NOTES

1. INTRODUCTION
1) Why study International Relations?
Most of us are part of one state or another. States have traditionally been believed to provide Security,
Freedom, Order, Justice, Wealth and Welfare. These are intrinsic to human well-being. Since states
system is believed to be intrinsic to the basic social values important to humans, it is important to study
the relations between states.

Security is one of the most fundamental values of

international relations. This approach to the study
of world politics is typical of realist school of
thought (Morgenthau 1960). It operates on the
assumption that the relations of states can be best
characterized as a world in which armed states are
competing rivals and periodically go to war with
each other.
Freedom is the second most important value in IR.
This is the fundamental reason for putting up with
states, because they exist to foster this freedom.
War threatens freedom, while peace fosters freedom. Peace also makes progressive international
changes possible. Peace and progressive change as an approach to the study of IR is typical of the liberal
school of IR (Claude 1971). It operates on the assumption that IR can be best characterized as a world in
which states cooperate with each other to maintain peace and freedom and to pursue progressive
change.
States can only successfully function if they follow certain international laws, respect treaties and norms.
This approach is typical of international Society Theories of IR (Bull 1995). It operates on the assumption
that states are socially responsible actors and have a common interest in preserving international order
and promoting international justice.
Wealth and welfare is another approach to IR represents the International Political Economy school of IR
(Gilpin, 1987) which basically operates on the assumption that IR can be best characterised as
fundamentally a socio-economic world and not merely a political or military world.

2) Evolution of Modern State System

● Modern state systems did not exist for ever. There were other systems such as chiefdoms,
empires, colonialism etc.
● State system started with Europe in the 16th century, it spread to other parts of the world only
gradually.
 ● Medieval Europe saw the beginnings of the state system, but they were not sovereign states as
understood today.
● No clear borders and defined territories. Power and authority were organized in both a political
and religious way. The monopoly over war was not solely with the king. War-making rights and
capacities belonged to members of a distinctive caste.
● There was no clear distinction between civil war and international war.
● The transition from medieval to modern is marked by the creation of sovereign territories where
the state captured its territory and made it into its state property and captured the people and
made it into its subjects and later citizens.
● The historical end point of the medieval and the beginning of the modern international state
system is identified with the end of the thirty years war (1618-48) with the Peace of Westphalia.
a) Peace of Westphalia

Principles:

1. It consisted of the adjoining states whose legitimacy and independence were mutually
recognized.
2. The recognition of states did not extend outside the European state system. Non-European
states were considered inferior or non-states and were eventually subjugated under the
European imperial rule.
3. The relations of European states were subject to international law and diplomatic practices.

There was a balance of power between member states which prevented member states from going out
of control and making a successful bid for hegemony which would re-establish an empire over the
continent.

This traditional view is challenged by revisionist scholars who are constructivists and critical theorists
who argue that this is a myth created by traditionalist scholars that Westphalia was a decisive event and
a radical break from the past, when it was actually an ambiguous world of contradictory ideas and
beliefs.

b) Empirical and Juridical State

● Juridical: state has independence, sovereignty, recognition, membership in IOs.
● Empirical: strong economic institutions, national unity, developed political institutions.
3) The 4 great debates in IR
1. Utopian Liberalism Vs. Realism
● Liberalism emerged from the overwhelming need felt after the First World War to
prevent another war.
● Under the influence of the American President Woodrow Wilson , liberalism gained
immense popularity in the 1920s.
● It was believed that the “jungle of traditional power politics” can be tamed by
International organisations to end war and ensure permanent peace.
● There was an emphasis on democracy and self determination
● This manifested itself in Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” and the creation of the “League of
Nations”.
● The high point of these efforts came with the “Kellogg-Briand Pact” of 1928.
● Normal Angell in his book “the Great Illusion” says that it’s an illusion that many states
still believe that war serves some profitable purpose, but the opposite is actually true
because in modern times war is extremely expensive because of the interdependence
that came with modernity.
 ● It’s based on the idea that humans are rational and when they apply reason to IR they
can set up institutions for the benefit of all
● The events in the 1930s and 40s showed the failure of “utopian liberalism”
● The world saw the growth of fascist dictatorships, authoritarianism and the failure of
liberal states in being democratic role models.
● The complete failure of the League of Nations from preventing the Second World War .
● Academic IR levitated towards realism.
● EH Carr Twenty Year Crisis: Nature of IR cannot be based on the harmony of interests as
liberals believed, it is based on the contrary on the conflict of interests. There will always
be the privileged power which will try to maintain is position and there will be the have
nots who will try to change that. He called the liberals “utopian” and his own
perspective “realist”.
● Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations:Struggle for Power and Peace
● The basic element of Realism was human nature which was self-interested and power
seeking which always led to aggression
● Second element is the nature of international relations. International politics like all
politics is a struggle for power. There is no world government and there is anarchy. The
only appropriate response to such attempts is to create countervailing power and to
utilize it for self defence and deter other powers. In other words, it is essential to create
a balance of power as the only way to preserve peace and prevent war. Negotiations and
diplomacy cannot by itself bring security and survival in world politics.
● Third element of realism is the cyclical nature of history. Contrary to the liberal belief
that qualitative change towards the better is possible, realism believes that there will be
continuity and repetition. Each new generation tends to make the same mistakes.
● As long as sovereign states are the dominant form of political organization, power
politics will continue and states will have to look after their security and prepare for war.
There can be intermittent periods of peace when there is a stable balance of power and
every now and then the precarious balance will break. There can be many different
reasons for the breakdown of that breakdown
2. Traditional Theories Vs. Behaviouralist
● This was a methodological debate.
● The “Second Great Debate” was a dispute between “scienti◌cិ IR” scholars who sought
to re◌neិ scienti◌cិ methods of inquiry in international relations theory and those who
insisted on a more historicist/interpretative approach to international relations theory.
The debate is termed “realists versus behaviourists” or “traditionalism versus scientism”.
● Thus, behaviouralists did not win the debate but neither did they lose it, a compromise
was found as both methods being at the other ends of the same spectrum. However,
behaviouralism did have a strong influence on IR which led to the new formulations of
the old debate which was between Neorealism and Neoliberalism
3. Neorealism/Neoliberalism Vs. Neo-Marxism
Neoliberalism: Institutions and Interdependence
● They share the old liberal view of the possibility of progress and change but they
repudiate the idealism.
● Sociological liberals(Karl Deutsch): importance of cross border flows and common values
● Interdependence liberals (Keohane and Nye): transactions stimulate cooperation
● Institutional liberals (Keohane and young): international institutions such as WTO, OECD;
and regimes such as shipping agreements, aviation agreements etc promote
cooperation by providing information and cutting costs.
 ● Republican Liberalism: liberal democracies do not go to war and live in peace with
themselves.
● By the end of 1970s, neoliberalism seemed like the dominant school. But a
reformulation by Waltz in 1979 once again tipped the balance.

Neorealism: Bipolarity and Confrontation

● Kenneth Waltz is the father of this school with his book, “Theory of International
politics”. His focus has been on “structure” of the international system and the
consequences of that structure for IR.
● For Waltz states are power seeking and security conscious not because of human nature
but because of the nature of international system which is anarchic, which compels
them to be that way.
● Neorealists critique the liberals by saying that they do not deny all possibilities of
cooperation between states but they say that cooperative states will still try to maximize
their relative power and preserve their autonomy.
● Some neorealists and neoliberals have come close to sharing a common starting point
which is neorealist in nature; that is states are the main actors in an anarchical
international system and they constantly look after their own self interests.
● Robert Keohane has tried to form a synthesis of the two from the neoliberal side and
Barry Buzan et all have tried to do the same from the neorealist side.

