WHAT IS INT POLITICS

3 basic forms of world politics:

 Imperial system – one govt controls most of the world it has contact with
 Feudal system – human loyalty and political obligations are not fixed of territory
 Anarchic system – International politics is anarchic/ self help system/ Thomas Hobbes
“state of nature” bc there is no higher ruler to enforce order/ always in a state of war
since there is no international police to enforce law and states focus on survival

TWO COMPRESSED SLIDE W/ THEORY, THEORIST, DEFINITION, CRITICISM

Why do we need to study theories?
theories are roadblocks that allow us to make sense of unfamiliar terrain/ although there is no
one correct theory all are helpful in diff ways and circumstances

2 views on anarchic politics:

 Realism –
Actors = states
Problem = war/use of force
Main theorist: Morgenthau
“the beginning and end of IP is the individual state in interaction with other states
Criticism: Stress continuity Int system
 Liberalism –
Main theorist: Montesquieu and Kant
“global society functions alongside the state” bc of trade and other IOs, & transnational
issues / economic and social interdependence
Criticism: Stress change in the Int system

Other approaches:
 Marxism – class conflict between the bourgeoise and proletariat evident in capitalist
states
Criticism: didn’t account peace between major capitalist states & conflict between
communist states
 Dependency Theory –
Rose during the 1960-70s
Economic inequality between states
Predicted that the core/center countries of the global market will control and hold back
the poorer countries/periphery
Criticism: didn’t explain how SK, SG and Malaysia (peripheral coun) grew rapidly than
the central countries such as US and Europe
 Neorealism –
Theorist: Kenneth waltz
Rational actors constrained by Int system
Criticism: took for granted how states goal change over time
  Neoliberalism –
Theorist: Robert Keohane
Rational actors constrained by Int system
Criticism: took for granted how states goal change over time
 Constructivism –
Argued Realist and Liberalist fail to explain long term change in world politics
Focuses on identities/norms/culture/national interests/int governance
Importance of ideas and culture in shaping reality & the discourse of Int politics (for ex.
State leaders are not only motivated by material interest but also their identity,
morality, culture/society & these norms change overtime
Criticism: more of an approach than a theory/ just a supplement to the main theories

ONE COMPRESSED SLIDE

Building Blocks:
 Actors
- Traditionally: States
- Non states actors:
1. MNCs (ex: Shell, IBM, etc),
2. Intergovernmental institutions (UN, Arab League, OPEC)
3. International religious movements
 Goals
- Traditionally: military security but as threats change the definition of security
changes, there is economic, transnational issues such as terrorism, environment,
health etc.
- As the international system become more complex states pursue a wider goal
 Instruments
- Traditionally: military force but over the years it has been too costly & devastating
due to rise of nuclear weapons, costly, politically-risky,
- Alternative to force: economic interdependence, communication and international
institutions and transnational actors

Peloponnesian war
- Thucydides as the father of realism/ one of the Athenian elite who witnessed the
war
- Short summary
- Accdg to Thucydides war was inevitable bc of the growth of Athenian power which
caused fear in Sparta
Security Dilemma

- PW is a good example of security dilemma.

Since Int System is in anarchy, when a state increase its security, other states feel insecure and
thus will also increase their security. Both are rational actors, but fear increases as the other
party increases security.

The only answer to SD is for states to cooperate and agree not to build up defenses, but of
course it is not an easy task.

Prisoners Dilemma

- A specific type of SD is Prisoners Dilemma

- Explain briefly
- Cooperation is difficult in the absence of communication; but even if
communication is possible, another problem is trust and credibility
- Relate to the PW

Robert Axelrod – tit for tat “ I will do to you what you did to me”

Ethics and IR

If a state is in a SD, some realists believe that moral concerns play no role in the conflict
Ethics play less role in IR

Views on morality:
- Skeptic
Morality has no categories in IR bc no institution to uphold order
The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to
accept
- State moralist
National boredrs have significance bc individuals come together for a common life thus
repsepct for sovereignty and territorial integrity of states is related to respect to
individuals
- Cosmopolitan
National boundaries have no moral standing, they simply defend an inequality that
should be abolished if we think in terms of distributive justice
HOW INTERNATIONAL POLITICS WORK?

International political system is the pattern of relationship among states. As we have learned in
the previous slide, the combination of the building blocks come together and form an effect in
the int system.

