Clio Summary : Chapters, articles and lecture notes Theory of International Relations

Transcription

1 Clio Summary : Chapters, articles and lecture notes Theory of International Relations LYX104B10 This document has been created with the greatest care. However, Study Association Clio is not responsible for any mistakes whatsoever that this document might entail. It is meant as an addition to lectures and study material such as books or syllabi, not as its substitution.

2 1. Introduction to IR Theory Steve Smith: Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory Why is theory necessary? - Without theory we have to believe what world leaders are saying about their decisions - People are not completely aware of the reasons for their actions The social world is constructed out of powerful economic, political, social, gendered, racial, linguistic and moral structures. It is easy to describe them, but more difficult to explain. When it comes to explaining action, we are automatically in the realm of theory. Theories have different assumptions, hence there are different answers to problems. Differences occur because authors focus on different aspects of world politics or they see the world in very different ways. The main debate between theories has always been between forms of realism and liberalism. Interparadigm Debate: competing theories (realism, liberalism, Marxism) in the 1980s. Problems: 1. The amount of the debate exaggerated: realism dominated the discipline, because it explained the bipolar structure of the international system. Liberalism covered institutions and trade, Marxism explained relative economic power and structural inequality. Intellectual pluralism: playing field on which the theories competed. The dominance of realism/neorealism reflected implicit, unstated common-sense assumptions about the content of world politics, namely war. 2. Intellectual pluralism suggests that all approaches try to explain the world, while they are actually all focusing on different aspects of international politics and are thus not on debate at all. the dominance of one theory is the result of a prior assumption about the main things in world politics that need explaining. Theory choice is influenced by the position in the social world. Fourth great debate in IR: between rationalist and reflectivist theories, launched by Robert Keohane Rationalist (e.g. neorealism, neoliberalism): positivist - Foundationalist (world is separate from the theories commenting on it) - Claim that theory accounts are more accurate than others because their systematic scientific approach explains the world in an empirically justifiable way Reflectivist (e.g. feminism, poststructuralism): oppose positivism - Not foundationalist: led to dismissal for not being legitimate social science - Keohane: main weakness of reflectivism is the lack of a research programme Difference is mainly epistemological and methodological, only secondarily ontological Most theories since the interparadigm debate oppose the dominance of rationalist approaches Stephen Walt: constructivism as a third approach next to realism and liberalism 1

3 - Rejects reflectivism - Individuals as unit of analysis, ideas and discourse as its main instruments, main limitation: better at describing the past than anticipating the future Holsti regrets the proliferation of theories, but Smith argues that historically dominant and other theories are equally legitimate and both important for an understanding of international relations. Questioning of main assumptions of ontology and epistemology is important. What do the theories share? 1. Shared commitment to the importance of theory in understanding the world 2. All theories have a history, though not always within the discipline of IR 3. Each theory makes claims about the linkages between theory and practice What is the role of theory? - dominant answer: theory has the role of explaining the world (positivist) - alternative answer: theories constitute the world that they are explaining Two main problems with the growing body of distinctly different theories 1. is there a discipline of IR at all after the proliferation of theories, many of which have their intellectual basis in different social sciences? 2. How to choose which theory to use? - Criteria: 1) the issue you want to explain theories cannot simply be combined together, because they actually see different worlds Milja Kurki and Colin Wight: International Relations and Social Science Meta-theory: does not take a specific event, phenomenon or series of empirical real world practices as its object of analysis, but explores underlying assumptions of all theory and attempts to understand the consequences of such assumption on the act of theorizing and the practice of empirical research theoy of theories All theoretical assumptions are dependent on particular assumptions about - Ontology: theory of being what is the world made of? - Epistemology: theory of knowledge how do we come to have knowledge of the world? - Methodology: theory of methods - what methods do we use to unearth data and evidence? Positivism as a philosophy of science has been the dominant approach, but it has been discredited as a valid account of scientific practice. Four great debates 1. Realist vs. idealist (around WWII) - Primarily over the role of international institutions and the likelihood that the causes of war might be improved - Idealist: develop set of institutions, procedures and practices that could eradicate, or at least control, war in the international system. Ignorance and lack of understanding as the primary source of international conflict. - Realist: challgend the unsystematic and value-driven idealist approach to IR 2. Traditionalist vs. modernizers (behaviorists) (1960s) 2

4 - Behaviourist revolution: wanted to define systematic scientific methods of inquiry for the discipline of IR. Embraced positivism: scientific knowledge emerges only with the collection of observable data - Traditionalist defended more humanistic methodology, conceptual and interpretative judgments 3. Interparadigm debate (1970s and 1980s) - Positivism has been broadly accepted but problem of theory choice and the incommensurability of differing theoretical perspectives - Thomas Kuhn s study of the history of science argues that knowledge can only progress in an era of normal science when one paradigm (theoretical school) dominates - Realist, pluralist and Marxist perspectives as possible paradigms that are incommensurable; theory choice is a matter of taste 4. Fourth debate (contemporary) - Disagreements about what the discipline should study and how it should study it - Explaining vs understanding (scientific vs interpretive/hermeneutic approach) Explanatory: observation; quantitative methods Understanding: interpretation of unobservable, immeasurable actions; interpretive methods (qualitative, discursive, historical) - Positivism vs postpositivism Positivism: empiricist epistemology; science must be focused on systematic observation; collection of sufficient data will reveal regularities which indicate laws; emphasize instrumental function of knowledge Postpositivism: reject positivism and hermeneutic alternatives - Rationalism vs reflectivism Rationalism: comes from rational choice theory, deductive, both explanatory and positivist Reflectivist (critical theory, constructivism, poststructuralism, feminism): emphasize reflexivity and non-neutral nature of political and social explanation, need to develop a research programme! Main issue in all the debates: whether or not IR can be, or should be, a form of inquiry based upon scientific principles Beyond the fourth debate - Scientific realism: reject any attempt to arrive at a set of clearly defined procedures that fix the content of the scientific method - Ontology: (social knowledge of social reality) world is ontologically complex - Epistemology: relativism - Methodology: pluralist - Critical realism: dichotomy (Gegensätzlichkeit) between rationalism and reflectivism is mirrored in the distinction between an approach that focuses on materialist issues, and one that concentrates in ideas Emergence of scientific and critical realism has opened up new debate about metatheoretical and theoretical aspects in IR Exploring the key implications of meta-theoretical differences in IR theory 3