The international society: the English school

● This school is often called the English school because the early scholars were mostly
from the UK but it does not just comprise of them, it includes others also so better to
call it the International society.
● As far as methodological debate is concerned it strictly rejected the behavioralist
approach and emphasized the traditional approach based on human understanding,
judgement, norms and history.
● It also rejected any firm distinction between realism and liberalism view of IR.
● Two of its leading names are Martin Wight and Headley Bull.
● They recognize the importance of power and also focus on states but they reject the
narrow Hobbesian state of nature in which there are no international norms at all.
● They view the state as the combination of power and law. It is true that there is
international anarchy in the sense that there is no world government but this
international anarchy is a social and not an antisocial condition i.e. World politics is an
anarchical society.
● This school is about combining the elements of both schools. They do not try to explain
IR scientifically rather they try to understand and interpret it.

International political economy

● This debate is not like the other debates ,this debate is about extending the field of IR to
include socio-economic questions of welfare as well as politico-military questions of
welfare.
● Three main streams of thought exist within this debate:
1- Neo-Marxist IPE: This debate uses the tools of Marxism to argue about the issues of
inequality in the global system. It argues that the third world countries are not poor
because they are inherently poor or backward but because they have been actively
underdeveloped by the rich countries. Andre Gunder Frank,Immanuel Wallerstein.
 2- Liberal Response: human prosperity can be achieved by the free global expansion of
capitalism beyond the boundaries of the sovereign states and by the decline of the
significance of these boundaries.
3- Realist Response: economic activity should be focused on building a strong state and
supporting the national [Link] should be controlled and managed by the
state. This is often called Mercantalism.
4. Established Traditions Vs. Post-positivism
● Post-positivist new approaches versus the traditional theories. These have
disagreements based on both methodology and on substance. While they all agree that
the methodology needs to change, they cannot seem to agree to which is the method to
use.
● Social Constructivists emphasize the role of human agency and ideas instead of material
factors.
● Other dissident voices in this last debate include post-colonial discourses, feminist
approach and environment related approaches to IR.
● These new voices have dealt with “how” to best approach the study of IR and “which”
issues should be the most important in IR.
4) Why do we need Theory?
● Kenneth Waltz in his paper “Laws and Theories” identifies two kinds of definitions of
theory.
● The first definition is that, “theories are collections or sets of laws pertaining to a
particular behavior or phenomenon.”
● Differences between theory and law: Law is an inherent relationship between
phenomena, behaviors, or variables.
● EG: “if a, then b. Theory is not just about the inherent relations between variables,
but about why the relations exist and repeat.
● The second definition is that, “theories explain laws.” Law is constant, absolute, and
true, but theory is not.
● Theory is not something to be discovered but something to be invented.
5) Criteria for identifying Good Theory
1. Coherence: consistent, free of contradictions
2. Clarity: clear, lucid
3. Unbiased: candid about normative premises and values
4. Scope: relevant for large no of important issues
5. Depth: as complete as possible about the phenomena it deals with
6) Level of Analysis in IR
● Individual: Human
characteristics— perceptions, images,
knowledge, psychology.
● State: How states make
decisions; economic power; military
power; domestic factors.
● System: Interactions of states
and nonstate actors at the international
level that affect conflict and
cooperation.

- What is IR Theory and why do we need it?

 - Classification and Debates in IR Theory
1) Basic assumptions
2. CLASSICAL REALISM
2) CLASSICAL REALISM
Sun Tzu (Art of War):

● Reaffirms the notion that conflict is a

ubiquitous phenomenon of life and
pursuit of security and power
characterises human collective actions.
● He underlines the need to master both
“direct” and “indirect” methods and
urges that in order to triumph over the enemy, one should disguise one’s strengths and
weaknesses, and acquaint oneself with the enemy’s strengths and weaknesses.
● It could be argued that his notion of political morality, distinct from personal or religious
morality, resonates with the idea of “interest defined on the basis of power” of the 20th century
realist Hans Morgenthau.
"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."
"In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity.”

Kautilya

● Chanakya was an ancient Indian polymath who was active as a teacher, author, strategist,
philosopher, economist, jurist, and royal advisor.
● He wrote Arthashastra in the 5th century BC.
● He is called the “Indian Machiavelli”.
● The Arthashastra is an extraordinarily detailed manuscript on statecraft.
● In the treatise, Kautilya outlines rules of governance, fundamentals of political organization,
details of the treasury and accounting and auditing systems, regulations governing civil servants,
law, foreign policy, prescriptions for national defense and war.
● He was a pragmatic realist, unrelenting in his expositions on the maintenance of stability and
security to a monarch’s rule, even at the expense of privacy and lack of individual rights.
● “As soon as the fear approaches near, attack and destroy it”
● There is some self interest behind every friendship. There is no friendship without self interests.
This is a bitter Truth

Thucydides

● Thucydides was a Greek historian who recounted the events that transpired between the Greek
city states(Hellas) in the fifth century BC, in his book “History of the Peloponnesian War”.
● All states must adapt to the given reality of inequality in the international system and conduct
themselves accordingly or risk destruction..
● Prudence, foresight, judgement and common sense are distinct from private morality and
justice.
● He sees international relations as basically an anarchy of separate states that have no real choice
except to operate according to the dictates of power politics in which security and survival are
the primary values and war is the final arbiter.
● Thucydides Trap
● Melian dialogue
o “…"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must…"
 o “…The Melians pointed out that it was to the interest of all states to respect the laws of
nations..”
o “…Aware of their weak position, the Melians hoped that the justice of their cause
would gain them the support of the gods…”

Machiavelli

● He was an Italian historian and philosopher who lived during the renaissance.
● He is best known for his work “The Prince”, written about 1513.
● Power and Deception are the 2 essential means of conducting foreign policy.
● Primary responsibility of a ruler is to protect the interest of the state and to ensure its survival.
● Machiavellian maxims: be aware of what is happening; do not wait for things to
happen;anticipate the motives and actions of others; do not wait for others to act; act before
they do
● Moral/Christian maxims are the height of political foolishness and irresponsibility. In other
words, political responsibility and private morality are different.
● There is a civic virtue aspect of Machiavellian realism as people depend upon the rulers for
survival and prosperity. This is the normative heart of Machiavellian and Classical Realism.

Thomas Hobbes

● Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher

● He was best known for his book Leviathan, 1651 in which he talks about the social contract
theory.
● State of nature-natural condition before the state; permanent state of war
● State provides the escape from the state of nature within the confines of state
● But this creates another state of nature among states
● Security dilemma
● There is a no solution to state of nature between states, war can always break out, there is no
permanent peace internationally.

Morgenthau

● He was a German American Political Scientist.

● Main proponent of Classical Realism in the twentieth century.
● His most important contribution to IR Theory is his book “Politics Among Nations: The Struggle
for Power and Peace”, 1954
● Animus Dominandi: human lust for power
● Security beyond the state and between states is impossible
● This creates a condition of power politics, the anarchical system of states invites international
conflict which creates war.
● To stop or constrain the struggle for power among nations, Morgenthau stresses the need for a
balance of power among nations.
● Political ethics allows some actions that would not be tolerated by private morality.
● Failure to understand the difference is an ethical failure.
● Ends justify means; there are situational ethics and dictates of political wisdom- prudence,
moderation, judgement, resolve,courage. They do not preclude evil actions. Evil actions must
sometimes be taken to prevent greater evil.
● 6 Principles:
 ● Criticism of Morgenthau: claims for these laws to be “iron laws” and yet exhorts states people to
follow them.

