POSC 2200 - Introduction
Russell Alan Williams
Department of Political Science
POSC 2200 - Introduction

Required Reading:



Globalization of World Politics, Introduction & Chapters 1-5.
Thucydides, Melian Dialogue
Outline:
1.
2.
3.
What is International Politics?
International Society and World Order
Key Contemporary Issues



4.
5.
The End of the “Cold War”
Globalization
New Security threats
Theories – Intro: The Melian Dialogue
For next time . . .
1) What is “International Politics”?
Concept has evolved over time . . . . two meanings:
a) Traditional = “International Relations” (IR)
 Relations among states
-Focus on great power “diplomacy” and strategy
 Little role for other kinds of phenomenon
-E.g. Economic “globalisation”
b) Contemporary = “global or international politics”
 Wider phenomena seen as part of “international
politics”
-E.g. Newer security concerns – “terrorism”
-E.g. People’s daily lives . . . .
 Remakes IR - Includes all daily global politics

Includes the study of relations among all actors
that participate in international politics:





States
International Organizations
 “United Nations” (UN)
Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s)
 Greenpeace  Al Qaeda
“Multinational Corporations” (MNCs)
Requires attention to:
 Domestic Politics
 Economics
 Culture
 Geography

However, be sensitive to the way “international
relations” is used . . . .


Some (re: the “old men” of the discipline) mean
interstate relations
Some (re: “wacky lefties”) mean global politics
Note: Where does our textbook fit?

The study of International Politics is divided into
several subfields:






International Security
International Political Economy
International Relations
International Organization
International Law
Foreign Policy
2) International Society & World Order

International politics is as old as civilization, but
our modern understandings have been shaped by
a particular “modern” period of European history

The “Westphalian System” – a product of the
“Peace of Westphalia”

Context?

Peace of Westphalia established three key
principles governing international politics:
a) Territoriality = States controlled particular
geographies
b) “Sovereignty” = Only one “sovereign authority” is
recognized as governing that territory, and has
supreme legal authority over domestic affairs
C) Autonomy = People should have the freedom to make
use of the benefits of sovereignty (Closely associated
with 20th Century ideas of “Self Determination”)

Westphalia gradually gave rise to the “Nation
State” as the key form of political
organization . . . .

E.g. World War I:
Caused by desire for national “self determination”
 Resolved by the application of the principle of
“self determination”

Development of the Westphalian System led
to a particular kind of “International
Society” or system
 Three key institutions:

1)“Diplomacy”: Policies used as instruments to
communicate amongst states.

E.g. Economic sanctions and peace negotiations
2)“Balance of Power”: Focus on the distribution of
“power” amongst states.

E.g. Diplomacy and alliances used as strategies
to manage insecurity by “balancing”  later
came “Collective Security”
3) “International Law”: The creation of formal,
acknowledged rules of conduct amongst states
3) Key Contemporary Issues:

Much analysis of international politics focuses on questions
about the transition from the Westphalian System, to the
“Post-Westphalian” order:



Territoriality and “Sovereignty” less important?
The “Nation-state” and/or the state (generally) are
declining forms of political organization . . . despite the
fact many “nations” still want one . . . .
International “Institutionalization” is creating denser
webs of global governance:
 “International Organizations (IO’s)”
 “International Non-governmental Organizations
(INGO’s)”
These concerns are illustrated through the modern focus on key topics
like “Post Cold War” interstate relations, “globalization”, and new
security threats . . . .
a) The End of the “Cold War”

The Cold War (1946-1991):



Period of intense competition (E.g. “balance of power”)
Involved ideological conflict over domestic politics (E.g.
Not consistent with ideals of Westphalian System)
Inhibited the operation of international institutions
created after World War II


E.g. the “United Nations” and “Collective Security”
But “cold” because . . . .”



Stable “balance of power”?
Nuclear weapons? = “MAD Doctrine”
New ideas about security?
a) The End of the “Cold War”

The end of the cold war was a “surprise” for IR
scholars – It was not “rational” for the Soviet
Union to just “give up” . . . .


Big debate between modern “Realists” and
“Constructivists”
Key Point: Created new political possibilities,
unimaginable thirty years ago . . . .
= A period of intensified U.S. “Hegemony”, hyperpower, or “uni-polarity”?
= The “peace dividend”?
= An increased role for “International
Organizations”?
= The rise of new powers and the end of American
“hegemony”?
b) “Globalisation”:

A concept with many meanings . . . . Textbook = “A
shift in the scale of human relations” in which
people are increasingly interrelated regardless of
physical distance . . . .
=“Deterritorialization”  Heavy emphasis on how technology
makes geography less important
=“De-Nationalization” of power  States are no longer as powerful
as they once were, given their increased inability to control the
economy and the flow of ideas.

Strongly suggestive of a Post-Westphalian era in global
politics = Territoriality, “Sovereignty” and Autonomy of
states all less important then in the past
b) “Globalization”:
Different from:


“Interdependence”: Described the extent to which
actions in one political and economic system (or state)
may impact people in another – globalization assumes
the movement towards a single system.
“Regionalization”: Growing political and economic
integration amongst geographically organized states
(E.g. The “European Union”)
b) “Globalization”:

Economic Globalization: Focus on the emergence of a
single global economy in which the majority of goods and
services we use may be produced in other places.