5 Types of theory 1. Explanatory theory: problem-solving theories ; explain events by providing an account of causes in a temporal sequence 2. Critical theory: type of theory which begins with the avowed intent of criticizing particular social arrangements and/or outcomes. Explicitly sets out to identify and criticize a particular set of social circumstances and demonstrate how they came to exist 3. Normative theory: indicating alternative futures or social modes of operation that do not currently exist, but might be brought into being. Examines what ought to be the case 4. Constitutive theory: does not attempt to generate, or track, causal patterns in time. Asks how things are constituted. 5. Theory considered as a lens through which we look at the world Questions of objectivity - Distinguish between truth and objectivity - Truth: relationship between the world and a statement referring to that world - Objectivity: statement, position, or a set of claims that is not influenced by personal opinions or prejudices - Positivist: strive for objective knowledge by attempting to define methods and criteria for knowledge production that minimize the influence of value-based biased judgments - Interpretive: social knowledge is by definition always situated knowledge ; knowledge claims can never be formulated outside the influence of social and political context very skeptical of truth claims - Constructivist: reject idea of truth but try to maintain objectivity by removing bias and gaining support for claims by negotiation within the scientific community - Scientific and critical realists: accept large parts of interpretivist position regarding objectivity. Scientific realists rule nothing out and privilege no one factor (epistemological opportunists). Theory testing and theory comparison - Positivist: only systematic empirical observation guided by clear methodological procedures can provide valid knowledge. Theories must be tested against empirical patterns in order to compare them. - Interpretivist: theories are incommensurable or at least there is no easy way of comparing theory - Scientific and critical realists: theory comparison and testing always require recognition of complexity of judgements/the social and political context/analysis of potential consequences of judgements. Theory comparison must be based on holistic criteria Lecture: Introduction to Theory 4

6 What is a theory? - A rather self-contained, consistent, coherent set of propositions o Self-contained: explicit in its assumptions, complete o Consistent: no contradictions o Coherent: recognizable form, Gestalt, theory should be as simple as possible o Propositions: sentences/claims about the world which can be objective, subjective or intersubjective (unwritten rules) - including definitions, axioms and basic assumptions as premises, o basic assumptions: ontologies, units of analysis, concepts of rationality o axioms: epistemologies, conditions of possibility of theorizing, what kind of theory is possible - from which conclusions with abstract, generalizing content are derived how does new knowledge derive from given assumptions? o Abstract: removed from concrete situations o General: applies to more than one subject because theories are general, they are practical - enabling (with the help of marginal conditions and specified variable values) the deduction or generation of concrete and particular propositions About theory: Why theory? - No one needs to know our book s theories to engage with international politics (unless you want to work as faculty in an IR department); theories are not used in daily life, media etc. - In academia, usually theory matters more than practice. With good reasons! - Everyone engaging in international politics has a theory of international politics. You need a better one. - Therefore: You should really study our book s theories with us! We live in a knowledge society where specialized knowledge is important for three reasons: 1) Factual knowledge is available everywhere and it is impossible to know everything 2) With the same knowledge background there are countless job possibilities 3) Knowledge is outdated quickly More general, abstract knowledge is needed: theories! Five functions of theory 1. Theories provide a perspective on experience o Enable analysis beneath/beyond the surface o Broaden experience 2. They rationalize experience taking us o What is coincidental, what is not? o What is necessary? 3. Theories store experience 4. Theories take lessons from experience 5. Theories can go beyond experience Four Types of Theorizing 5

7 Explanative: like natural science; A causes B; to predict something Constitutive: identity, intersubjective world Critical: criticizes something is fundamentally wrong Normative: what should be right for moral reasons 2. Realism 6

8 John J. Mearsheimer: Structural Realism Power is the currency of international politics. It is important for actors how much power they have relative to others (Balance of power). International politics = power politics. There are differences among realists, mainly reflected in the question: WHY do states want power? different idea about the causes of war 1. Classical realism: human nature; everyone is born with a will to power individual level 2. Structural realism (neorealism): structure/architecture of the international system that forces states to pursue power. structural level States are assumed to be alike (black boxes), cultural differences and differences in regime types are ignored. There is also a divide between structural realists, mainly reflected in the question: how much power is enough? - Defensive realism: it is unwise for states to try to maximize their share of world power, because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too much power. It is wise to have a certain, appropriate level of power. - Offensive realism: it makes good strategic sense to gain as much power as possible and pursue hegemony. Having overwhelming power is the best way to ensure survival (Mearsheimer s view) Classical realists: power is an end in itself. Structural realists: power is a means to an end and the ultimate end is survival Power is based on the material capabilities that a state controls; the balance of power is mainly a function of the tangible military assets that states possess. Latent power is a second kind of power and refers to socio-economic aspects. It is based on a state s wealth and the size of its population. Why do states want power? The structural realist explanation for why states compete among themselves for power is based on five assumptions about the international system 1. Great powers are the main actors in world politics and they operate in an anarchic system without a centralized authority 2. All states possess some offensive military capability 3. States can never be certain about the intentions of other states. They want to know whether other states will use force to alter the balance of power (revisionist states) or not (status quo states) - Revisionist states: states looking for opportunities to use military force to alter the balance of power - Status quo states: states satisfied enough with the balance of power that they have no interest in using military force to shift it in their favour. Status quo powers are sometimes referred to as security seekers 4. The main goal of states is survival. Other goals are also pursued, but territorial integrity and autonomy of domestic political order is always more important. 5. States are rational actors. They are capable of coming up with sound strategies that maximizes their prospects for survival. Sometimes they make mistakes because they operate with imperfect information/miscalculate. None of the assumptions by themselves says that states will or should compete with each other for power, only if they are combined there are incentives to gain power at each other s expense. 7