3. THE MANY FACES OF REALISM

1) NEOREALISM OR STRUCTURAL REALISM
Strategic Realism (Thomas Schelling)

● Schelling’s idea of realism is called Strategic Realism which mainly focuses on foreign policy
decision-making.
● Does not pay much attention to the normative aspects of realism.
● According to Schelling, when state leaders face diplomatic and military problems, they have to
think strategically and actively to be successful.
● It deals with how to employ power to get the enemy to do what we desire without using brute
force.
● There is a difference between brute force and coercion.
● Brute force succeeds when it is used, coercion is when power is held in reserve.
● Coercion requires finding a bargain, our interest and our opponents are not completely opposed.
● Foreign Policy is rational and enlightened and is not concerned with what is good or right.
● Comparison with Machiavelli

Prisoner’s Dilemma

Stag Hunt

Neorealism (Kenneth Waltz)

 ● Independent states exist in a system of international anarchy.
● States are like units, perform similar functions.
● States only differ in capabilities or in terms of power.
● Structure of a system changes with changes in the distribution of power internationally.
● Structures are more important than leaders.
● Structure of international system is determined by great powers.
● Bipolar systems are more stable than multipolar system.

Differences Waltz/Schelling

● Unlike Strategic realism, Waltz’s approach does not provide explicit policy guidance to state
leaders.
● Unlike Schelling,Waltz’s theory has little to say about statecraft and diplomacy. His argument is
at base a theory in which structure constraints policy.
● It is also a departure from Schelling who assumes rational behavior of statesmen and focusses
centrally on strategic choice.

Criticism of Waltz

● His theory is too static

o Inability to explain change; Cold War ended without any major war
o Answer to this already given by Waltz
● His theory is too narrow
o Extent to which abstracts away from reality to present a purely systemic theory
o Needs to be expanded

Stephen Walt

● Try to provide an explanation to the problem of “indeterminate predictions” that Waltz is

criticized for
● Walt states that states balance not against power pure and simple, but against threatening
power, or against threats.
● The level of threat is decided by four factors:
o Aggregate power
o Geographic proximity
o Offensive Military Capability
o Aggressive Intentions

John Mearshimer and Stability Theory

● Why is bipolar system more stable than multipolar system?

● Number of great powers is fewer, reduces possibility of war
● Easier to operate an effective system of deterrence
● Because only two powers, chances of miscalculation and misadventures are lower.

Mearshimer and Hegemony

● Defensive Realism: The state seeks power for survival and security. Waltz’s Realism is Defensive
Realism according to Mearshimer. The state does not seek excessive power beyond what is
needed for survival and security. It provokes other states to balance by arms build up and
alliance formations.
● Offensive Realism: he agrees with Waltz that anarchy compels states to compete for power but
great powers are always trying to gain power over their rivals with hegemony as their final goal.
 ● All major powers strive for that ideal situation.
● But planet is too big for global hegemony so states seek regional hegemony

Criticism of Mearshimer

● Criticized for failing to explain peaceful change and cooperation btw great powers such as the US
and Britain
● Even if international anarchy persists states today have little reason to fear for survival, because
of norms and institutions, nuclear weapons etc warfare has become an anachronism.
● Fails to look at historical examples which show it is quite dangerous to aim for regional
hegemony.

2) NEOCLASSICAL REALISM
● Middle of the road view. That state leadership operates, and foreign policy is carried on within
the overall constraints or ‘broad parameters’ of the anarchical structure of IR
● It draws on NR by acknowledging the significance of the international state system and the
relative power of states. It also draws upon classical realism by emphasizing the importance of
domestic factors.
● Structure constraints states but it does not ultimately specify leadership policies and actions.
NCRs emphasize 4 clusters of domestic variables:
o Strategic Culture
o Images and perceptions of foreign policy decision makers
o Domestic institutions
o State-society relations

Schweller and Underbalancing

● Why do states fail to respond to external threats throughout history even though international
anarchy incentivizes them to do so?
● Because state-society relations determine whether states balance threats or “underbalance” i.e.
fail to respond adequately.
● Underbalancing happens when there are important divisions within society due to low social
cohesion and/or divided elites. Such divisions might even make part of the population
collaborate with the enemy.

Soft Balancing

● Classical Balance of Power is not the case everywhere. Example of France and Germany under
the EU , even with the disappearance of Soviet Threat as the common enemy.
● Alternative to hard balance of power is soft balance of power
● In this liberal approach, the military power of states or international organisations eg alliances is
not the main focus rather , tacit or informal institutional collaboration or ad hoc cooperation btw
states for the purpose of joint security against a foreign threat

3) LIBERAL THEORY IN IR
1) BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

● Emergence of a modern liberal state. (“The greatest happiness of the greatest number.”)
● Positive view of human nature. Individuals can be self-interested and competitive but
also share many interest and can engage in cooperative action
● A belief in progress
 ● Conviction that international relations can be cooperative rather than conflictual

LIBERALISTS

● Rechtsstaat: as a constitutional entity which enforces rule of law

● Machstaat: states are first and foremost a concentration of power
● John Locke: states exist to underwrite liberty and property of their citizens
● Jeremy Bentham: belived it was the rational interest of constitutional states to
adhere to international law in their foreign policy
● Immanuel Kant: a world of such constitutional and mutually respectful states,
`republics`, will establish `perpetual peace`.
● Anarchy in international affairs does not preclude
cooperation if common interests exist.

2) TYPES OF LIBERALISM

Sociological Liberalism

● IR is not just about relations btw states but also relations btw people, groups, and
organisations belonging to different countries
● “relations between people are more cooperative and more supportive of peace than
relations between national governments”
● Karl Deutch: high degree of transnational ties btw societies lead to peaceful relations
that amount to more than just absence of war. It leads to “security communities” e.g.
North Atlantic area.
● John Burton: Cobweb Model-any nation state consists of different groups of people that
have different types of external ties and different types of interests. Because individuals
are members of diff groups, conflict will be muted if not eliminated.
● James Rosenau: Individual transactions have important implications and consequences
for global affairs.
o First, individuals have greatly extended their activities owing to better education
and access to electronic means of communication as well as foreign travel.
o Second, states’ capacity for control and regulation is decreasing in an ever more
complex world.

Sense of community

● The consequence is a world of better informed and more mobile individuals who are far
less tied than before to ‘their’ states.
● Rosenau thus sees a profound transformation of the international system that is
underway: the state-centric, anarchic system has not disappeared but a new
‘multi-centric world has emerged that is composed of diverse “sovereignty-free”
collectivises which exist apart from and in competition with the state-centric world of
“sovereignty-bound” actors’
● Moises Naim: Stresses the diffusion of power towards the microlevel. E.g.: Insurgents,
hackers, innovative startups etc. The rise of micro powers is due to three factors:
o More Revolution: More people living longer and healthy making it difficult to
regiment and control them (state control through healthcare, education)
 o Mobility Revolution: easier to move around and cross borders etc, communicate
globally and easily switch loyalty (state control through passport, social media)
o Mentality Revolution: rapidly growing aspirations of middle classes across the
world who don’t easily defer to authorities. (expanding middle class made state
less powerful)

- Summary

● IR is not only a study of relations between national governments; IR scholars also study
relations between private individuals, groups, and societies.
● Overlapping interdependent relations between people are bound to be more
cooperative than relations between states because states are exclusive and, according to
sociological liberalism, their interests do not overlap and crosscut.
● A world with a large number of transnational networks will thus be more peaceful.

