Chapter One: Understanding International Relations Course Name: Global Affairs Instr., Kedir Daro (MA in International Relations) Hawassa University March, 2020 Chapter Contents 1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States 1.2. Understanding International Relations 1.3. The Nature and Evolution of International Relations 1.4. Actors in International Relations 1.5. Levels of Analysis in International Relations 1.6. The Structure of International System 1.7. Theories of International Relations Chapter Objectives After completing this chapter, you will be able to: Define the meanings and nature of nation, states and nationalism Describe the meaning and evolution of International Relations Acquaint yourself with different perspectives, approaches and paradigm of international relations Identify and analyze the roles different actors play using the three levels of analysis Examine the structure of international system and the laws governing its operation 1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States Q: Why does it matter to understand nationalism, nation and states? =outbreak of revolutions and wars across the globe are due to nationalism nationalism is the doctrine that asserts the nation as the basic political unit in organizing society. ‘nations are historical entities that evolve organically out of more similar ethnic communities and they reveal themselves in myths, legends, and songs. constitutes a community of people joined by a shared identity and by common social practices. ‘nation’, ‘state’ and ‘country’, not the same =United Nations-----misnomer/wrong connotation Differences between Nationalism, Nation and State Nation Nationalism State - People with more common backgrounds - A belief in nations as supreme and at the center of every political actions/decisions - An entity having population, its own government, defined territory and sovereignty The 1776 American war of independence The 1789 French Revolution Westphalia treaty==Inter-state (1648) Bentham===Inter-national(1789) 1848 nationalist uprisings quickly spread across Europe 1.2. Understanding International Relations What is international Relations (IR)? Why do we study International Relations? How do international relations affect you in your daily life? IRs as a practice- all cross-bordering relations IRs as a field of study (discipline)- the study of who gets what, when and how at global level. Subsequently, the first university chair of international relations was founded at the University of Wales in 1919. Participation in international relations is inescapable Distinction between domestic and international politics: real but declining Philosophical debates on human nature analogy to IRs: Hobbesian vs Lockean realist(anarchic) vs liberal(ordered)) How is international peace and order maintained? Who is responsible for maintaining international peace and order? International politics is also about maintaining international order. But that order has to be maintained in an anarchical world. - self-help system - No sovereign body to rule over others 1.3. The Nature and Evolution of International Relations Where and how do you think modern international relations emerged? Struggles in the process of rise to state Catholic church for long ruled Europe Holy Roman Empire (a kind of loose federation) Evolving of Protestantism after Reformation 16th C onwards, rising states to protect interests of their peasants European states emerged in the midst of struggle and strife The Thirty Years’ War, 1618–1648, was the bloodiest and most protracted military confrontation of the era. Was a religious conflict since Catholic states confronted Protestants The Treaty of Westphalia, 1648, which concluded the 30 years of warfare, has come to symbolize the new way of organizing international politics (based on Sovereignty). Cont… From this point onwards, international politics was a matter of relations between states and no other political units. All states were sovereign, meaning that they laid claims to the exclusive right to rule their own territories and to act, in relation to other states, as they themselves saw fit. All states were formally equal and they had the same rights and obligations. Taken together, the states interacted with each other in a system in which there was no overarching power. Sovereignty and formal equality led to the problem of anarchy. In order to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary conflicts, the different rulers began dispatching ambassadors to each other’s courts. Cont… This diplomatic network provided a means of gathering information, of spying, but also a way of keeping in touch with one another, of carrying out negotiations and concluding deals. The practices of diplomacy soon expanded to include a number of mutually advantageous provisions: - the embassies were given extraterritorial rights and legal immunity, - diplomatic dispatches were regarded as inviolable and - ambassadors had the right to worship the god of their choice. • These originally north Italian practices gradually expanded to embrace more states and by the middle of the seventeenth century, the system included France, Spain, Austria, England, Russia, Poland, Denmark, Sweden and the Ottoman Empire. Cont…. Diplomatic practices were never powerful enough to prevent war, indeed wars continued to be common, but they did provide Europeans with a sense of a common identity. A European state was, more than anything, a state that participated in the system of shared diplomatic practices. On the other hand, most of what happened in Europe before the nineteenth century was of great concern to the Europeans but of only marginal relevance to people elsewhere. It was only in the nineteenth century that relations between Europe and the rest of the world were irrevocably transformed. The reason is above all to be found in economic changes taking place in Europe itself. Cont… At the end of the eighteenth century, new ways of manufacturing goods were invented which made use of machines powered by steam, and later by electricity, which made it possible to engage in largescale factory production. As a result of this so called ‘industrial revolution’, the Europeans could produce many more things and do it far more efficiently. As cheap, mass-produced goods flooded European markets, the Europeans began looking for new markets overseas. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, other European countries joined in this scramble for colonies, not least in Africa. Colonial possessions became a symbol of ‘great power’ status, and the new European nation-states often proved themselves to be very aggressive colonizers. Cont… France added West Africa and Indochina to its growing empire, and the Germans and Italians also joined the race once their respective countries were unified. This explains how, by the time of the First World War in 1914, most parts of the world were in European hands. There were some exceptions to this rule – China, Japan, Siam, Persia, Ethiopia and Nepal, among others – but even in these ostensibly independent countries, the Europeans had a strong presence. It was instead through the process of liberating themselves from the colonizers that the European models were copied. Since the Europeans only would grant sovereignty to states that were similar to their own, the only way to become independent was to become independent on European terms. To create such Europe-like states was thus the project in which all nonEuropean political leaders engaged. 