9 - Great powers fear each other, there is little trust and they worry about the intentions of other states. - Great powers operate in a self-help world, they have to rely on themselves to ensure their survival. Other states are potential threats and there is no higher authority they can turn to if they are attacked. The best way to survive is to be powerful! The more powerful a state is, the less likely it is that it will be attacked. The structure of the system can force every great power (even status-quo states) to think and act like a revisionist state. This is reflected in the security dilemma: most steps a great power takes to enhance its own security decrease the security of other states (zero-sum) How much power is enough? Balancing by other powers Offence-defence balance (whether or not offence pays) Cost-benefit Defensive Realism There are strong incentives to gain power, but it is strategically foolish to pursue hegemony. States should not maximize power but strive for an appropriate amount of power (Waltz) If any state becomes too powerful, balancing will occur. There will be a balancing coalition by other great powers, which will destabilize or destroy the aspiring hegemon. Offence-defence balance usually weighted in the defender s favour. States will recognize the futility of offence and concentrate on maintaining their position. Aims in the offence are limited. Offensive Realism States should always be looking for opportunities to gain more power and should do so when feasible. They should maximize power and the ultimate goal is hegemony. Balancing is often inefficient and inefficiency provides opportunities for aggressors to take advantage. Buck-passing: threatened states attempt to get other states to assume the burden of checking a powerful opponent while they remain on the sidelines. This also creates opportunities for aggressors. The defender has no significant advantage over the attacker (historical record supports this) Agree: nuclear weapons have little utility for offensive purposes, except where only one side has them. Conventional war between nuclear-armed states is possible but not likely, because of the danger of escalation. Due to nationalism it is difficult to conquer; occupied populations will rise up against Sometimes conquest does not pay, but sometimes it does. Information technologies have 8

10 the occupier and it is difficult to exploit economies All states should recognize these facts (because they are rational actors); security competition should not be intense and there should be no central wars. an Orwellian dimension, which facilitates repression. Despite nationalism occupied states are sometimes easy to govern. A victorious state does not need to occupy a state completely to gain an advantage over it. Offensive realists expect great powers to be constantly looking for opportunities to gain advantage over each other, with the ultimate aim of hegemony; security competition will be intense; great power wars are likely; central wars can arise when there is a potential hegemon Past behavior has been more in accordance with offensive realism. Defensive realists explain this with irrational behavior of actors. Waltz argues that structural realism needs to be supplemented by a separate theory of foreign policy (unit-level theory, no longer system-level!) that can explain misguided state behavior. Domestic level theories (e.g. organizational theory, domestic regime type, militarism) are combined with system-level theories. Offensive realists rely exclusively on structural arguments and recognize that states occasionally act in strategically foolish ways. What causes great power war? Security is not always the main reason behind a state s decision for war, it can also be ideology or economic considerations. This is in line with structural realism, as long as the aggressor does not purposely harm its position in the balance of power. No matter the reason, victory in war usually improves a state s relative power position. There are four approaches that try explain the reasons for going to war. 1. The polarity of the system: Is bipolarity (two great powers) more or less war-prone than multipolarity (three or more great powers)? - by looking at modern Europe history it is difficult to determine, because during the 20 th century bipolarity and during the 19 th century multipolarity was more peaceful. Bipolarity is less war-prone (Waltz) There are more powers to fight each other in multipolarity compared to bipolarity There is greater equality in bipolarity, because wealth and population are more likely to be unevenly distributed in multipolarity. There is greater potential for Multipolarity is less war-prone Deterrence is much easier in multipolarity, because more states can join in confronting an aggressive state There is much less hostility among great powers in multipolarity, because they pay less attention to each other. Complexity dampens the prospects for war. 9

11 miscalculation in multipolarity, and miscalculation leads to war. In bipolarity there is more clarity about potential threats. Balancing is more efficient in bipolar systems. There are no other great powers that can do balancing or form a balancing coalition. Buck-passing can occur in multipolarity. Balancing might be inefficient in multipolarity, but eventually coalitions form and aggressors are defeated, as multiple examples show Some argue that since the end of the cold war there is unipolarity, with the USA as the sole great power. A unipolar world system is likely to be more peaceful, because there is only one great power and minor powers will avoid war with it. However, war is likely to break out in regions that are abandoned by the hegemon. The sole power might also use its superior position to interfere in politics of other regions, which will not facilitate world peace. 2. Balanced or imbalanced power: how much power each of the great powers controls - power ratio of the two most powerful countries in the system is most important - some say one especially powerful state facilitates peace; but: war amongst lesser great powers is still possible - some say preponderance increases the chance of war, because it is a potential hegemon and not satisfied with the status quo 3. Power shifts and war: dynamics of the balance of power, especially significant changes in the distribution of power - preponderant power confronted with a rising challenger usually results in central war; the dominant state has strong incentives to start a preventive war in order to stop the rising state - but rising state has advantage, it can just wait for the dominant state to decline 4. The offence-defence balance - Offence-defence balance almost always favours the defence - This balance is a force for peace - Defensive realists argue that offensive advantage is likely to result in war, while defence advantage facilitates peace 10