Interdependence Liberalism

● Peoples and governments are affected by what happens elsewhere, by the actions of
their counterparts in other countries.
● Thus, a higher level of transnational relations between countries means a higher level of
interdependence.
● Richard Rosecrance:
o Throughout history states have sought power by means of military force and
territorial expansion. But for highly industrialized countries economic
development and foreign trade are more adequate and less costly means of
achieving prominence and prosperity.
o That is because the costs of using force have increased and the benefits have
declined.
o In an earlier age the possession of territory and ample natural resources were
the key to greatness. In today’s world that is no longer the case; now a highly
qualified labour force, access to information, and financial capital are the keys to
success
o Highly successful states are trading states such as Japan and Germany
● a high division of labour in the international economy increases interdependence
between states, and that discourages and reduces violent conflict between states.
● It is in the less developed countries that war now occurs, because at lower levels of
economic development land continues to be the dominant factor of production, and
modernization and interdependence are far weaker.
● David Mitrany: Functional Theory of Integration: cooperation would be arranged by
technical experts rather than politicians.
● Ernst Haas: Neo functional Theory of Integration-built on Mitrany to say that integration
requires getting self interested political elites to intensify their cooperation. Integration
is a process whereby ‘political actors are persuaded to shift their loyalties . . . toward a
new center whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the preexisting
national states’
● This ‘functional’ process of integration depends on the notion of ‘spillover’, when
increased cooperation in one area leads to increased cooperation in other areas.
● Spillover would ensure that political elites marched inexorably towards the promotion of
integration.
● Haas saw that happening in the initial years of West European cooperation in the 1950s
and early 1960s.
● But this theory failed when Western Europe entered a period of stagnation in the 1960s
mostly due to de Gaulle’s France.
● Complex Interdepence Theory by Keohane and Nye:
● They argue that post-war ‘complex interdependence’ is qualitatively different from
earlier and simpler kinds of interdependence.
● Previously, international relations were directed by state leaders dealing with other state
leaders.
● The use of military force was always an option in the case of conflict between those
national leaders.
● The ‘high politics’ of security and survival had priority over the ‘low politics’ of
economics and social affairs • Under conditions of complex interdependence, however,
that is no longer the case, and for two reasons.
o First, relations between states nowadays are not only or even primarily relations
between state leaders; there are relations on many different levels via many
different actors and branches of government.
o Second, there is a host of transnational relations between individuals and groups
outside of the state.
o Furthermore, military force is a less useful instrument of policy under conditions
of complex interdependence (now skills like negotiating skills more imp)
o Finally, under complex interdependence states become more preoccupied with
the ‘low politics’ of welfare and less concerned with the ‘high politics’ of national
security
● Consequences of Complex Interdependence:
o First, states will pursue different goals simultaneously and transnational actors,
such as NGOs and transnational corporations, will pursue their own separate
goals free from state control.
o Second, power resources will most often be specific to issue areas. For example,
in spite of their comparatively small size, Denmark and Norway will command
influence in international shipping because of their large merchant and tanker
fleets, but that influence does not easily translate to other issue areas.
o Third, the importance of in- ternational organizations will increase. They are
arenas for political actions by weak states, they animate coalition formation, and
they oversee the setting of international agendas.
● Interdependence liberalism are at paints to emphasise that realism is not irrelevant or
obsolete.
● It is not impossible to imagine dramatic conflict or revolutionary change in which the
use of threat of military force over an economic issue or among advanced industrial
 countries might become plausible. Then realist assumptions would again be a reliable
guide to events. (Keohane and Nye, Jr 1977: 28)
● Even among industrialised nations of the west an issue could become a matter of life or
death, because even that world is a world of states. THUS A COMPROMISE.

Institutional Liberalism

● Unlike utopian liberals they do not exaggerate the importance of international

institutions but also don’t agree with the realist view that they are merely “scraps of
paper.”
● They believe international institutions can promote cooperation between states.
● What are international institutions? Include not only organisations such as NATO/EU but
also a set of rules which govern state action in particular areas such as aviation or
shipping; called regimes.
● An organization shapes a regime usually, eg WTO and trade regime. Often regimes exist
without a formal organization, eg UNCLOS.
● They accept the realist notion of the primacy of states and primacy of power and
interests but believe that international institutions can ameliorate conflict btw states
under anarchy.
● The argument made by institutional liberals is that a high level of institutionalization
significantly reduces the destabilizing effects of multipolar anarchy identified by
Mearsheimer. Institutions make up for lack of trust between states.
● Leadership and agency as a risk to liberal institutionalism. Example: Donald Trump

Republican Liberalism (2nd level)

● Republican liberalism is built on the claim that liberal democracies are more peaceful
and law-abiding than are other political systems. The argument is not that democracies
never go to war; But the argument is that democracies do not fight each other.
● Because the number of democracies in the world has increased rapidly in recent years
we can look forward to a more peaceful world with international relations characterized
by cooperation instead of conflict
● Why are democracies at peace with one another?
o According to Michael Doyle, there are 3 reasons:
o The first is the existence of domestic political cultures based on peaceful conflict
resolution.
o The second element is that democracies hold common moral values which lead
to the formation of what Kant called a ‘pacific union’.
o Finally, peace between democracies is strengthened through economic
cooperation and interdependence.
● While the end of the Cold War and a new wave of democratisation encouraged liberal
optimism , this remained very fragile. Because the trends been seen in the new
democracies of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Africa do not support profound
optimism.
● Ingraining democratic norms takes time. Even established democracies are faltering.
 ● Even if countries are democracies economic interaction btw countries at different levels
of development has proved challenging. Eg Eastern Europe and EU

3) DARK SIDE OF DEMOCRACY

● Dark Side to the relationship between democracy and peace:studies have shown
increased association btw democratization and partial democracy with an increased risk
of external warfare and /or civil war.
● Reverse U Curve

4) NEOREALISM Vs. NEOLIBERALISM

● Realism and liberalism start with the initial disagreement on human nature and on
progress.
● Human nature is no longer an issue of contention btw the two.
● On progress however, Neorealism believes that ‘liberal’ conditions have existed for a
long time without being able to prevent violent conflicts btw states. Economic
integration, economic trade flows were higher before the world wars.
● Neorealists also claim that while states cooperate through institutions they still do so
solely on the basis of their own decision and self interests. Institutions simply reflect the
power and interests of states.
● Institutions can sometimes exert influence but that is restricted to the “low politics” and
not “high politics” that realism centers on.
● Realists claim that even liberal states and conditions have to cope with anarchy and
insecurity.

5) WEAK LIBERALISM AND STRONG LIBERALISM

Weak liberalism:

● Keohane’s Complex Interdependence was a move towards realism. The primary

importance of states was acknowledged. Later Keohane began to focus solely on
institutions giving rise to Liberal Institutionalism.
● Realists retort to this by talking about Relative gains. Liberals claim international
institutions solve the problem of distrust by ensuring transparency. But realist say that
states must worry that other states gain more from cooperation than they do.
● Keohane responded to this by talking about common interests. If states have common
interests, they will not worry about relative gains.
 ● Is neoliberalism just neorealism by another name??

Strong Liberalism:

● They disagree with realists strongly claiming that it is not that history has not changed at
all, qualitative change have taken place.
● Today’s economic interdependence ties countries much closer together; economies are
globalized production and consumption take place in a worldwide marketplace.
● It would be extremely costly in welfare terms for countries to opt out of that system.
● Today there is also a group of consolidated liberal democracies for whom reversion to
authoritarianism is next to unthinkable.