Nye notes that the distribution of power among states in an int system helps us make
predictions about certain aspects of a state’s behavior.
*ex: geopolitics location& proximity will tell how states behave and nye notes that half
of the military conflicts between 1816 & 1992 began between neighbors

Levels of Analysis
Man, the state and War by Kenneth Waltz
Individual (not enough to look at individuals since there is a possibility of overprediction)/

State (domestic & foreign policy& national interest plays a huge role)/
the second level is the explanation from the inside out explaining outcomes by what is
happening inside the states

Int system
A system level analysis is explanation from outside in (looking at the way the overall system
constraints states)

However, it is not enough to only analyze the int system through this, it is also important to
know the 2 aspects:
Structure - system refers to the distribution of power (unipolar/bipolar/multipolar)
Process – patterns & types of interaction among states (p.38) and usually determined by:
1. The structure
2. Cultural & institutional context that surrounds the structure and determines the
incentives and capabilities states have for cooperation
3. Whether the states are revolutionary /moderate in their goals and instruments

It is important to note that the current structure of the international system and the state’s
process affect each other and vice versa.

Conclusion: in international politics there are so many variables, so many changes occurring at
the same time that events are overdetermined – there are too many causes. In order to find
out which causes are stronger than the others, analysts use COUNTERFACTUALS (contrary-to-
fact-conditionals) these are thought experiments to define causal claims since there is no
physical laboratory for int politics. Imagine situations in which one thing changes while the
other things are held constant and then construct a new idea
To understand better: If I had not eaten so much dinner, I could concentrate better in this
reading/ If I hadn’t stayed up late watching a series, I could’ve woken up early and not be late
to class.
Analysts/historians use elaborate version of counterfactuals to explore whether a cause is
significant or not. But of course, poorly constructed counterfactuals may ruin history. Criteria in
creating counterfactuals:
1. Plausibility – within reasonable array if options
2. Proximity in time – closeness of events in the cause if causation ex cleopatra
3. Relation to theory – contain theory
4. Facts – accurate facts and careful history

BALANCE OF POWER AND WWI

Balance of Power - Nye notes that states balance of power not to preserve peace but to
preserve their independence. The balance of power helps preserve the anarchic system of
separate states. Therefore, Nye believes that the balance of power does not preserve peace
over based on the past five centuries

Defined as:
- Distribution of power (who has the power resources)
- Policy of balancing (predicts states will act to prevent a state from developing
dominant power) states may bandwagon (choose to side with a weaker state to
keep one state from being dominant)

Power – ability to achieve one’s purposes/goals

- Ability to influence others and get desirable outcomes
- Hard (threats/ stick approach to force others) and Soft power (passive techniques/
carrot approach/ attract through ideas “getting others to want what you want)

Alliances – formal/ informal arrangements that sovereign state enter into with each other in
order to ensure their mutual security/ not all time for security reasons, may also be for
ideology/economic concerns

WWI
Very short table
CREATE TABLE p75

NOTE:
It is possible to examine the causes of WWI by applying the concepts we learned in the previous
slides
3rd LEVEL OF ANALYSIS – INTERNATIONAL

- Pre WWI the balance of power was centered in Europe

- GB, France are the leading powers but was challenged by the growing economic
power of Germany
- Since GB was threatened, they allied with France and Russia (triple Entente)
- Seeing GB forming alliances, Germany also formed alliances with the Austro-
Hungarian empires
(alliances became more rigid, diplomatic flexibility between parties was lost and major powers
directed themselves around two poles (BIPOLAR)
- Since there was a shift to bipolar system it affected the process of international
system (there was a rise of nationalism, complacency about peace meaning there
would be only shorter war that would bring change and lastly, German policy if hard
stick approach.)
Thus, the rise of nationalism, increased complaceny, social Darwinism and german policy
contributed to the onset of WWI.

2ND LEVEL OF ANALYSIS – DOMESTIC/POLITICAL

In the domestic level there are 2 possible causes:

1. Internal crisis of the declining Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires
Empires were threatened by rise of nationalism
2. Domestic and political situation in Germany
Germanys social problems (poor domestic intehration) were a key cause of the war.
Accrdg to Frtiz Fischer, Germanys efforts towards hegemony were an attempt by
German elite to distract attention from the poor domestic integration of German society

1ST LEVEL OF ANALYSIS – INDVIDUAL

- Personalities of the leaders particularly Franz Josef (Austro-Hungarian), Czar

Nicholas (Russia) and Kaiser (Germany) made a significant contribution in war

In conclusion, the balance of power – as a multipolar system and as the policy of separate
states and individual leaders is essential to an understanding the wars outbreak. As the alliance
system became less flexible, the balance of power became less multipolar and the likelihood of
war increased.

Was war inevitable?

Counterfactuals:

What if there was no assassination in Sarajevo? What if the Social Democrats had come to
power in Germany.
THE FAILURE OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY AND WWII

WWI cause enormous social disruption and revulsion due to the senseless slaughter. US
President Woodrow Wilson believed that the concept of balance of power is immoral. Since
they violated democracy and self-determination. Nye agrees to the sentiments as it does not
give priority to peace but rather it is a way for states to preserve their sovereignty.