12 Kenneth Waltz: The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory - Theory: does NOT explain accidental or unexpected events. It explains regularities and repetitions, which is only possible if these can be identified. - International politics need to be considered as a distinct domain, isolated from others. Realists fails to see that. - Reality: everything is related to everything else. Theory: isolates one realm from all others. Neorealism isolates international politics and thus makes a theory about it possible. - Classical realists (Morgenthau) see power as an end in itself. Neorealists see it as a possible useful means and statesmen should have an appropriate amount of it, the ultimate concern is not power but security. - Classical realism thinks of causes as moving in only one direction: from the interactions of individuals and states to the outcomes that their acts and interactions produce. The struggle for power arises because men want things, not because of the evil in their desires. - Marxists and liberalists link outbreak of war to internal qualities of states, but Waltz argues that states with different characteristics have all fought wars therefore internal qualities are not important for states behaviours. - Neorealism: International politics can only be understood if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism: structures affect actions and outcomes, a man s lust for power is not a sufficient cause for war - Causes at the unit-level and at the structural-level interact and both have to be taken into consideration in order to cope with both changes and continuities that occur in the system - States are the system s constituent units that want to survive. The essential structural quality of the system is anarchy. There can be changes of structure and the system due to a varying number of great powers. - Systems-theory of international politics deals with forces at the international and NOT at the national level. Questions are answered in relation to the placement of the units in the system, the internal qualities of individual units are ignored (states are states) o Systems-theory: why different units behave similarly but still produce outcomes that fall within expected ranges o Theories at unit-level: why different units behave differently despite their similar placement in the system. o Theory about foreign policy is at the national level, it is not necessary for a theory of international politics! - Twin-facts of life under condition of anarchy: States in an anarchic order must provide for their own security and there are a lot of threats to their security. Actors are usually suspicious and hostile, the source of one s own comfort is the source of another s worry ( Security dilemma in an anarchic domain) - In an anarchic domain a state of war exists if all parties lust for power, but also if all states seek only to ensure their own safety - The recurrence of war is explained by the structure of the system. The central question of structural theory is therefore: How do changes of the system affect the expected frequency of war? The structural level: Is a bi- or a multipolar system better? - Multipolarity: 11

13 o Alliances are made, maintained and disrupted flexibility of alignment limits a state s options because its strategy must please potential allies and satisfy present partners o Alliances are made because there is a common interest (mostly: fear of other states) o There will be competing blocks in which one state cannot let its weaker ally down. In moment of crisis the weaker or the more adventurous party is likely to determine its side s policy. o In alliances among equals the defection of one member threatens the security of the others. In alliances among unequals, the contributions of the lesser member are at once wanted and of relatively small importance o Flexibility of alignment lead to rigidity of strategy or the limitation of freedom of decision (in a bipolar world there is more flexibility of strategy and greater freedom of decision) o Threats and dangers are a uncertainty (never the case in a bipolar world) o Dangers are diffused, responsibilities unclear and definitions of vital interests easily obscured. There is an interdependence of partners. o Miscalculation is a source of danger worse than overreaction in a bipolar world, because miscalculation is more likely to permit an unfolding of events that finally threatens the status quo and brings the powers to war Main characteristics of a multipolar world: interdependence of parties, diffusion of dangers and confusion of responses - Bipolar system o Alliance leaders can design strategies primarily to advance their own interests and to cope with their main adversary and less to satisfy their own allies o A loss for one is easily taken to be a gain for another o Overreaction is a source of danger lesser evil compared to miscalculation in multipolar world, because overreaction at worst only costs money for unnecessary arms and possibly the fighting of limited wars. There is also a measure of correction Main characteristics of bipolar world: Self-dependence of parties clarity of dangers and certainty about who has to face them make out a bipolar system The unit-level: nuclear weapons as a great force for peace - Self-help is the principal of action in an anarchic order most important: provide for own security - The chances of peace rise if states can achieve their most important ends without actively using force. War becomes less likely as the costs of war rise in relation to the possible gains - Nuclear weapons dissuade states from going to war much more surely than conventional weapons do. They reverse or negate many of the conventional causes of war. - Deterrence if more easily achieved because states will not attack unless it believes that success is assured uncertainty of response is needed for deterrence! - Nuclear weapons have banished war from the centre of international politics: A unit-level change has dramatically reduced a structural effect - Conventional weapons are relative: competing countries must constantly compare their strengths. Nuclear weapons are absolute: if no state can launch a disarming attack with high 12