6) NATURE OF ANARCHY

● Neorealists do not think there has been no change at all, but they maintain that such
change has not led to the disappearance of anarchy.
● Strong liberals do not argue that anarchy has been replaced by hierarchy; that a world
government has been created or is in the making.
● Rather, they argue that anarchy is a far more complex international relationship than is
recognized by neorealists, and they question the conclusions that neorealists draw from
the existence of anarchy.
● What does it mean that there is anarchy in the international system? It means that
there is no single, overarching government. It does not mean that there is no
government at all.
● Security Communities, warm peace and cold peace etc
● Nature of war has also changed. Increase the incentives for states to cooperate.
● Two types of peace in the world: The less secure peace btw military powers and the
more secure peace among the consolidated democracies of OECD

7) LIBERALISM AND LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

● Liberal International Theory almost by definition integrates domestic level factors into
theories of IR. Eg-Republican Liberalisms and their democratic peace theory.
● But there are also liberals who claim to be working solely on systemic international level
eg liberal theories about interdependence and international institutions.
● Therefore , liberals use two levels to explain their theory. While domestic preferences
determine the foreign policy goals of states , these goals have to be attained within the
contraints imposed by the preferences of other states, i.e, by the structure of the state
system.

4) INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY/ENGLISH SCHOOL

Basic Assumptions
● International relations ought to be understood as a ‘society’ of mutually recognizing
states and not merely as a ‘system’ of competing and conflicting powers. It is
 distinctive from other societies by having sovereign states as its primary, although not
exclusive, membership.
● The traditional International Society approach seeks to avoid the stark choice between
(1) state egotism and conflict, and (2) human goodwill and cooperation presented by the
debate between realism and liberalism.
● Foreign policy sometimes presents difficult moral choices to the states people involved:
choices between rival political values and goals; choices that may involve the use of
armed force and may therefore bring about physical destruction and human suffering
for the people caught up in it.
● The International Society tradition is a middle way. It regards international relations as a
society of states in which the principal actors are states people who are specialized in
the practice of statecraft.
● The realm of international relations is thus a ‘formally anarchical ’ but substantively
orderly social environment. IOs, NGOs etc are important but are subordinate to
sovereign states.
● IS don’t agree with the ‘domestic analogy’ that in the absence of government there can
be no order.
● International sphere differs from the national but there are still common interests, rules,
institutions, and organizations that are created and shared by states and which help to
shape the relations of states.
● International social condition is summed up by Hedley Bull’s (1995) phrase ‘the
anarchical society’: a worldwide social order of independent states.

Pluralism Vs Solidarism
● Pluralism: stresses importance of state sovereignty and coexistence. Rights and duties in
the international system are conferred to sovereign states, individuals only have the
rights given to them by their own states.
● Solidarism: stresses the common purpose of states. Emphasis is on human beings as the
ultimate members of international society. Human rights may take precedence of rights
of sovereign states.
● the traditional International Society approach views world politics as a human world.
That means that it is attuned to the normative aspects and value dilemmas of
international relations; that also means that the approach is basically situational or
histori- cal. World politics is open to all the potential that human beings have for
improving their lives, including the progress and peace that classical liberals emphasize.
But world politics is exposed, as well, to all the shortcomings and limitations that human
beings exhibit.
The three Traditions of Martin Wight
● Realism: Machiavelli;Controlling or disciplining factor. Realism focusses on the
actual-what is-rather what ought to be. Taken to the extreme-it is a denial of an
international society; what exists is a Hobbesian state of nature. The only political
society and moral community is the state. There are no international obligations beyond
or btw states.
 ● Revolutionism: Kant; is the vitalizing or energizing factor; assume the moral unity of
human society beyond the state. History is progressive, international theory has a
missionary character that aims at changing the world for the better and forever. Believe
in human perfectibility. Taken to the extreme believe that the only real society on earth
is a world society consisting of every human being.
● Rationalism: Grotius; civilizing or moderating factor. humans are reasonable, people can
intelligently manage to live together in the anarchical condition of international
relations. when taken to the extreme is an accommodating world of mutual respect,
concord and the rule of law btw states. It is a middle road of international politics.
● Bull made an important distinction between an international system and an
international society
Hedley Bull’s Order and Justice
ORDER
● The main point of an anarchical society Is the promotion and preservation of
international order. International order is what helps in sustaining the fundamental goals
of the anarchical society, namely:
1. Preservation of international society
2. Upholding the independence of member states, maintaining peace, and helping
to secure the normative foundations of all social life, which includes ‘the
limitation of violence’ (expressed in the laws of war);
3. ‘the keeping of promises’ (expressed in the principle of reciprocity);
4. ‘the stability of possession’ (expressed in the principle of mutual recognition of
state sovereignty).
● The primary responsibility for sustaining international order— order between
states—belongs to the great powers, and is achieved by ‘managing their relations with
one another’.
● This is a normative rather than an empirical statement.
● Simple balance of power(bipolarity) vs complex balance of power(multipolarity)
● General balance of power(eg bts USA andUSSR) vs Local Balance Of
Power(egbtwIsraelandArabstates)
● Since 1945 international society has succeeded in limiting interstate war but not
intrastate war. International war has declined but warsofathirdkind' have occurred
ince1945and evenmore since the end of the ColdWar. They include revolutionary wars,
wars of national liberation, civil wars, secessionist wars, and so forth. They are often
Asymmetrical wars because they usually involve non-state actors and raise questions of
human rights abuses.
● Warbtwstatesshouldnotbecontrastedtopeacebtwstates. It
shouldbecontrastedtomoreubiquitousviolencesuchasseen inMedieval Europe. The state
system has sought to suppress such violence by restricting warfare armed combat
between states. Sothemonopolyofwarbystatesha value of order
JUSTICE
● Commutative justice and Distributive justice.
● Commutative justice is about procedures and reciprocity. It involves ‘a process of claim
and counter-claim’ among states. That presupposes a level playing field: all firms play by
 the same rules of the market; all states play by the same rules of international society.
Justice is fairness of the rules of the game: the same rules are applied in the same way
to everybody. The rules of the game are expressed by international law and diplomatic
practices.
● Distributive justice is about goods. It involves the issue of how goods should be
distributed between states, as ‘exemplified by the idea that justice requires a transfer of
economic resources from rich countries to poor’. That means that not all states play by
the same rules: the rich and the strong have special obligations to the poor and the
weak. This form of justice takes a back seat to commutative justice because sovereign
states are usually understood as the most appropriate framework within which
normative issues of distributive justice ought to be resolved; in other words, distributive
justice is usually understood as an issue of domestic politics rather than international
politics.
● Three levels of Justice
- ‘international or interstate justice’: basically involves the notion of equal state
sovereignty;
- ‘individual or human justice’: basically involves ideas of human rights;
- ‘world justice’: basically involves ‘what is right or good for the world as a whole’,
as evident, for example, in global environmental standards. Historically, the
interstate level has usually prevailed in world politics.
● So, is it order or justice?
- As per Headley Bull, order is seen to be more fundamental: ‘it is a condition for
the realization of other values’. Order is prior to justice. But in specific situations
justice can take precedence.
- World politics involves questions of both order and justice, and that world
politics cannot be adequately understood by focusing on either value to the
exclusion of the other.
World Society
● World society is often understood as existing in parallel with international society.
Whereas international society is pluralist and rests on sovereign states, world society, by
contrast, is solidarist and rests on the community of humankind and the ‘cosmopolitan
culture of late modernity’
● World society is seen to be manifested in various international organizations with a
humanitarian purpose, particularly the protection of human rights. UN Charter,
Council of Europe, International Criminal Court
● There is a debate about the incompatibility between international society and world
society.
● Some say that the the spread of humanitarianism and human rights marks a decline of
state sovereignty, and the right of non-intervention.
● Other scholars point out that the human rights regimes of contemporary world society
have not come into existence independently from the society of states. On the
contrary, they have been brought into existence by the humanitarian concerns and
efforts of member states
Normative choices in Foreign Policy
 ● National Responsibility: According to this conception, statespeople are responsible for
the well being of their citizens. National security is the foundational value they are
duty-bound to protect. The basis for this claim is derived from the familiar theory of
political obligation
● International Responsibility: Statespeople have foreign obligations deriving from their
state’s membership of international society, which involves rights and duties as defined
by international law. Recognize that other states have international rights and legitimate
interests which deserve respect; act in good faith; observe international law; comply
with the laws of war. comes from a conception of international obligation:
● Humanitarian Responsibility: Statespeople first and foremost are human beings and as
such they have a fundamental obligation to respect human rights not only in their own
country but in all countries around the world,always remember that people in other
countries are human beings just like yourself; respect human rights; give sanctuary to
those who are fleeing from persecution; assist those who are in need of material aid
which you can supply at no sacrifice to yourself; in waging war spare non-combatants.
derives from a theory of human obligation:
Humanitarian Responsibility and war
● There is an absence in the UN Charter of articles that explicitly authorize the use of
armed force to protect human rights or for other humanitarian intervention and
humanitarian war.
● Responsibility to Protect(R2P): Proponents of R2P have sought to justify the use of
armed force beyond ‘self defence’ and ’international peace and security’ by adding
‘military intervention’ for human protection purposes.
● Among countries targeted by these resolutions: Iraq, Somalia,Haiti,Kosovo,East Timor,
Libya and Ivory Coast
Normative issues posed by the responsibility to protect doctrine
● The first and most recurrent objection is the claim that it undermines the pluralist norm
of non intervention as enshrined in Art. 2 of the UN Charter. That undoubtedly is the
main objection of non-Western governments who fear that the doctrine will weaken
their authority and open the way to neo- colonial military interference in their part of
the world.
● The second objection is the claim that the doctrine involves a significant and troubling
expansion of the right of war beyond the re- strictions placed upon it by the UN
Charter in 1945.
● The third objection is the concern that the doctrine runs the risk of deeply dividing the
great powers.
● The fourth objection is the concern that humanitarian intervention will be abandoned
by Western states that engage in it, if casualties among their own soldiers increase to
the point where the intervention will not be sup- ported by their publics. That could
leave the target country in even greater turmoil
Critiques of International Society Approach
● Realist Critique: Deep skepticism of international society where states are bound by
common set of rules in their relations with one another and share in the working of
common institutions. Realists believe states are bound only by their national interests.
 ● ISA Response: Agreewith basic realist precepts but does not stop there. It emphasizes
that states bind themselves to other states via treaties. It emphasizes that states have
legitimate interests that other states recognize and respect; it also emphasizes that
states recognize the general advantages of observing a principle of reciprocity in
international affairs (rationalism).
- Likewise, it notices that states do not observe treaties only when it is in their
best interests to do so. Rather, they enter into treaty commitments with caution
because they know that they are binding themselves to the terms of such
treaties. If states really acted the way realists claim, there would be no binding
treaties, because no state could be expected to keep their promise when it was
no longer in their interest to do so. Yet binding treaties are commonplace in
world politics.
● Liberal Critique: lack of interest of International Society theorists in the role of domestic
politics in international relations.
- implied liberal critique derives from the claim that liberal democracies are more
peace-loving than non-democratic political systems. Here, republican liberals are
criticizing not only real- ists but also—by implication—International Society
theorists who tend to ignore the subject.
- the inability of the International Society approach to account for progressive
change in international relations. Wight (1966: 33) claims that domestic politics
is a sphere of progressive change, but that international politics is a sphere of
recurrence and repetition and IR is a ‘theory of survival’. That view is identical to
that of realism.
● ISA critique of pseudo institutions(International Organisations) as opposed to “primary
instituions”(balance of power, international law, diplomacy, great power ,management
and war)
● IPE Critique: IPE scholars direct at the International Society approach is its neglect of
economics and the social-class aspect of international relations.

