero-sum game politics because when one superpower gains the other would inevitably lose Example: the world was under bipolar system is the cold war periodthe most common throughout history reflects various equally powerful states competing for power In such system, it is possible to bring change without gaining or losing power It is not necessary for states to change their relationship with zero-sum game. During the period around World War | it was a typical world system.Global political power can be found in three forms/systems Unipolar—enly one state too powerful eg USA + Bipolar—two states are competitive (cold war era) Multipolar—more than two states Common concepts in Int! System: 1. Power: is the currency of international polities (the blood line of international relations) determines the relative influence of actors and it shapes the structure of the intemational system Power can be defined in terms of both relations and material (capability) aspects. Relational > “A’ forces “B" to do, otherwise cannot do v IRis essentially about actors’ power relations in the supra-national domain. v For instance, Hans Morgenthau, argues that International politics, like all other politics, is a struggle for power. It thus follows from this that power is the blood line of intemational relations.Unipolarity: The United States (1945-1949) 31Bi-polar 32Models of the Balance of Power uni-polar Bipolar Multi-pola r More Concentrated Less Concentrated 332. Anarchy a situation where there is absence of authority (government) a world where everyone looks after themselves and no onelooks after the system asa whole Withina country ‘anarchy’ refers to a breakdown of law and order, butiin relations between statesit refersto a system where power is decentralized and there are no shared institutions with theright to enforce common rules. Dependence on own resource or alliance formation > warfare Sovereignty a) a state's ultimate authority within its territorial entity (internal sovereignty) and, () the state's involvement in the inter national community (extemal sovereignty). In short, sovereignty denotes double claim of states from the intemational system, i.e, autonomy in foreign policy and independence/freedom inits domestic affairs.Continued... V_ One particular brand of liberalism, which is known as liberal institutionalism came into prominence after the WWI when the President of the USA, Woodrow Wilson laid down the foundation for the League of Nations v_Ashe presented his ideas for a rebuild world beyond the war, the last of bis points was to create a general association of nations, which became the League of Nations. v_US President Woodrow Wilson addressed his famous ‘Fourteen Points’ League of Nations (1919)Continued... V_ the League of Nations was created largely for the purpose of overseeing affairs between states and implementing, as well as maintaining, international peace V_ The primary concern of this approach was that conditions which had led to the outbreak of the WWI and the devastation which followed should not be allowed to occur in the future V_ The prospects for the elimination of war lay with a preference for democracy over aristocracy, free trade over autarky, and collective security over the balance of power system’ q However, the League collapsed due to the outbreak of the Second World War in 1999 q_ Therefore, despite the efforts of prominent liberal scholars and politicians such as Kant and Wilson, liberalism failed to retain a strong hold and a new theory emerged to explainthe continuing presence of war1919 to the 1930s ideas dominated by what is conventionally referred to as liberal internationalism (conditions conducive for war should not repeated) underlying assumption the academic study of IRs had the potential to contribute to the prevention of war and the establishment of peace. Scott Burchill points out ‘prospects for the elimination of war lay with a preference for democracy over aristocracy, free trade over autarky, and collective security over the balance of power system’ foundations for the liberal internationalism: democratic governance and institutionalized law-governed relations of cooperation between states The two formative pillars of liberal internationalism, democracy and free trade=>promote collectivist aspirations A system of ‘collective security’ was advocated to replace balance of powerInternational law performs two different functions. A. “operating system” of international law, and B. “normative system.” International Law: “operating system’(provide mechanisms for cross-border interactions) and “normative system” (shape the values and goals these interactions are pursuing) In short, the purpose of international law is thus to regulate the conducts of governments and the behaviors of individuals within states.There are three competing views on this matter. 1. international law is not a law atall but a branch of international morality. 2. others say it is a law in all senses of the term. 3. others say it is a matter of definition. As a result, the operating system of international law functions in some ways as a constitution does in a domestic legal system and not as law proper-i.e it does nothing beyond setting out the consensus of its constituent actors on distribution of authority, rights and responsibilities for governance within the international system. OMAN, $HCF,17,2026Realists argue that values are context bound, that morality is determined by interest The formative assumptions of realism centered on the view that the international system is ‘anarchic’ Conflict is hence an inevitable and continual feature of inter-national relations. Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes as its founding voices Hans Morgenthau+‘international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power': domination as opposed to cooperation 1950s and into the 1960s, IRs dominated by realist conceptions of international relations, based as these were on the state as the primary unit of analysis, and governed by the relentless pursuit of power43 v_ Intemational relations are anarchic due to the absence of sovereign authority V_ States serve their own interests in the international system by following a strict code of self help due to the absence of any authority above them v_ Noone state can trust another therefore cooperation is limited and unstable when it occurs Where domestic society is ruled bya single system of government, the international system of states lacks such a basis and renders inter-national law non-binding and ultimately ineffectual in the regulation of relations between states.Realists on the other hand believe states partake in international organizations only when it self-interest to do so q Took state as the primary unit of analysis, on interactions between states governed by the relentless pursuit of power, and on a substantive empirical agenda defined by Cold War Concems q_ Realism gained momentum during the Second World War when it appeared to offer a convincing account for how and why the worst conflict in known history originated after a period af supposed peace and optimism. Kenneth Waltz > aneo-ealist agenda - focuses on the intemational system itself and seeks to provide a structuralist account of its dynamics and the constraints it imposes on state behavior46 v_ when viewing that world through the realist lens, the world appears to be one of domination v_ The realist lens magnifies instances of war and conflict and then uses those to paint a certain picture of the world v_ Liberals focus on cooperation instead of domination v__ Itis important to understand that there is no single liberal or realist theory. v Scholars in the two groups rarely fully agree with each other V__both realism and liberalism have been updated to more modern versions (neoliberalism and neorealism) that represent a shift in emphasis from their traditional roots47 @ Both liberalism and realism consider the state to be the dominant actor in IR, although liberalism does add a role for non-state actors such as international organizations q_ Nevertheless, within both theories states themselves are typically regarded as possessing ultimate power. G In terms of liberalism, ts proponents arque that organizations are valuable in assisting states in formulating decisions and helping to formalize cooperation that leads to peaceful outcomes q_Realists on the other hand believe states partake in intemational organizations only when it is in their self-interest to do so.1.7.3. Structuralism/Marxism divides capitalist society into two contradictory classes — the business class (the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the proletariat). The proletariats are at the mercy of the bourgeoisie Marx hoped for an eventual end to the class society and overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat Marxists would argue that any international body, including the United Nations, works to promote the interests of the business classconcentrated on the inequalities that exist within the international system, inequalities created by capitalist system of wealth between the rich ‘North or the ‘First World’ and the poor ‘South’ or the ‘Third World’. producing periphery relatior focused on dependency, exploitation and the international division of labor which relegated the vast majority of the global population to the extremes of poverty As many in this tradition argued, most states were not free Instead, they were subjugated by the poltical, ideological and social consequences of economic jorces.1.7.4. Constructivism highlight the importance of values and shared interests between agents who interact on the global stage Its central assumption: the meaning constructed by an individual matters in IRs. It is ideas or norms that have power IR is, then, a never-ending journey of change recording the accumulation of the accepted norms of the past and the emerging norms of the future. As such, constructivists seek to study this process Structures(states) not only constrain agents(individuals) but also construct their identities and interests‘anarchy is what states make of it’ (Alexander Wendt) the essence of international relations exists in the interactions between people (states do not interact; it is agents of those states, such as politicians and diplomats, who interact) if anarchy is what we make of it, then different states can perceive anarchy differently and the qualities of anarchy can even change over time International anarchy could even be replaced with a different system if a critical mass of other individuals (and by proxy the states they represent) accepted the idea1.7.5. Critical Theories § established in critical response to mainstream approaches in the field § they oppose commonly held assumptions in the field of IR that have been central since its establishment § call fornew approaches that are better suited to understand, as well as question, the world we find ourselves in Critical theories are valuable because they identify positions that have typically been ignored or overlooked within IR provide a voice to individuals who have frequently been marginalized, particularly women and those from the Global SouthAssume state centered IRs divided and alienated ordinary peoples around the world. the legitimacy of the state must be questioned and ultimately dissolved Devised emancipation from the state in some form is often part of the wider critical agenda. Post-colonialism differs from Marxism by focusing on the inequality between nations or regions, as opposed to classesSummery Liberalism depicts optimism by arguing that human beings are good, cooperation is possible and conflict can be resolved peacefully Realism depicts pessimism by arguing that human beings are bad, conflict is inevitable and war is the most prominent instrument of resolving conflict Structuralism/Marxism focused on the structure of dependency and exploitation caused by the international division of labor Constructivism/Critical Theories challenge the foundations of the dominant perspectives and argue for the marginalized and the voiceless