14 confidence, comparing the size of strategic forces becomes irrelevant. States just need enough second-strike capability Wars, hot and cold - All wars originate in the structure of the international political system - In a bipolar world, each great power is bound to focus its fears on the other, to distrust its motives and to impute offensive intentions to defensive measures Hot wars originate in the structure of international politics, so does the cold war, with its temperature kept low by the presence of nuclear weapons Lecture: Realism (Classical and Structural) 1. Realism in brief - International politics is essentially about power, (largely) based on the material capabilities a state controls military is most important - States in anarchy (absence of government) cannot take their survival for granted, and so must compete for power to safeguard their survival - Criticism of Realism on other IR perspectives: they wrongly try to make international politics more beautiful - safer - than it really is Realism is arguably the theoretical perspective to beat, in view of its dominance throughout (and even before) IR history. It is the starting point for the development of other theories 2. Key features of realism - T. Dunne and B.C. Schmidt: all realists endorse the following three S s: 1) Statism: the core of realism - The world is statist: State as the dominant actor, because it possesses the biggest military. All other actors such as IOs, TNCs, NGOs, terrorist organizations are of lesser importance, because their influence depends on state actions. - Sovereignty : the state as an independent political community with juridical authority over its territory. There is a difference between domestic and international politics Key criticisms on statism: - Empirical: challenges to state power from above and below - Normative: the inability of sovereign (egoistic) states to effectively or fairly address collective global problems such as human rights, climate change etc. 2) Survival: the primary objective of all states; all states strive for survival. Survival is not selfevident - State security as high politics - All other goals such as economic welfare, human rights, environmental protection are secondary (at best), or low politics Key criticism (normative): as if there are no limits to what states can do in the name of necessity (e.g. can states do anything that is necessary even at the expense of human rights?) 13

15 3) Self-help: no other state can be relied upon for survival, because states never know the real intentions of other states - Absence of global government does not permit friendship or trust, but creates deep and enduring uncertainty - Coexistence through the maintenance of the balance of power (a central realist notion) - At most, limited co-operation possible between states Key criticism (empirical/normative): not inevitable but chosen by states, and states select other options at times (states do help each other) 3. Versions of Realism: classical realism - Gives theoretical primacy to human nature (humans fear each other and want to dominate others) (cf. Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, Machiavelli, Thucydides) Bottom-up approach: it starts from individual persons/the perspective of state leaders - Does not make a sharp distinction between domestic politics and the anarchical realm of world politics (but still there is a small distinction) - Stresses power, military capability, and national interest, but - to a variable extent - also the role of morality and community Versions of Realism: neo-realism - Also called structural realism, started in the late 19th century - Stresses the explanatory importance of international anarchy and distribution of power (polarity) Top-down approch - Distinguishes sharply - for the purpose of theory - between domestic politics and anarchical world politics, with states as like units 4. Classical realism versus non-realism on theorizing: Richard Ned Lebow s recent classical realism - Considers neo-realism a parody of science, if not religion : too parsimonious, theorizes polarity and power inadequately, preaches about evil (tells states what they should do) - Observes that conception of theory of renowned classical realists is distinct from that of neo-realism: o Thucydides: foreign policy actions are context-dependent o Morgenthau: no general laws and predictions - Defends a richer, more historical and normative, action-oriented, realist theory that, in contrast to neo-realism, acknowledges the role of justice as the foundation of influence, community, and order theory should be more practical Classical realism versus neo-realism on theorizing: neorealist Waltz on theory - Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (1979) - Theory, says Waltz, is meant to explain a circumscribed part of a reality of whose true dimensions we can never be sure - Reality is complex and often ugly ; theory is sparse in formulation and beautifully simple (Waltz) - Theory explains not everything, but a small number of big and important things (Waltz) 14

16 o Not all states are important, only the great powers are crucial - Waltz in 1979: the domain of international politics still lacks a theory, but microeconomics can help to develop one - Waltz then formulates international politics as a kind of oligopolistic competition among states o All international systems are anarchic! - So Waltz: classical realist thought, neorealist theory! 5. Neo-realism in more detail: five assumptions 1) Great powers - the main actors - operate in an anarchic international system (this does not vary) 2) All states possess offensive military capability (this does vary) 3) States can never be certain about other states intentions (a defensive military doctrine adopted by one state may look like an offensive threat to another) 4) The main goal of states is survival 5) States are rational actors, although operating with imperfect information (they make serious errors at times Neo-realism in more detail: offensive vs. defensive realism - Neo-realism in two versions: o Defensive realism : states as security maximizers o Offensive realism: states as power maximizers - Offensive realists: states should be expected to always look for opportunities to gain more power, with hegemony as ultimate reward (John Mearsheimer) - Defensive realists: unrelenting expansion is imprudent, conquest is often costly and troublesome o Defensive realists argue that states should be expected to seek an appropriate amount of [power] (Waltz) Neo-realism in more detail: which is less war-prone: bipolarity or multipolarity? - Bipolarity! (Waltz) Because: o There is relatively less opportunity for great powers to fight each other in a bipolar world o Equality between great powers tends to be more even, and balancing behaviour is easier o There is greater potential for miscalculation (and so war) in multi-polarity o During the Cold War there were proxy wars, but no great power wars! - Multi-polarity! Because: o Deterrence is easier, as in multi-polarity more states can join together to confront an aggressive state o There is less hostility among the great powers as their attention is more diffused Neo-realism in more detail: is unipolarity less war-prone? - With the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union, from bipolarity to (American) unipolarity!? - Such a world is probably more stable than both bipolarity and multi-polarity - or so it seems - Logically, there can be no war or security competition among great powers; minor powers will not cause any trouble for fear of offending the unipolar power 15

17 - However: one danger of unipolarity is that the global hegemon may want to use its overwhelming power to engage in ideological engineering - Or: the hegemon may be inclined to neglect the vital interests of states with which good relations are important; cf. Mearsheimer, Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West s Fault, Foreign Affairs 93 (Sep/Oct2014), 5: (he argues that the West is to blame for Russia s occupation of Crimea, because Putin didn t trust the Western intentions in Eastern Europe/Ukraine) 6. 9/11 and the return of realism - After 9/11, realism is back! (from never been gone ) - Liberal optimism of the 1990s now deflated - Predictions of globalizers about the end of the state have proved to be premature - War appears to be a feature of international politics again - From a classical realist perspective (Lebow), the 2003 Iraq war can be meaningfully understood as a tragedy : hubris (Überheblichkeit) prevailed over prudence (Besonnenheit) o Humans are able to act prudent (make wise choices), but Bush and Blair acted hubristic - Structural realists plausibly claimed that the US-led 2003 Iraq war was a deep strategic mistake, because it was not in the best interest of the US (but: how then to explain it?!) - Security competition in Asia strongly suggests that the world remains an unsafe place (cf. China s rise; slide 3) 3. Liberalism 16