5) CONSTRUCTIVISM: “Anarchy is what states make of it”

Basic Premise
● Reject material focus and focus on the social.
● Ideas, beliefs and shared understandings.
● IR system exists only as an intersubjective understanding
● If the thoughts and ideas that enter IR change then the system will also change
● ANARCHY IS WHAT STATES MAKE OF IT
Rise of Constructivism
● The difficulty for mainstream realism to explain the end of the Cold War, R2P etc.
● Liberals also talk about the role of liberal IDEAS but their focus is only on LIBERAL IDEAS ,
while Constructivism focuses on the role of IDEAS IN GENERAL.
● Structuration: Antony Gideons; The relationship between structures and actors involves
intersubjective understanding and meaning. Structures do constrain actors, but actors
can also transform structures by thinking about them and acting on them in new ways.
 ● Verstehen: Max Weber; In order to comprehend human interaction, we cannot merely
describe it in the way we describe a physical phenomenon, such as a boulder falling off a
cliff; we need a different kind of interpretive understanding, or ‘verstehen’. The
emphasis is on meaning.
● The logic of Consequences and Appropriateness: The logic of Consequences is
rationalist; the logic of appropriateness is sociological. Constructivist logic of
appropriateness is just as plausible a predictor of human and state behaviour as the
rationalist logic of consequences.
Constructivism as a Social Theory
● IS constructivism a general social theory or is it a Substantive theory of IR?
● All constructivists agree that the social world is constructed by ideas.
● Conventional Constructivists believe that despite that, it can be analyzed in an objective
way using standard scientific methods.
● Critical/Post-Positivist Constructivists: argue that the social world is not something out
there that exists independently of the thoughts and ideas of the people involved in it.
there is no neutral ground on which we can decide about what is true. There is no data
independent of the observers’ point of view to hold it up against.
● Foucault: What we call truth is always connected to different, dominant ways of thinking
about the world. Truth and power cannot be separated. The main task of critical
constructivism is unmasking the core relationship btw truth and power, to criticize those
dominant versions of thinking that claim to be true for all.
Cultures of Anarchy
● Alexander Wendt; Rejection of the neorealist position, according to which anarchy must
necessarily lead to self-help. Whether it does or not cannot be decided a priori; it
depends on the interaction between states. In these processes of interaction, the
identities and interests of states are created.
● Wendt suggests three major ideal types of anarchy: Hobbesian, Lockean, and Kantian
● Hobbesian culture, states view each other as enemies; the logic of Hobbesian anarchy is
‘war of all against all’. States are adversaries and war is endemic because violent conflict
is a way of survival. Hobbesian anarchy, according to Wendt, dominated the state system
until the seventeenth century.
● In the Lockean culture, states consider each other rivals, but there is also restraint;
states do not seek to eliminate each other, they recognize the other states’ right to exist.
Lockean anarchy became a characteristic of the modern state system after the Peace of
Westphalia in 1648.
● Kantian culture, states view each other as friends, settle disputes peacefully, and
support each other in the case of a threat by a third party (Wendt 1999: 299). A Kantian
culture has emerged among consolidated liberal democracies since the Second World
War (see web link 8.12).
● The three different cultures of anarchy can be
internalized in different degrees; that is to say, the
way states view each other may be more or less
deeply shared. Wendt makes a dis- tinction between
three degrees of ‘cultural internalization’
Norms of International Society
● MARTHA FINNEMORE did three case studies, the focus is on the norms of international
society and the way in which they affect state identities and interests. State behaviour is
defined by identity and interest.
● Identity and interests are defined by international forces, that is, by the norms of
behaviour embedded in international society.
● The norms of international society are transmitted to states through international
organizations.
● They shape national policies by ‘teaching’ states what their interests should be
- The adoption of science policy bureaucracies by states after 1955;
- States’ acceptance of rule-governed norms of warfare;
- States accepting limits to economic sovereignty by allowing redistribution to take
priority over production values.
The power of International Organizations
● The traditional realist view of international organizations (IOs) emphasizes that they
exist to carry out important functions for states
● Barnett and Finnemore’s analysis makes the argument that IOs are much more
important and they are autonomous actors who might exercise power in their own right;
they ‘construct the social world in which cooperation and choice take place. They help
define the interests that states and other actors come to hold’
● Compulsory power
● Institutional power
● Productive power
Domestic Formation of Identities and Norms
● Systemic constructivists such as Finnemore and Wendt stress the importance of the
international environment in shaping state identities.
● Other constructivists put more emphasis on the domestic environment.
● One way of moving in this direction is to study how international norms have dissimilar
effects in different states and then speculate about the domestic factors responsible for
such variation.
● CASE OF JAPAN
Critiques of Constructivism
● Neorealist critique of the constructivist approach. Neorealists are sceptical about the
importance that constructivists attach to norms, in particular international norms. Such
norms surely exist, but they are routinely disregarded if that is in the interest of
powerful states.
● Problem of uncertainty : Wendt’s constructivist analysis overly downplays the fact that
states have difficulties in obtaining trustworthy information about the motives and
intentions of other states
● Fact of deception: Deceptive actors ‘will stage-manage the situation to create
impressions that serve their narrow ends, and other actors
● Constructivist view of change :provide few insights on why discourses rise and fall . . .
[therefore, they] say little about why realism has been the dominant discourse.
 6) INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY: “Is it all about the money?”
Relationship btw politics and economics
● There was a sharp distinction btw the two fields until recently.
● Both realism and liberalism give priority to politics over economics.
● During the first half of the 20th century until the 1960s military/security was considered
high politics while economics was low politics.
● From the 1970s this distinction began to be questioned because of two large reasons:
● The Bretton Woods Crisis
● The New International Economic Order
What is IPE?
● The reciprocal and dynamic interaction in IR of the pursuit of wealth and pursuit of
power.
● The intersection of the substantive area studied by economics with the process by which
power is exercised that is central to politics.
● Connections btw economics and politics beyond the confines of a single state.
Three approaches in IPE