Makes us vulnerable to the choices of others . . . .
States find it increasingly difficult to intervene in the economy for
broader social purposes
 E.g. Taxing corporations
b) “Globalization”:

Political Globalization: Focus on the increasing role of
“International Organizations” and “International Nongovernmental Organizations” in making policy decisions for
us . . . .
“Asymmetrical Globalization”:
The spread of globalization is
uneven, it empowers some, and
marginalizes others

E.g. Activists complain “Multinational
Corporations” (MNC’s) have better
access to international decision-making
=Double democratic deficit?
b) “Globalization”:

Social and Cultural Globalization: What does our
citizenship mean (?) and what obligations do we
have to people outside of our own “sovereign
state”?


“Human Security”  Increasing emphasis on our
responsibility to protect global populations from harm
Global inequality
b) “Globalization”:

In the study of international politics, “globalization” is
often seen as a kind of seismic shift in which the basic
nature of international society has changed . . . .
C) New security threats:

Traditionally, the study of international security
focused on the threat of attacks by other states’
military forces.


These threats were managed through the acquisition of
military capabilities and diplomatic strategies.
However, much of the focus in the modern study
of security emphasizes different kind of threats

Threats from non-state actors



E.g. “Terrorism”
E.g. Threats posed by “Failed States” and intra-state conflict
No traditional security threats relating to globalization


E.g. Health pandemics
E.g. Environmental crisis
C) New security threats:

These threats seem to require different kinds of
strategies . . . Strategies that may not “fit” well in
the Westphalian focus on “diplomacy” and the
“balance of power”.
3) Theories:

Much analysis of IR is “journalistic” = very
descriptive, an endless list of events . . .
= PROBLEM!

What do we learn from description?
E.g. Does it help us predict future events?

To advance knowledge we need theories
 Make sense of what is described
 Identify common causes of events & patterns of
behavior

Science: IR involves search for variables

Theories explain relationships amongst variables
= PROBLEM!

Unlike other fields IR has competing theories . . .


E.g. Economics or “natural sciences”
Why?
a) Complexity? The text thinks so . . .
b) Failure to agree on core concepts?
c) Pig-headedness of those who support stupid
theories, but can’t admit they’re wrong, ever . . . .
The “Melian Dialogue” – Thucydides
and the Peloponnesian War:
Historical context:
 War between “Sparta” and “Athens”
 Causes? (according to Thucydides)
 Nature of war – stalemate and growing
Athenian economic problems
Context of Melian Dialogue?
 Athens needs $$$$ = Attacks neutral
Melos
The “Melian Dialogue” – Thucydides
and the Peloponnesian War:
Historical context:
 War between “Sparta” and “Athens”
 Causes? (according to Thucydides)
 Nature of war – stalemate and growing
Athenian economic problems
Context of Melian Dialogue?
 Athens needs $$$$ = Attacks neutral
Melos
The “Melian Dialogue” – Thucydides
and the Peloponnesian War:

Melians:


Athenians:


Argue that international law and morality should stop
Athens
= Refuse to surrender
Argue that “might is right” - power is its own morality
 For Athens attack is necessary
 The Melians would do the same . . . if they weren’t so
wimpy . . . .
Result? What happens after the Dialogue?
Major theories all see different things in this story (?)
A) “Realism”: Approach emphasizing the pursuit of
power as both key goal of states and the source of
conflict

War caused by threat of the rising power of Athens
relative to Sparta . . . .

Attack on Melos necessary to survival of Athens
= It was the morally right thing to do . . . ?

Athenians destroy Melos = there were no international
morals or laws . . . .
Modern relevance?
Major theories all see different things in this story (?)
B) “Liberalism”: Approach emphasizing possibility
of cooperation and rules

There were rules!


Athens eventually lost the war and suffered same
fate as Melos - should have been nicer . . . . Should
have been careful not to offend other states
Rules in the interest of both Athens and Melos
Modern relevance?
Major theories all see different things in this story (?)
C) “Marxism” (or Radicalism): Approach
emphasizing economics, and economic
exploitation

War caused by economic imperialism . . .
 “Military Industrial Complex”
Modern relevance?
Major theories all see different things in this story (?)
D) “Constructivism”: Approach emphasizing values, ideas or
“norms” in international politics
 Athens acted “inappropriately” - outside of norms
=Rogue state
D) “Poststructuralism”: Approach that questions the basis of the
“facts” we use to develop our theories.
 Thucydides “made it all up” anyway - what lessons can
we learn from his “story” outside of the messages he
was trying to convince us off?
=Danger of basing today’s policy on “tall tales”
More on these theories over the next few weeks . . .
5) For Next Time . . .
Unit Two: Theoretical Approaches

January 12, 14 & 16: “Realism and Liberalism”
Required Reading:



Globalization of World Politics, Chapters 6, 7 and 8.
Realism: John Mearsheimer, Anarchy and the Struggle
for Power, (Excerpt available from the instructor.)
Liberalism: Michael Doyle, “Liberalism and World
Politics”, American Political Science Review, 80 (4), pp.
1151-69. (Available through e-journals, or as an excerpt
available from the instructor).