18 Jennifer Sterling-Folker: Neoliberalism Central concern of neoliberalism: how to achieve cooperation among states and other actors in the international system. - Same anarchic world view as neoliberalism, but developments of the 20 th century facilitate cooperation o International cooperation: adjust behavior to the actual or anticipated preference of others o Institutions developed in the 20 th century Formal institutions: multilateral organizations with physical locations, staff etc. States voluntarily create intergovernmental institutions (UN or IMF) to obtain particular collective interests Informal institutions: international regimes (set of rules, principles, norms/cooperative efforts, assumptions and behaviors in a given international issue area) - Neoliberalism is a variant of liberal IR theory and focuses on international institutions (often also called neoliberal institutionalism) - State-centric perspective: state as unitary, utility-maximizing, rational units. States make decisions based on self-interested priorities and according to cost-benefit analyses - Faith in ability of human beings to obtain good collective outcomes on a global scale it is possible for human beings to design international institutions that mitigate the negative impact of anarchy on international collective actions. Neoliberal institutional analysis is concerned with the performance of international institutions How did neoliberalism emerge? Early influence: pluralism literature in the 1960s and early 1970s. Pluralism challenged the realist assumption of unitary, rational actors. Instead they argued that a variety of non-state actors and processes were breaking down barriers between domestic and international affairs transnational relations better characterizes the interaction between states (Keohane and Nye). However, later the state-centric, unitary actor assumptions were adopted. Early 1980s: anarchic environment of self-interested, egocentric actors did not necessarily impose debilitating realist constraints on cooperation Neo-neo debate: debate between Keohane (neoliberal) and Grieco (neorealist) over whether realist assumptions had been correctly adopted and applied Different views on the consequences of anarchy: - Neorealist: anarchy as an all-encompassing, unchanging condition or environment to which humans are subject. The inability to control outcomes and ensure survival generates paranoia, fear and drive for power - Neoliberal: anarchy as a vacuum that is gradually filled with human-created processes and institutions, which have begun to counteract the inability to control outcomes and ensure survival Neoliberals highlight two historical developments in the 20 th century that have made realism an increasingly inaccurate description of contemporary global politics 17

19 1. Increasing interdependence due to modern technological and industrial advances. Potentially pacifying process in an anarchic environment! Greatest potential for international cooperation in the area of low politics such as global economics, health, refugees or immigration 2. Hegemonic stability of the US after WWII: UN system as an umbrella for cooperative relations across different issue areas o Bretton Woods system was backed by American economic resources due to economic self-interest o Institutions established by the hegemon serve as a basis for further cooperation. (economic) cooperation can also be obtained in anarchy in the absence or decline of a hegemon! Critical questions on Neoliberalism: - How to measure interdependence, whether interdependence is just as likely to produce violence, how to isolate the effects of interdependence from other political causes - Normative bias of hegemonic stability theory, whether the USA has actually declined as a hegemon, whether a hegemon is even necessary in the first place problematic: assumed relationship between historical processes, international institutions and international cooperation, which serves as the foundation for neoliberalism What are the barriers to international cooperation? A common interest does not automatically lead to agreements and cooperation, because there are various barriers that could make the transaction costs, consequence or penalties too great to risk the effort. - Neorealists: barriers are intractable; parties will not cooperate because they fear that the other party could achieve relative gains - Neoliberal: states can still be motivated to cooperate in order to achieve absolute gains - Game theory has been used to analyze these cooperative difficulties (e.g. Prisoner s Dilemma) o Barriers to effective cooperation: lack of information/transparency and incentive to cheat/fear of being cheated o Iteration (Wiederholung): makes actors less likely to defect from cooperative arrangements international institutions foster iteration by means of constant and regular meetings and enhance transparency by fostering exchange of information The interest in the rational design of institutions serves as the foundational context for neoliberal analysis and shapes its research agendas How does neoliberalism study international institutions? Neoliberal analysis: 18

20 1. Identify shared self-interest for what common purpose/goal was the institution designed? 2. How or whether does this particular design ensures those interests are sufficiently obtained? 3. Derive generalizable lessons about successfulness of different aspects of the institution Three broad difficulties in international institutional design were identified 1. Bargaining: to what extent does the institutional design play a role in international negotiations and bargaining? - Institutions reflect mutually accepted boundaries for behavior and the achievement of collective goals by normalizing rules and procedures - Great powers have more influence over international negotiations and their outcome - The institutional design might not be able to resolve serious conflict, because it does not address problems inherent to the negotiations process itself - Dysfunctions may result from relative power, but not always! - Key features that have impact on bargaining outcomes: o The scope of an issue covered by the negotiations o The extent to which issues are linked (important in European context) o The rules for controlling how decisions are made (incl. rules on voting) - Question about efficiency of regional compared to global institutions o Regionalism promoted legalization of negotiations clearly defined decisionmaking rules and dispute settlement o the greater the extent to which an international institution can legalize a process, the greater the chances that negotiations will be successfully concluded 2. Defection: how can international institutions be designed to alleviated concerns over defection? - States fear that cooperative partners may fail to live up to mutual agreements they might be discouraged from engaging in cooperative projects - Issue is not whether defection will occur but rather how to deal with it when it does - Relative power can play important role - Institutions can alleviate two important aspects of defection 1) Compliance: the extent to which states can be induced or encouraged to abide by the agreements 2) Enforcement: the extent to which states can be forced into compliance and possibly punished for their failure to do so - Monitoring state behavior is important for compliance, because it makes all states aware of one another s behavior - Transparency by itself might not be enough, it needs to be combined with reduced implementation costs, the threat of sanctions, and an emphasis on actively preventing violations rather than merely deterring them - International institutions can provide financial incentives, act as moral persuaders, serve as neutral third parties and actively manage state disagreements through arbitration or the provision of legal guidance - Issue-linkage can become important as a reward or punishment - coercive cooperation : the process of getting states to go along with the decision to sanction - Dispute resolution is effective in discouraging defection - Escape clauses allow state to temporarily back out of agreements encourage compliance 19