1.4. Actors in International Relations Who are the dominant role players in IRs? What are roles/ways of affecting interactions used by each in IRs? 1.4.1. State Actors In old times, States were the only actors. Now, are not the only but the primary one States conduct IRs as sovereign through declaring war, concluding a peace, negotiating a treaty, and many other things 1.4.2. Non-State Actors Those interactions that happen b/n and among bodies other than States global firms(MNCs), international governmental institutions, and nongovernmental organizations The majority of global interactions – be they related to global finance, production, education, personal and professional travel, labor migration or terrorism – no longer occur via state channels the way they once did. Cont… We could say that the increased focus on non-state actors and cross- border issues has marked a close-to-revolutionary turn in IR; something that could be interpreted as a shift away from the international (‘between-states’) to the ‘trans-national’ (‘across/beyondstates’ and their borders). Thinking about world affairs in ‘trans-national’ rather than in purely ‘inter-national’ terms therefore seems more of an analytical necessity than just a choice. Advancement in Science and Technology is an engine behind the transition Social media provide accessible platforms of communication Random individuals can potentially start a revolution from their homes, bypassing any conventional conceptions of power and transcending spatial and material boundaries Cont… 1.5. Levels of Analysis in International Relations Have you ever thought that a single international political phenomenon can be analyzed at different levels? How? In the early days of IR – say, from 1919 until after the Second World War – a lot of what could be called traditional or conventional IR was not concerned with any potential distinctions between different levels of analysis or theoretical perspectives. From the 1950s onwards, more and more IR scholars endeavored to specify the focus of their analysis more clearly. KenethWaltz: A theoretical Analysis of Man, the state andWar (1959) is a pioneering theoretical ground Level of Analysis is all about triangulating why something happened from d/t levels (from global, state, group, individual roles) that our search for evidence will need to be comprehensive There are 4 levels: System, State, Group and Individual level 1.5.1. The individual level - Analyzing IRs from the perspective of individuals - It is in depth look at the behaviors, motivations, Biological and historical records, beliefs and orientation of the individual in affecting a particular international phenomenon - psychology and emotions behind people’s actions and decisions, their fears and their visions as well as their access to information and capacity to make a difference affects IRs. 1.5.2. The group level try and break the analysis down into certain kinds of groups, how they relate to the state level and where they position themselves with respect to the global dimension of the issues they are dealing with. would be more interested in the actions of groups of individuals, such as all voters of a country, political parties, or social movements forming to counter the effects of the crisis on society could be interested in activist/pressure groups like ‘Anonymous’ that seek to influence the global debate about the winners and losers of globalization and capitalism, and so forth. 1.5.3. The state level is referred to as the relative ‘state-centrism’ of the discipline i.e. so conceive of the state as a point of reference for other types of actors. Interested in states’ preferences, policies(mainly foreign), relations, roles, capabilities, geographical positions, historical ties and experiences, etc From this perspective, the state acts as the arena in which state officials, politicians and decision-makers operate. the state also being the main location of power within the international sphere States form the primary kind of actor in major international organizations 1.5.4. The system level (a level above the State) conceive the global system as the structure or context within which states cooperate, compete and confront each other over issues of national interest. Particularly important in that context is the distribution of power amongst states unipolarity, bipolarity or multipolarity global circumstances are seen to condition the ability and opportunity of individual states and groups of states to pursue their interests in cooperative or competitive ways include developments that are even outside the immediate control of any particular state or group of states, such as the global economy, transnational terrorism or the internet NB: complete understanding of IRs requires studying 4 of the levels 1.6. The Structure of International System Q: Have you ever thought that the international system has a structure? If so discuss how? Q: What would the international system look like if it is left to the whims of sovereign states? Common concepts in Int’l System: Power: is the currency of international politics (the blood line of international relations) determines the relative influence of actors and it shapes the structure of the international system Power can be defined in terms of both relations and material (capability) aspects. Relational “A” forces “B” to do, otherwise cannot do Global political power can be found in three forms/systems • Unipolar-----only one state too powerful • Bipolar-------two states are competitive (cold war era) • Multipolar----more than two states Anarchy - a situation where there is absence of authority (government) - a world where everyone looks after themselves and no one looks after the system as a whole - Dependence on own resource or alliance formation warfare Sovereignty (i) a state’s ultimate authority within its territorial entity (internal sovereignty) and, (ii) the state’s involvement in the international community (external sovereignty). In short, sovereignty denotes double claim of states from the international system, i.e., autonomy in foreign policy and independence/freedom in its domestic affairs. 1.7. Theories of International Relations Theories of international relations allow us to understand and try to make sense of the world around us through various lenses, each of which represents a different theoretical perspective. 