Idea Transcript
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES ST. AUGUSTINE FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCES
GOVT 2060 International Relations: Theories and Approaches Fall 2017
1/29
ab1234.yolasite.com
2/29
Course content
• The History and Evolution of the International System • Levels of Analysis and Foreign Policy
POSITIVIST THEORIES MAINSTREAM APPROACHES • Liberalism • Realism • Neorealism • Neoliberalism
STRUCTURALIST APPROACHES • Classical Marxism • Dependency Theory • Structural Imperialism • Worlds System Theory
• International Society Theory (The English School)
POST-POSITIVIST THEORIES
• Constructivism • Postmodernism • Critical Theory • Feminism
3/29
Topic 3 Realism The impending outbreak of WWII spelled the birth of the first Great Debate in International Relations when E.H. Carr launched his scathing attack on the liberals or utopians as he came to call them. Together with Hans Morgenthau, he would forge the more pessimistic approach to IR known as Realism. The relevance of Realism to an understanding of International Relations, its major authors, assumptions, strengths and weaknesses and its role as the dominant paradigm in IR will be examined in this session. Readings: 1. Meyer, Karl. E. “The Quicksands of Realism”. World Policy Journal, Fall 2001, Vol. 18, Issue 3.– Ebsco Host (11p) 2. Molloy, Sean. “Truth, Power, Theory: Hans Morgenthau’s formulation of Realism”. Diplomacy & Statecraft, Mar 2004, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p 1-34 - Ebsco Host (34p) 3. Baylis, John & Steve Smith. The Globalization of World Politics. Chapters 7 & 9 (3rd ed.) 4. Carr, E.H. The Twenty Years Crisis 5. Morgenthau, H. Politics Among Nations 6. Buzan, Barry. “The Timeless Wisdom of Realism” (Photocopy) 7. Burchill, Scott and Andrew Linklater. Theories of International Relations. Chapter 3 8. Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff. Contending Theories of International Relations Chapter 2 9. Nye, Joseph S. Understanding International Conflict. Chapters 3 & 5 10. Rothstein, R. Little & Smith. “On the Costs of Realism”. Perspectives on World Politics ed. 11. Steans Jill & Lloyd Petiford. International Relations: Perspectives and Themes Chapter 2 12. Kegley Charles. Chapters 2, 3, 14 13. Vasquez, J. “The Enduring Contributions of Hans J. Mogenthau’s Politics Among Nations”. 14. Viotti & Kauppi. International Relations Theory, Chapter 2. 15. Woods, Ngaire. Chapters 4-8 4/29
At the Caspian Sea University: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1_Z5ACd6MBPNGJDSUJLX2t4ZG8?usp=sharing
John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, The Globalization of World Politics: an Introduction to International Relations. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2008 (4th edition) Ch. 5 Realism. Robert Jackson and Georg Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations. Theories and Approaches, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2013 (5th edition), Ch. 3. P. Viotti and M. Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2012 (5th edition), Ch. 2 Realism. Paul D'Anieri, International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs, Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning (2nd edition), 2012, Ch. 3 Realism.
5/29
Utopian
(Marxism-Leninism)
Utopian liberalism 1920s Focus: • International law • International organizations • Interdependence • Cooperation • Peace
Realist response 1930s-1950s Focus: • Power politics • Security • Aggression • Conflict • War 6/29
Realism: • statism • conflict • self-help
Realist paradigm: World politics = a struggle among self-interested states - for power and position - under anarchy. Each state → its own national interests Identities and interests are fixed Forerunners Thucydides → State = rational actor Kautilya Niccolò Machiavelli → all means... 7/29
Thomas Hobbes → Homo homini lupus, War of all against all
Thucydides (c. 460-c. 400 BC) Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527)
Thucydides - 'The Melian Dialogue' (from the History of the Peloponnesian War): 8/29
Athenians: Then we on our side will use no fine phrases saying, for example, that we have a right to our empire because we defeated the Persians, or that we have come against you now because of the injuries you have done us—a great mass of words that nobody would believe. And we ask you on your side not to imagine that you will influence us by saying that you, though a colony of Sparta, have not joined Sparta in the war, or that you have never done us any harm. Instead we recommend that you should try to get what it is possible for you to get, taking into consideration what we both really do think; since you know as well as we do that, when these matters are discussed by practical people, the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept.