21 3. Autonomy: how is it possible to disentangle the effects of state interest from the attributes of international institutions? Do international institutions have an autonomous status that can be analyzed separately from the analysis of state interests? - Examine how international institutions act as norm entrepreneurs and agenda setters in global politics o Major element: the institution s ability to socialize states into global norms, thereby domestic political agendas and foreign policies can be affected by international institutions - Examine how international institutions implement the tasks assigned to them by states o Institutions have been assigned the task of overseeing and implementing the global daily activities, therefore they have to transform broad mandates into doctrines, procedures etc. They have an independent causal impact because they oversee daily o global tasks that states do not Organizational decision-making processes should be more transparent and inclusive in order to avoid standard bureaucratic pathologies - Principal-agent-theory (neoliberal research programme): Examine how states (principals) delegate tasks and authority to international institutions which serve as their independent representatives (agents) within particular issue areas o The process of delegation has evolved over time in order to more effectively promote the interests of states, even as the process paradoxically promotes institutional autonomy Robert Keohane: International Institutions: Can interdependence work? Keohane: positivist/rationalist, attacking reflectivists League of Nations: institution for multilateral diplomacy; rejected by US Senate. There was an adhoc basis for negotiations. Question: would the LoN have been successful with the US?! United Nations: strong support by US, specialized agencies, substantial international attention! But not effective because of vetoes of multiple powers in Security Council and the influx of new postcolonial states (really?!) Still, states relied more and more on international institutions, not necessarily the UN, in order to achieve systematic policy coordination for global issues. For example IMF, NATO, non-proliferation treaty. Complex interdependence led to inclusion of informal institutions (international regimes) to the study of IR. Examples for regimes: Bretton Woods, GATT, Kyoto Protocol 1980s: analysis of conditions under which countries cooperate: why would sovereign states rely on international institutions?! devices to help states accomplish their objectives; adoption of realist assumptions of relative state power and competing interests institutions create the opportunity for states to cooperate in mutually beneficial ways - Reducing cost of making and enforcing an agreement (transaction costs) - Transparency - Predictability and shaped expectations reduce uncertainty Also Great Powers have an interest in that! 20

22 Twin concepts of uncertainty and credibility: without transparency, states are uncertain about intentions of other states and are therefore less willing to enter into agreements institutions reduce uncertainty by promotion of negotiations in which transparency is encouraged Successful international negotiations might require changes in domestic institutions rather than imposing themselves on states, international institutions should respond to the demand by states for cooperative ways to fulfill their own purposes. By reducing uncertainty and the costs of making and enforcing agreements, international institutions help states achieve collective gains Three criticisms on new institutionalism: 1. International institutions are fundamentally insignificant since states wield the only real power in world politics. Effects of institutions come from efforts of great powers, not from IO itself BUT: multilateral policies are different from unilateral, they conform to generally applicable rules. Decision-making procedures and general rules of IOs affect substance of policy and the degree to which other states accept it 2. As a result of anarchy, states prefer relative gains to absolute gains. States will resist even mutually beneficial cooperation if their partners are likely to benefit more than they are in order to protect their power BUT: question should not be about relative or absolute gains, but about the conditions under which states forgo mutually beneficial cooperation to preserve relative power and status. multilateral negotiations make relative gains hard to calculate and there is little risk of decisive power shifts 3. Cooperation is not harmonious. It emerges out of discord and takes place through tough bargaining. Bargaining problems could produce obstacles to achieving joint gains. Key aspects: tactics of political actors and the information they have available. International institutions can help provide focal points, but new issues often lack these points. - Bargaining: how institutions affect international negotiations o Questions about subjectivity and effectiveness o Outcomes depend on more than the resources available to the actors or the payoffs they receive - Importance of ideas and norms (normative element!) became clear after the Cold War o Strong inconsistency, because neoliberalism is actually positivist (no normative elements!) - Procedures and rules of international institutions create informational structures and determine what principles are acceptable as the basis for reducing conflicts and whether governmental actions are legitimate or illegitimate - Effectiveness depends on o degree of common interests o distribution of power among members o character of domestic politics - Democratic deficit in many of the most important IOs ( normative element!) o IOs take authoritative decisions, but on which legitimation? They are run by élites 21

