Intro To International Politics

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Intro to International Relations

Maria Zaitseva

Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism

–Nau points out that there are different ways of understanding different international relations

and what motivates political action (terrorism, WMD, relations, economics etc.). Nau

understands that people tend to disagree and as such, we need tools to understand the

factors that cause outcomes. That is basically the discipline of IR.

–There are different perspectives for analysis of IR but there are also different levels, or

vantage points

–Levels (Using US pulling out of TPP as example)

–Systemic: This is the most macro level of analysis. This is about the structure of the

international system and looks at it as a whole.

–Ex. Looking at relationship between the US and Asia-Pacific countries and noticing

that the US is trying to communicate something to these 11 partners and also, to the

rest of the international community. It is setting an international agenda for the US of

national protectionism.

–Domestic: On this level, you look at the internal characteristics of an individual state,

how the government and agencies function and interact with one another, what influence

they might have on world politics and affairs

–Ex. The US is witnessing a dramatic shift in the governmental leadership who are

trying to fulfill campaign promises. There was no congressional approval to withdraw

and this operating in the executive branch.

–Individual: On this level, you look at the level of leadership (policy makers, presidents,

department heads etc.). We look at these leaders and see how they influence the

international arena

–Ex. This is all about Trump. He is pushing his protectionist agenda. Here, we see the

influence of an individual policy maker having a huge impact on the international

community

–Perspectives

–Realism: The majority of problems in the international community is struggle for power

–Power can be defined as economic power or military power. The way that power is

distributed between different nations can and does affect the relationships.

–Some states may gravitate towards power and other states may try to balance against

power so that no one becomes a hegemon

–Realist focus on relative gains and relative losses

–Ex. The decision to pull out of TPP was a way for the US to practice unilateralism and

to exert its power. It communicates to other international members that the US is not

willing to be bound by this treaty and is going to do whatever it perceives to be in the

best interests of the US. The other members of the TPP are maintain the agreement

in order to balance the power against the US.

–Liberalism: Interdependence, both political and economic, and international institutions

exert the main influence on world affairs. With this perspective, there is a lot more room

for negotiations and diplomacy between states.

–Instead of going to war, negotiation is seen as the most ideal form to reach a

conclusion.

–By increasing economic interdependence between countries, you prevent conflict

between those countries because conflict will become increasingly expensive. Another

way of decreasing conflict is to promote ideas to the world (such as democracy). If

they all employ they same ideals, the chance of conflict is lowered. Two democracies

have never waged war against each other.

–Liberalists focus on absolute gains and absolute losses

Intro to International Relations

Maria Zaitseva

–Ex. The decision to pull out of TPP was an indication of the partial failure of this

agreement to create free trade between the members. The fact that the other 11

states maintained the TPP shows that the agreement continues to endure. Even

though the US left, the cooperation and negotiation between the remaining members

is a testament to the power of these economic institutions.

–Constructivism (Identity Perspective): This focuses mostly on the role of ideas, cultures

and identities which are created over time through the process of mutual discourse

–Identities in turn affect states interests and in turn, cause different outcomes

–Ex. The pull out from TPP is a reflection of the change of identity of the United States.

In Trump America, the US is becoming more isolationist and more protectionist.

Realism

–Realism is based on the struggle for power. There is common mention of war and conflict;

according to realist, war is possible but not inevitable. Number one goal for realist is

survival and secondary goal is power accumulation (offensive realism)

–Structural Realism: How power is distributed and how that dictates decision making; in

essence, this is the structure of the international system.

–Anarchy: There is no centralized government, power is decentralized, there is no one leader

–Hegemony: The most powerful state in the community

–Historically, there has never been a global hegemony; the author says that the US is a

regional hegemony but many people say that the US is a global hegemony

–Anarchy does not mean there is chaos; there is an organized distribution of power between

the nations

–Self-Help: States in the international system must rely first and foremost on themselves to

defend from outside aggression; this does not mean there is no assistance from the outside;

the first motivation is survival

–Powers that are most important are military and economic. Some other powers include

possession of resources (oil, energy etc.), territory

–Units of Analysis: States

–Realists focus mostly on states; they do not focus as much on NGOs or interest groups.

This has been one of the criticisms of realism because they have not been able to

incorporate non-state impacters, such as terrorists. (ex: ISIS)

–Security Dilemma: As a state arms itself, it inevitably threatens others. This is always present.