From the horrible experience of WWI, President Wilson wanted to change the int system from
balance of power politics to a collective security. Thus League of Nations was established.

LON
- Security is a collective responsibility where all nonaggressive states will form a
coalition against aggressors
- Balance of Power VS . Collective security
1. alliance were created against any state that was becoming strong / aggressive
policies of state rather than capacity of states
2. alliances formed in advance/alliances ARE NOT formed in advance
3. /designed to be global & universal with no neutrals or free riders

Why it failed?
- US didn’t join LON since Senate refused to ratify the convent
- LON was not effective

WWII
Very short table
Create table p.102

3rd LEVEL OF ANALYSIS – INTERNATIONAL

- Versailles Treaty was both too harsh that stirred up German nationalism and was too
lenient because it allowed Germans to do something
- Absence of US and Soviet Union in the balance of power meant Germany was
undeterred

2ND LEVEL OF ANALYSIS – DOMESTIC/POLITICAL

- Western democracies was torn apart by class and ideological disputes thus
coordinated foreign policy was challenging
- Economic collapse and Great Depression
- US policy of isolationism
1ST LEVEL OF ANALYSIS – INDVIDUAL
- Hitler plays a huge role (personality and ideology) Monomaniacal personality
Personality – convinced he was so genius that he made crucial mistakes
Racist ideology - superior aryan race

In conclusion in applying the levels of analysis, the deep causes of WWII were
Systematic because there was unfinished business if WWI, the intermediate causes were largely
domestic since the social and ideological disruptions that produced Hitler in Germany and the
political and economic weakness of democracy and lastly in the individual level the precipitating
cause was of course Adolf Hitler’s strategy for domination.

Was war inevitable?

Counterfactuals: If US ratified the Treaty of Versailles and stayed in Europe to preserve the
balance of power, Hitler might not have risen to power.

Two types of War:

WWI VS WWII
Accidental war vs Planned aggression
Unwanted spiral of hostility / failure to deter Hitler’s plan of aggression
Policies appropriate for WWI & WWII were almost opposite
Accommodation of Germany would’ve prevented War/ deterrence could’ve prevented WWII

Of course Nye notes that these two models are way to simple to explain war. The ultimate
lesson is to be wary of over simple historical models and ask whether the model reflects facts of
history and fits current reality.

COLD WAR

Period of intense hostility without actual war

A unique perspective in IR since it highlights 2 FP choices states might make:

- Deterrence
Discourage through fear (issue threats to deter other countries)
- Containment
American policy of containing Soviet Union communism to promote a liberal
economic and political world order
Diff forms of containment: offensive/defensive, hard or soft power

Who/ what caused Cold war?

Three approaches to Cold war:

1. Traditionalist
Stalin and Soviet Union started. American diplomacy was defensive while Soviet Union was
aggressive and expansive. The US only awoke to the threat if the Soviet

Ex: US wanted to establish a new world order thru the UN but Soviet was not so welcoming
since it wanted to expand. It left armies in the Eastern europe

2. Revisionist
Caused by the US rather than the Soviets. Stalin’s behavior was due to the fact that Soviets
need to turn inward to repair domestic damage.
Level 1 – due to individuals in the government. US was anti soviet because of Truman and
his sec of defense James Forrestal was anti-communist
Level 2 – due to the US nature of capitalism. US wanted to expand American economy thru
the Marshall Plan and the Soviets rejected the offer.

3. Post revisionist
Argue traditionalist and revisionist are wrong because nobody was to blame for starting the
cold war. It was inevitable because of the bipolar system and the postwar weakness of the
European states created a power vacuum into which the US and Soviet was drawn. They also
argue that both are bound to expand not in economic reasons but because of security dilemma.
Neither US or soviet wanted to allow the other to dominate Europe

Very short table

Create table p.126

3rd LEVEL OF ANALYSIS – INTERNATIONAL

- Bipolar structure of the int system
- Increased hostility after the WWII

2ND LEVEL OF ANALYSIS – DOMESTIC/POLITICAL

- Difference in political structure
- Soviet: Russian (absolutism than democracy) & communist
- US: liberal democracy, pluralism, & fragmentation of power