23 o o o Only most attenuated, indirect sense is democratic control exercised over major international organizations It is not about state sovereignty, since economic interdependence and its regulation have altered it. So who has influence? Promising approach: Inclusion of transnational society in the form of networks among individuals and nongovernmental organizations. But: transparency represents non-governmental organizations more than ordinary people In light of globalization there should be a focus on o The maintenance of robust democratic institutions at home o The establishment of formal structures of international delegation o The role of transnational networks To be effective in the 21 st century, modern democracy requires international institutions. To be consistent with democratic values, these institutions must be accountable to domestic civil society Lecture: Liberalism and Neoliberalism Liberalism - A broad framework for the study of world politics, most recognized and widespread - One of the most influential theories in the field. - Diverse liberal approaches: commercial, republican and sociological liberalism, neoliberal institutionalism (also called regime theory) and democratic peace theories. o They compete and contradict each other - Terms: anarchy, states, rationality, cooperation, institutions, interdependence, trade, peace. - Figures: Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Hugo Grotius, Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye, Stephen Krasner. Common features of liberal approaches: - Possibility of progress. - Equality of citizens, they have the same rights - Principle of democracy, legal authority is given by the people - Right to own property. - (Economic) interaction should not be regulated. market driven, no national or international regulations - Reason and rationality can bring freedom and justice in international relations. - Free trade and international institutions can create a peaceful world order. Immanuel Kant ( ): one of the most influential thinkers - Reason - Rationality - Morality - One of the founding fathers of the Age of Enlightenment: improve society by use of reason and scientific language - EU seems to have fulfilled Kant s concept of peace Post-colonialists would not deny Kant s contributions, but say that there are moral problems with racism and slavery. 22

24 Why is Liberalism important? Kant s concern: How can we achieve perpetual peace? Confederation of states: 1. Economic interdependence (free trade): benefit to all members of the international system. All members have an interest in maintaining international trade, so they have an interest in international peace 2. International law and organizations (rules and regulation): security can be enhanced when there are more international organizations. However: league of nations showed that there can still be conflict and war 3. Democratic government. Behaviour of states in international relations: - Realists: regime type does not matter. - Liberals: regime type matters! Theory of Democratic Peace : - Democracy as a special form of governance peaceful. - Democracies do not fight each other; norms and institutions. - Democracies do not fight non-democracies (really?). Theory of government rather than theory of international relations, because the regime type matters. Challenges to Democratic Peace Theory: - What counts as a democracy? - What counts as war? - What counts as peace? Alternative explanations to democratic peace : - Simple cost-benefit analyses? It is expensive to go to war - Social constructivist? Liberal states tend to have good relations with each other. Democratic peace can be explained from a social constructivist view - Dictatorial Peace? Is peace really democratic? Dictatorships also barely fight each other Consequences of theory: - Expanding the liberal peace zone. - Democracy promotion: development aid, military intervention US war in Iraq. - Free trade promotion. "In my estimation, though, we including [German] society as a whole are coming to the general understanding that, given this [strong] focus and corresponding dependency on exports, a country of our size needs to be aware that where called for or in an emergency, military deployment, too, is necessary if we are to protect our interests such as ensuring free trade routes or preventing regional instabilities which are also certain to negatively impact our ability 23

25 to safeguard trade, jobs and income. All of this should be discussed and I think the path we are on is not so bad. Horst Köhler, 22. May Question of theoretical complicity with foreign policy. - Imperialist potential within liberal ideas? - Theory as practice! (Greeting from Steve Smith!) How can Liberalism be applied? Case of Gulf War 1990/1991: - Presence of liberal ideas. - New World Order Bush (video). o Legitimacy and consent becomes important - Multilateralism and international institutions are important (UN). - Humanitarian intervention ( No-fly zones ): human rights concerns Movie Independence Day to explain Liberalism - The film begins to unfold in a democratic space: the sovereign nation-state of the US good moral behavior due to a democratically organized state and society (liberal-democracy). - Believe in the good: good, cooperative behavior is observed at all levels of social interaction the personal, the state, and the international (morality). - International cooperation for a just cause leads to peace (message). International cooperation mediates anarchy (mutually dependent on security common interests). - Anarchy is replaced by hierarchy: the US as the orderer of international affairs (benevolent US hegemon). Neoliberalism - Most prominent version of liberalism. - (Neo)liberal institutionalism, regime theory. - Emerged 1970s and 1980s in response to neorealism. - Regime type does not matter for state behaviour; similar to neorealism, but in contrast to liberal theories of democratic peace. - International institutions. - Actors as states. - International regimes: informal, no agent quality, specific policy field sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue-area of international relations (Stephen Krasner). - International organizations: formal, actor, several policy fields. o International governmental organization (e.g. EU, NATO, UN) o International non-governmental organization (e.g. Amnesty International, FIFA, IOC, World Toilet Organization) Main concern of neoliberal institutionalism: How can states achieve cooperation in anarchy? Neorealist assumptions: - International system is anarchic. - States are unitary rational actors. - They behave in a self-help manner. - States seek relative gains. 24

26 International cooperation is unlikely! Common features of neoliberalism and neorealism: - States are the main actors. - They are unitary, rational and self-interested actors. - States seek to maximize their profits. Difference between neoliberalism and neorealism: - Implications of anarchy. o Neoliberalism: anarchy can be overcome - Role of institutions. - Absolute gains o Neoliberalism: absolute gains are more important than relative gains Game theory model: Failure to realize common interests (arms control) because of the pursuit of individual interest (arms expansion). Neoliberal solution to the dilemma: - Create institutions transparency, information. - Play again! Shadow of the future. Empirical evidence in 20th century: - Growing interdependence between actors - More actors (states, INGOs, NGOs, TNCs) also non-state actors are important! They are also interdependent - More topics (high politics (topics related to security, survival) and low politics) Complex interpedendence (Keohane/Nye) international cooperation Neoliberalism and Hegemonic Stability Theory - Hegemon enables international cooperation. - Institutions are depedent on the power level of the hegemon. - Power decline decline of institution. - Post-WWII as a period of US hegemonic stability. - Bretton Woods system important to maintaining this order (IMF, World Bank). - Since 1970s decline of US power, but stable international cooperation empirical puzzle. Institutions have value for states. 25