This arises in international relations because there is uncertainty on the intentions of another

state. Since it is a self-help system and you do not know the other parties intention, then you

will be caught in this dilemma. (ex: Iran’s nuclear program put all countries on edge, unsure

about Iran’s intentions).

–Even if countries are allies, one country getting stronger make even their allies nervous

that they might turn on them; a strong historical relationship between countries lessens the

security dilemma.

–Balance of Power: This is both a process and an outcome. 3 strategies:

–1) Balance Against Power: One strategy that is available to states is to balance against

power. Instead of being allied with the powerful nation, you will balance your alliances

against that one power.

–2) Band-Wagoning: Another strategy is called band-wagoning. This is when a state that

doesn’t have a lot of resources/money joins a powerful state and create an alliance with the

power so that the powerful state will protect them.

–3) Buckpassing: This is more of an isolationist approach where a nation doesn’t get

involved in the power struggle. They do not support the powerful or the opposition. A

Intro to International Relations

Maria Zaitseva

declaration of neutrality is a perfect example of buckpassing. This matters a lot more in war

time.

–Terms related to Balance of Power

–Bi-polarity: When there are two major centers of power. Ex) Cold war: US and Soviet Union

–Uni-polarity: When there is one central power

–Multi-polarity: Many global powers

–When there is a transfer from one type of polarity to another, conflict among major powers

is most likely.

–Kenneth Waltz, a famous realist, speaks of the structure and anarchy of realism and how it is

not a contradiction.

–States are like units. They all have commonalities and basic functions (education,

healthcare etc.). Different states accomplish things in different ways and states are

differentiated by their power capabilities. States may cooperate but they are always

thinking of their personal interests first. The structure emerges out of the coexistence of

these states

–Mearsheimer – Offensive Realism

–Offensive Realism: A country is never satisfied with their current level of power so they will

go on the offensive to gain more power

–Focus is primarily on the discussion of great powers

–Great Powers: Determined largely on their military capabilities, they must be able to put up

a legitimate fight against the most powerful states in the world

–Great powers are always looking to maximize their power, they are looking for global

hegemony

–Mearsheimer says there has never been a global hegemony, but there has been regional

hegemony

–Assumptions: 1) Anarchy in the international system (no world-police), 2) All great powers

have some sort of offensive capability, 3) States do not know the intention of others,

4) Survival is the primary goal of all states, including the great powers, 5) Great powers are

rational actors, meaning they think strategically and logically in order to achieve survival/

maximize power.

–He distinguishes between potential power and actual power

–Potential power: having a large population which can be diverted to the military, states

economic resources

–Actual Power: The actual size of the military

–Fear is always present among states that drives the decision making process. No matter

how powerful a state, there is an element of fear that affects decisions.

–Bi-polarity produces the least amount of fear because there is a rough balance of power

and there is certainty on the alliances

–Calculated Aggression:

–Mearsheimer believes that as you get more powerful, you become more aggressive to gain

more power

Liberalism

–Liberalism focuses on relationships and dependencies between states, and how they drive

outcomes in international relations

–Liberalism is how states behave toward each other

–How interdependent relationships are forged

–How repeated interactions between states over time lead to things like bond-formation

and mutual dependence

Intro to International Relations

Maria Zaitseva

–Realism is a pessimistic view on the state of the world; Liberalism is a lot more optimistic

about change. However, this isn’t to say that cooperation is easy even if you strike

relationships with certain states. Nevertheless, liberalists are more optimistic about the

outcomes. Liberalists acknowledge that diplomacy and compromise are not always

possible.

–Liberalists believe that communication, diplomacy, and negotiations can lead to better

outcomes

–Liberals, in this perspective, would advocated continuing to talk to states like North

Korea and Iran. Even though it wont always lead to good outcome, there may be a

breakthrough or opportunity where perhaps you can reach a mutually agreeable

outcome.

–For liberals, power is important but its specifically power of organizations and institutions

that can affect world affairs

–Acronyms

–IO: international organizations

–Formal organizations, like the UN

–They are used interchangeable with International Institutions

–Within IO’s…

–IGO: Inter-Governmental Orgs

–Set up by governments of 2 or more states to serve and promote their interests

–NATO: set up by a group of states to promote certain interests they have

I Regime

IGO

NGO