Mercantilism
● Economic activity is and should be subordinated to the primary goal of building a strong
state.
● Economics is a tool of politics, a basis for political power.
● The international economy is an arena of conflict between opposing national interests,
where one state’s gain is another state’s loss or ZERO-SUM GAME.
● Defensive or Benign Mercantilism vs Aggressive or Malevolent Mercantilism
● Liberals believe states can choose the road of economic development and trade and
thus become ‘trading states’, as did West Germany and Japan after the Second World
War. Or they can choose the road of military force and territorial expansion and thus
base their prominence on military power, as did Russia under Communist rule.
● Mercantilists reject that liberal view. More national wealth and more military–political
power are complementary stratagems that serve the same fundamental end: a stronger,
more powerful state.
● Mercantilists maintain that the economy should be subordinate to the primary goal of
increasing state power.
● But the content of the concrete policies recommended to serve that goal has changed
over time
● Spain(Bullion), Netherlands(overseas trading empire), Britain(industrialisation)
● Successful developmental states in China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc are cited as
examples by mercantilists.
Economic liberalism
● Reject theories and policies that subordinate economics to politics.
 ● They argue that the creation of the modern world is spontaneous due to factors internal
to the market.
● Adam Smith, the father of economic liberalization. His core beliefs include rational
individual actors, belief in progress and an assumption of mutual gain from free
exchange.
● Political interference and state regulation are uneconomical, and retrogressive and may
lead to conflict.
● All participants gain in the process. It is thus a POSITIVE SUM GAIN
To what extent political interference may be necessary?
● Lassez-faire:does not mean the absence of any political regulation whatsoever; it means
that the state shall only set up those minimal underpinnings that are necessary for the
market to function properly.
● This is the classical version of economic liberalism. At the present time this view is also
put forward under labels such as ‘conservatism’ or ‘neoliberalism’
● Keynesian Economics: In the 1930s, John Maynard Keynes, the leading economist of the
early twentieth century put forward his thoughts.
● According to Keynes the market economy is a great benefit to people, but it also entails
potential evils of ‘risk, uncertainty and ignorance’. That situation could be remedied
through improved political management of the market.
● Keynes thus argued in favour of a market which was ‘wisely managed’ by the state
Marxism
● KARL MARX nineteenth-century German philosopher and economist represents a
fundamental critique of economic liberalism.
● Liberals see economy as a site of positive sum game, Marx-as the grounds for
inequality and human exploitation.
● Marxists agree with mercantilists that politics and economics are closely intertwined;
both reject the liberal view of an economic sphere operating under its own laws.
● But where mercantilists see economics as a tool of politics, Marxists put economics
first and politics second.
● The capitalist economy is based on two antagonistic social classes: one class, the
bourgeoisie, owns the means of production; the other class, the proletariat, owns only
its labour power.
● But labour puts in more work than it gets back in pay; there is a surplus value
appropriated by the bourgeoisie. That is capitalist profit and it is derived from the
EXPLOITATION OF LABOUR.
● But capitalism means progress for Marx in two ways: first, capitalism destroys previous
relations of production, such as feudalism. Second, and most important for Marx,
capitalism paves the way for a socialist revolution
● Forces of Production (industrial machinery vs traditional handicraft)
● Relations of production(public vs private)
● Forces of production and relations of production form a specific mode of production,
for example capitalism, which is based on industrial machinery and private ownership
 ● The bourgeoisie, which dominates the capitalist economy through control of the means
of production, will also tend to dominate in the political sphere because according to
Marxists economics is the basis of politics
Marxist Framework for IPE
● First, states are not autonomous; they are driven by ruling-class interests, and capitalist
states are primarily driven by the interests of their respective bourgeoisies.
● This means that struggles between states, including wars, should be seen in the
economic context of competition between capitalist classes of different states. For
Marxists, class conflict is more fundamental than conflict between states.
● Second, as an economic system, capitalism is expansive: there is a never-ending search
for new markets and more profit. Because classes cut across state borders class conflict
is not confined to states; instead, it expands around the world in the wake of capitalism.
● Such expansion first took the form of imperialism and colonization, but it continued
after the colonies had been granted independence.
● Law of Uneven Development: Example of Germany and Britain
Realists Vs Marxists
● Both views agree on perennial competition and conflict between states. But realists
explain this by pointing to the existence of independent states in a condition of anarchy.
Therefore, the struggle between states has been taking place for several millennia, ever
since the emergence of states (i.e., independent political units) on the world stage.
● Marxists reject that view as abstract and unhistorical. It is abstract because there is no
concrete specification for the social forces that actually sustain conflict between states.
● The realist view is also unhistorical, according to Marxists. This is because history is
seen as always repeating itself; it’s ‘the same damned things over and over again’; states
competing in anarchy. But Marxists argue that conflict between states varies
substantially across history.
● Realists argue that the Marxist view of the state is reductionist, that is, it reduces the
state to a simple tool in the hands of the ruling classes, with no will of its own. States are
strong actors in their own right. They embody powerful institutions, they control the
means of violence (army, police), and they have substantial economic resources. It is
simply wrong to view the state as a mere instrument for others.
Robert Cox’s Neomarxism
● Cox begins with the concept of historical structures, defined as ‘a particular
configuration of forces’ .These historical structures are made up of three categories of
forces that interact: material capabilities, ideas, and institutions.
● Historical structures are identified at three different levels; they are labelled ‘social
forces’, ‘forms of state’, and ‘world orders’,
● ‘Social forces’ is shorthand for the process of capitalist production. An analysis of this
aspect will inform us about the present state of development of the capitalist economy
on a global scale.
● ‘Forms of state’ point to the ways in which states change in the inter-play with the social
forces of capitalist development.
 ● ’World orders’ refers to the current organization of international relations, including
relations between major states and groups of states, the status of international law, and
international institutions.
Wallerstein’s world System Analysis
● The capitalist world economy is built on a hierarchy of core areas, peripheral areas, and
semi-peripheral areas.
● The core(bourgeoisie) areas contain advanced and complex economic activities
(mass-market industries and sophisticated agriculture). Furthermore, these activities are
controlled by an indigenous bourgeoisie.
● Peripheral(proletariat) areas are at the bottom of the hierarchy; they produce staple
goods such as grain, wood, sugar, and so on. They often employ slavery or coerced
labour; what little industrial activity exists is mostly under the external control of
capitalists from core countries.
● Semi-peripheral areas are economically mixed; they are a middle layer between the
upper stratum of core countries and the lower stratum of peripheral countries.
● The semi-periphery has an important function in this regard. the semi-periphery acts
as a buffer or shock absorber.
● At the same time, the world economy is not entirely static; any single area of the
system may change the place from periphery to semi-periphery, from semi-periphery to
core, and vice versa.
● Furthermore, the types of commodities involved in core and peripheral economic
activities respectively are subject to dynamic change.
● The long-term prospect is the demise of the capitalist system because the
contradictions of that system are now unleashed on a world scale.
● Success, not failure, is the real threat to global capitalism; when the possibilities for
expansion are all used up, the never-ending quest for more profit will lead to new crises
in the world capitalist economy which sooner or later will spell its transformation.
7) POST-POSITIVIST THEORIES IN IR: “Reality is contingent, interpretative
and unstable”
● An umbrella term for a variety of recent contemporary issues in the study of IR. What
unites them is dissatisfaction with the established theoretical traditions in the discipline.
● They are critical of the approaches to the approaches to IR that are based on positivist
methodology.
● Reject three basic postulates of positivism:
- An objective external reality
- The subject/object distinction
- Value-free social science
● The larger consequence of this critique is that knowledge is not and cannot be neutral,
either morally, politically, or ideologically. There are a thousand ways of looking al the
real world; which distinctions and concepts are more important, and which are less
important? Dominant theories underpin and inform practice: that makes them huge!
powerful. Defining common sense is therefore the ultimate act of political power'
 ● Post-positivists are critical of any claim of an established truth valid for all. The task is
rather to examine the world from a large variety of political, social, cultural, economic,
ethnic, and gendered perspectives. That opens up a ‘free space’ for competing
reflections and to arrive at that space is the best we can do as scholars of IR.