1.7.1. Idealism/Liberalism - was referred to as a ‘utopian’ theory - view human beings as innately good and believe peace and harmony between nations as achievable and desirable - Immanuel Kant states that shared liberal values should have no reason for going to war against one another - democratic peace theory posits that democracies do not go to war with each other, - faith in the idea that the permanent cessation of war is an attainable goal - US President Woodrow Wilson addressed his famous ‘Fourteen Points’ ========== League of Nations (1919) 1919 to the 1930s ideas dominated by what is conventionally referred to as liberal internationalism (conditions conducive for war should not repeated) underlying assumption the academic study of IRs had the potential to contribute to the prevention of war and the establishment of peace. Scott Burchill points out ‘prospects for the elimination of war lay with a preference for democracy over aristocracy, free trade over autarky, and collective security over the balance of power system’ foundations for the liberal internationalism: democratic governance and institutionalized law-governed relations of cooperation between states The two formative pillars of liberal internationalism, democracy and free trade=>promote collectivist aspirations A system of ‘collective security’ was advocated to replace balance of power The domestic analogy of a social contract was deemed to be transferable for the international level through Int’l law International Law: ‘‘operating system’’(provide mechanisms for crossborder interactions) and ‘‘normative system” (shape the values and goals these interactions are pursuing) 1.7.2. Realism The ‘idealism’ of the interwar period was henceforth to be replaced by ‘realism’, and it is this school of thought which, in its various articulations, remains dominant in the discipline. E.H. Carr’s ‘TwentyYears’ Crisis’, published in 1939, was the text which positioned what he called utopianism in opposition to realism. separates the ‘what is’ from the ‘what ought to be’, Realists argue that values are context bound, that morality is determined by interest, and that the conditions of the present are determined by historical processes The formative assumptions of realism centred on the view that the international system is ‘anarchic’ Conflict is hence an inevitable and continual feature of inter-national relations. Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes as its founding voices Hans Morgenthau‘international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power’; domination as opposed to cooperation 1950s and into the 1960s, IRs dominated by realist conceptions of international relations, based as these were on the state as the primary unit of analysis, and governed by the relentless pursuit of power Realists on the other hand believe states partake in international organizations only when it is in their self-interest to do so Kenneth Waltz a neo-realist agenda - focuses on the international system itself and seeks to provide a structuralist account of its dynamics and the constraints it imposes on state behavior 1.7.3. Structuralism/Marxism divides capitalist society into two contradictory classes – the business class (the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the proletariat). The proletariats are at the mercy of the bourgeoisie Marx hoped for an eventual end to the class society and overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat Marxists would argue that any international body, including the United Nations, works to promote the interests of the business class concentrated on the inequalities that exist within the international system, inequalities created by capitalist system of wealth between the rich ‘North’ or the ‘First World’ and the poor ‘South’ or the ‘Third World’. producing centre– periphery relations focused on dependency, exploitation and the international division of labor which relegated the vast majority of the global population to the extremes of poverty As many in this tradition argued, most states were not free. Instead, they were subjugated by the political, ideological and social consequences of economic forces. increasing international cooperation as the basis of inequality, the debt burden, violence and instability (neo-Marxist structuralism). Major writers in the structuralist perspective emerged from Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, Andre Gunter Frank and Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein 1.7.4. Constructivism viewed as a middle ground between mainstream theories and the critical theories highlight the importance of values and shared interests between agents who interact on the global stage Its central assumption: the meaning constructed by an individual matters in IRs. It is ideas or norms that have power IR is, then, a never-ending journey of change chronicling the accumulation of the accepted norms of the past and the emerging norms of the future. As such, constructivists seek to study this process Structures(states) not only constrain agents(individuals) but also construct their identities and interests ‘anarchy is what states make of it’ (Alexander Wendt) the essence of international relations exists in the interactions between people (states do not interact; it is agents of those states, such as politicians and diplomats, who interact) if anarchy is what we make of it, then different states can perceive anarchy differently and the qualities of anarchy can even change over time. International anarchy could even be replaced with a different system if a critical mass of other individuals (and by proxy the states they represent) accepted the idea. 1.7.5. Critical Theories established in critical response to mainstream approaches in the field they oppose commonly held assumptions in the field of IR that have been central since its establishment call for new approaches that are better suited to understand, as well as question, the world we find ourselves in Critical theories are valuable because they identify positions that have typically been ignored or overlooked within IR provide a voice to individuals who have frequently been marginalized, particularly women and those from the Global South Assume state centered IRs divided and alienated ordinary peoples around the world. the legitimacy of the state must be questioned and ultimately dissolved Devised emancipation from the state in some form is often part of the wider critical agenda. Post-colonialism differs from Marxism by focusing on the inequality between nations or regions, as opposed to classes Summery Liberalism depicts optimism by arguing that human beings are good, cooperation is possible and conflict can be resolved peacefully Realism depicts pessimism by arguing that human beings are bad, conflict is inevitable and war is the most prominent instrument of resolving conflict Structuralism/Marxism focused on the structure of dependency and exploitation caused by the challenge the international division of labor Constructivism/Critical Theories foundations of the dominant perspectives and argue for