1ST LEVEL OF ANALYSIS – INDVIDUAL

- Stalin wanted to tighten domestic control by using ideology and rejected the
Marshall Plan and pressured eastern Europe to do the same (didn’t want to weaken
communist ideology)
- Truman exaggerated in order to break the traditional isolationist policy (Truman
doctrine) & Marshall plan
= exaggerated opinions of both side
What did we learn?
- Containment Policy
Use of détente by Nixon’s administration
U.S. would scale back its military commitments and pass more responsibility onto its
allies. However, it would continue to support its allies solely through military and
financial aid.
- Nuclear arms race as a deterrence (balance of terror) during the cold war but there
is a growing concern on the proliferation of nuclear weapons and unconventional
weapons or WMDs
“the cold war may be over, but the era of nuclear and unconventional weapon is
not”

Changes after the cold war

RISE OF REGIONAL AND ETHNIC CONFLICTS, GLOBALIZATION and the role of institutions

Major wars were unlikely after the cold war, but regional and domestic conflicts persist and
there will always be pressures for outside states and international institutions to intervene. At
the samIe time economic issues will be central in world politics due to increase
interdependence .

1. Ethnic conflict
Occurs when established mechanisms for mediating conflict break down
A common dynamic is that ethnic symbols and myths create divisions; economic
rivalries or the weakening of the state’s authority create fear for groups survival
EX: Rwanda

2. Middle east conflict

Most common example of regional conflict
Possible causes:
- Rise of nationalism in middle east countries (ethnicity/religion/nationalism)
- Failure of states to modernize effectively
EX: Arab-Israel/ the gulf war

Most often these conflicts would escalate, and the government has no longer the capacity to
protect its civilian, some analysts believe that outsiders should ignore sovereignty and assert a
right to intervene to protect the threatened people.

Intervention
- External actions that influence the domestic affairs of another sovereign state
- Key principle is to intervene to help the local people to solve their own problems
- However, sovereignty is the right of the state over its territory, intervention of a
state can be justified with the ff:
 1. Preemptive intervention (if there is a clear & sufficient threat to a states
territorial integrity & political sovereignty it must act right away or else it will
have no chance later
2. Balance a previous intervention (counter previous intervention if the local
cannot solve its own problem)
3. Necessary to rescue people who are threatened with massacre
4. Right to assist secessionist movements when they have demonstrated their
representative character. (when a group of people/in a country has clearly
demonstrated that it wants to be a separate country it Is legitimate to assist
secession) but there are problems in self determination – right of a people to
form a state
- Ex: UN intervention in Haiti through UN peacekeepers, NATO’s 1999 intervention in
Kosovo

Role of International Law and Organization

- Emphasizes collective security (UN, IMF, WTO, NATO, OECD)
- Important in a political reality because they affect how states behave:
o Predictability (int law allows govts to avoid conflict at a a high level when friction
arises)
o Legitimacy (states appeal to int law & org to legitimize their own policies and
delegitimize others)
- Important to note that international organization is not like domestic govt and that
international law is not like domestic law
- Int org particularly the UN pass resolutions but they are not binding legislations

Conclusion: Nye notes that int law and org are part of an anarchic political system. It is a
mistake to be too naïve or cynical since states do not live by law alone, but they do not live
completely without it.

Globalization – worldwide networks of interdependence (economic, social, military or

environmental)
economic interdependence enabled decline in transportation & communication and shrunk the
effects of distance

The role of markets has also increased as a result of new info and transportation technologies
as well as changed attitudes about the role of govt and states. Nearly half of all industrial
productions today is produced by Multinational enterprises whose decision have a powerful
effect on domestic economies and politics.

Made national borders more porous but not irrelevant

21st century globalization
“thicker and quicker” due to information revolution (computer/internet/technology)
Interdependence have become more “thicker and quicker” as result relationship among diff
network have become important

Why is it relevant?

As govt officials’ fashion foreign policy, they encounter the increasing thickness of globalism,
density of Interdependence – which means that the effects of vents in 1 geographical area or
the economic/ecological dimension can have profound effects in other geographical areas on
the military and social dimensions. These international networks are increasingly complex and
their effects are therefore increasingly unpredictable.

Globalization = pervasive uncertainty

Continual competition between complexity and uncertainty and govt corp and other will try to
comprehend and manipulate for their benefit

As the information revolution grows, world politics will not be the sole province of govts.
Individuals, private org (NGO to terrorists) will be empowered to play a direct role in world
politics. Spread of info means power is widely distributed and networks will undercut monopoly
of traditional bureaucracy. the speed of internet means the govt will have less control of their
agendas

Rise of transnational actors:

Due to complex interdependence, society interact at many points (NGO/ terrorism)

"Has global society made war socially and morally unthinkable? We have to hope so, because the next
hegemonic war would probably be the last".
He explains why the state is the focus of the 'top' paradigms while not discounting the role of society and
the individual. History is not pre-determined and neither was WWII. Individuals can shape history's
trajectory as can the global economy, technology and population dynamics.