Post-Structuralism

● They explore how the world comes to be represented as it is

● All knowledge reflects the interests of the observer
● The theory is always for someone and some purpose(Cox)
● The focus is on language and text
● Discourse: how we give meaning to reality via language. Those who decide definitions
etc, decide how we perceive them. Eg, terrorism, state warfare etc.
● Speech Act: stands instead of or might even be said to constitute an action. Eg: Global
warming, migration as security issues
● Empirical theory is a myth. Every theory decides for itself what counts as facts.
● The dominant theories of IR must be seen as stories that have been told so often that
they appear as ‘reality per se’
● They are just stories from a certain point of view which must be exposed as such and
contrasted with other stories from other points of view.
● PS don’t want to construct a new theory, they want to critically engage with all theories,
to trace why and how they are constructed the way they are.

Sovereignty

Securitization

● Security threats are not objectively given phenomena, they are discursively constructed
through speech acts.
● It is the speech act through which state actors transform issues into matters of security,
understood as a radical form of politization that enables the use of extraordinary means
in the name of security.
● For example Terrorism

Postcolonialism
 ● The focus is on the relationship between, on the one hand, Western countries in Europe
and North America, and on the other hand, the areas in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and
elsewhere that were colonized or dominated by Western countries.
● Despite decolonization, the logic and ideas underpinning the relationship between the
West and these areas continue to be one of hierarchy, reflecting Western concepts and
understandings. Therefore, intellectual strategies of ‘decolonization’ are needed in order
to liberate our thinking from that Western dominance. Post colonialism, then, is about
different ways of critically undertaking this process of intellectual decolonization
● Example of Cold War
● The aim of postcolonialism is to abandon the Eurocentrism prevalent.
● Europe was not a repository of potential modernity, enlightenment, and progressive
development. European state-building history is one of massive violent conflict and
extermination; a number of areas failed to develop for a considerable period of time and
were ‘peripheral’ rather than ‘core’ economies.
● The propagation of liberal values of freedom and equality was a rather late occurrence,
taking place in hard struggles against elites that supported hierarchy and imperialism
(Jahn 2005).
● Non-liberal ideologies, such as fascism and Nazism, played important roles in Europe in
the twentieth century. In short, ‘the West’ needs to be deconstructed as ‘the primary
subject of the world history

Edward Said (Orientalism, 1978)

● The terms 'Asia', 'Asiatic' and 'Oriental' were often used in a pejorative way. The
supposed decadence of the 'East' could help to highlight the vitality of the 'West’.
● The very term ‘the Orient‘ holds different meanings for different people. ……It is not
only adjacent to Europe; ‘it is also the place of Europe‘s greatest and richest and oldest
colonies, the source of its civilizations and languages, its cultural contestant, and one of
its deepest and most recurring images of the Other’
● Power and knowledge are intimately connected in this view. If the Orient is backward,
traditional, and underdeveloped it is only logical and rational that it is subjected to
Western dominance in order to be able to progress towards modernity and civilization.

ASSYMETRIC WARFARE(Yves Winter)

● A notion frequently used to characterize conflicts between states and non-state actors.
● He argues that the notion of asymmetry carries normative implications because
powerful states are portrayed as vulnerable victims of ‘uncivilized warfare’.
● In that way, the notion of asymmetry allows states to take extraordinary measures
against civilians: ‘to selectively rationalize brutal tactics against non-state actors . . . And
to defend against manoeuvres that cause high casualties among civilians

Cuban Missile Crisis

● PRESENTED AS US VERSUS SOVIET UNION

● CUBAN POSITION DISREGARDED
 ● OBSCURES THE US ROLE PRE-1961 IN A PERSISTENT PATTERN OF US AGGRESSION AND
SUBVERSION OF THE CUBAN REVOLUTION

Feminism

● IR feminists focus on basic inequalities between men and women and the consequences
of such inequalities for world politics.
● Gender refers to ‘socially learned behaviour and expectations that distinguish between
masculinity and femininity

● We presently live in a gendered world in which qualities associated with ‘masculinity’

(e.g., rationality, ambition, strength) are assigned higher value and status than qualities
associated with ‘femininity’ (e.g., emotionality, passivity, weakness).
● Plus these characteristics do not necessarily apply to individual men and women, they
are ideal types
● This amounts to a gender hierarchy: a system of power where maleness is privileged
over femaleness
● Conventional approaches contain gendered thinking; the feminist critique points out
that the realist idea of security, for example, is a masculinist way of looking at the world.
● Realist security is based on military defence of states in international anarchy, but that
conceals the continued existence of a gender hierarchy in world politics in the sense that
protection from an outside threat is also protection of a domestic jurisdiction that
underwrites a persisting subordination of women
● Women are largely omitted from the histories of the War. Where women are
mentioned, it is normally in the context of either their need for protection or a human
interest story on the oddity of women in participatory roles.
● The stories of women that were told in wars (when they were told at all) were of
innocent women in need of protection or feminine emulation of masculine military
values.
● Honour is associated with women’s bodies, and the nation's and community’s honour is
violated by violence against women. Concepts such as motherland.
● Gender is crucial in international politics and economics but remains invisible. The
INVISIBLE GDP OF STATES.