9/29
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
"Leviathan" (1651) 10/29
Main authors
• E.H. Carr (1939) • Hans J. Morgenthau (1948) • George F. Kennan (1951, 1954) • Reinhold Niebuhr (1947) • Kenneth Thompson (1960)
E. H. Carr (1892-1982)
Hans J. Morgenthau (1904-1980) 11/29
Doctrine of raison d'état Survival of the state War = legitimate Dual moral standard (citizens / state) IR vision
Cynical, pessimistic and conflict-based
Main element Main features
Power Conflict, not cooperation (←human nature) + competition, suspicion How the world is, not how it ought to be
12/29
Premises
IR actors = states (and nothing else) State = rational Essential = politics and security
Main concepts
Anarchy Power Military power = essential Self-help
Billiard balls IR = zero sum game Conflict; no cooperation Interdependence = mutual vulnerability
Strategies: - augment power capabilities (→ security dilemma) - balance of power → alliances
13/29
The billiard ball (realist) model and the cobweb (sociological liberal) model: One country - two images
Realism
Sociological liberalism
14/29
Taxonomy of Realisms (Baylis and Smith, Table 5.1, p.96) Author Thucydides Classical realism
Machiavelli E. H. Carr Hans Morgenthau Rousseau
Structural realism (Neorealism)
Kenneth Waltz
John Mearsheimer
Cause of insecurity
Work The Peloponnesian War (includes 'The Melian Dialogue') The Prince The Twenty Years Crisis: 1919-1939
IV c. BC 1532 1939
Politics among Nations
1948
The State of War Theory of Int. Politics 'Defensive realism' states=security maximizers Goal: status quo Tragedy of Great Power politics 'Offensive realism' states=power maximizers Goal: hegemony
1750 1979
Human nature
Anarchical system
2001
15/29
Neoclassical (or postclassical) realism (Neorealism)
Fareed Zakaria
From Wealth to Power The domestic level
1998
How power is perceived How leadership is exercised
Background • World War II → strong criticism of the liberal idealist paradigm • Idealists = utopians (label used by E.H. Carr) • Idealists neglected power politics and human selfishness ↓
• eradicating the instinct for power = hopeless • International Politics = a struggle for power, "a war of all against all" (Hobbes). • Primary obligation of every state: - promote its national interest - acquire power for this purpose ↓
Liberals ignoring power = failure to reform int. anarchy • IR = recurrence and repetition, not reform and change 16/29
17/29
Security vs. Economics: anarchy ↓ states should: - acquire arms ("prepare for war to keep peace") - not be hesitant to use arms
Do not trust allies
economics = less relevant than military might economic growth ↓ state power and prestige
do not entrust self-protection to int. security organizations int. law global governance
18/29
all states → maximize power: - augment power capabilities (→ security dilemma) - alliances ↔ balance of power
stability ↔ maintaining the balance of power (shifting alliances) Balance of power: - not a cause of conflict - best guarantee of peace
The security dilemma: Should state A try to become more powerful in order to increase its security? Desire of security of state A → stronger army → neighbouring states afraid of state A → they arm themselves → they become more powerful than state A → the security of state A diminishes 19/29
Balance of power
Concert of Europe - Balance of Power
20/29
England’s Balancing Act (between the fall of Napoleon and the rise of Germany) Every time a camp got weaker, England supported it to prevent the other camp from conquering the continent 21/29
German Perception of Balance of Power in 1914 → WW I
The Principle of the Balance of Power: When a great power becomes too strong, all other great powers spontaneously form an alliance against it. 22/29
The balance of power, as depicted by Honoré Daumier 23/29
The state: State = the most important actor. States = rational problem International Organizations, solvers multinationals, NGOs = ↓ calculate their interests in controlled by states terms of power Conflicts of interests among states = inevitable Power: = the factors that enable one actor to manipulate another actor's behaviour against its preferences international politics ↔ pursuit of power: - acquiring - increasing - projecting power 24/29
Purpose of statecraft = national survival in a hostile environment Main means = acquisition of power Main principle = self-help (actors must rely on themselves) State sovereignty: = under International Law, the principle that the governments of states are subject to no higher external authority • cornerstone of int. law • heads of state → do whatever is necessary to advance the state's interests and survival • respect for moral principles = wasteful and dangerous ≠ rational pursuit of national self-advantage
25/29
Moral values: Dual moral standard (citizens / state) • values = not allowed to interfere with policymaking • states' philosophical or ethical preferences = neither good nor bad ↓ serve its self-interest Realism - accepts war as normal - rejects morality Theory in Action: Realism (vs. Liberalism) (3min52) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnKEFSVAiNQ
26/29
Realism/Neorealism Strengths Good explanation of a pessimistic age (WWII, Cold War): • competition ↑ • inevitability of conflict • military security ↑ • cooperation ↓ • divergence of national interest among selfish states + Continuing large scale perception: world politics ↔ global tension
Weaknesses • Contradictions in the use of terms like power, national interest and balance of power • Only considers big powers • Many assumptions are not testable • Cannot explain change in the int. system (end of Cold War, int. cooperation, globalization) • Disregards ethical principles and social costs to military expenditure
27/29
(J. Baylis, S. Smith and P. Owens, The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2008) 28/29
ab1234.yolasite.com
29/29