IR201: Course Outline
Paul Bacon
SILS, Waseda University
My contact details
•
•
•
•
•
Welcome to the class.
pbacon@waseda.jp
biffabefc@yahoo.com
Room number: 11-1443
Office hours: Tue 4, Fri 4
• http://paulbacon.wordpress.com/
Assessment/format
• Lecture-based class, but questions and
interventions welcome.
• Attendance mandatory.
• Attendance and participation (10%).
• Particularly disapproving of lateness
and attitude.
• Two exams, a (late) mid-term and a
final (45%).
Course overview
• This course offers a comprehensive
introduction to key theories and events
in contemporary international relations.
It will be divided into three sections:
• 1. Major international relations theories
• 2. Post-Cold War international relations
• 3. Survey of post 9/11 IR
Major international relations (IR) theories
• Realism
• Liberalism
• International Society
Post-Cold War IR
• The ‘end of history’?
• A ‘clash of civilizations’?
• Zones of chaos and zones of peace?
Survey of post 9/11 IR
•
•
•
•
•
What happened?
Why did it happen?
How has the US responded?
Has the US become an imperial power?
Has post-9/11 US foreign policy been
effective?
• Has post-911 US foreign policy been
legitimate?
Realist international
relations theory
Paul Bacon
SILS, Waseda University
IR201
Realism
• Realism has been easily the most influential
theory of international relations.
• Most diplomats, politicians and professors
have, implicitly or explicitly, believed that
realism provides the best account of how
international relations work.
• It is a quite simple commonsense theory.
• It can be explained in a few straightforward
propositions.
Hans Morgenthau and Realism
• Professor Hans Morgenthau is regarded as
the father of modern realism.
• He published several books, including Politics
Amongst Nations.
• This book is acknowledged as the ‘bible’ of
modern realist thought.
• It should be noted that the book is about
politics between states.
• Realists often define themselves as students
of international politics, not international
relations. (They are actually students of
interstate politics).
Hans Morgenthau and Realism
• Morgenthau discusses many issues in
Politics Amongst Nations, but the core
arguments can be stated as follows:
• 1. States are the most important actors
in international politics.
• 2. International politics and domestic
politics are different.
• 3. International politics is a competitive
struggle for power.
1. The importance of states
• If we want to understand how international
politics work, we should study the relations
between states.
• In particular, we should study the
international relations between the most
powerful and wealthy states in the world.
• At present, these states would perhaps
include: the United States, Russia, China,
Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom,
France, India and Iran.
The roles of the state
• According to realists, states possess three elements
– a government, a population and a territory.
• Realists assume that states have effective
governments.
• It is the role of the government of a state to provide
security for the people living in that state.
• This security has two elements.
• 1. Internally, the state should provide public goods
such as order, an education system, medical services,
a transport network and a social welfare system.
• 2. The government should also attempt to protect the
state from external attack.
External security provision
• It is important that the state develops as
strong an army as possible, for the
purpose of self-defence.
• The government should also try to build
solid alliances with other powerful states
in the international system.
• Good diplomacy is essential to this task.
Anarchy
• Realists assume that states have efficient
governments.
• They also assume that states have effective
police forces and legal systems.
• Because of this they argue that domestic
politics are different from international politics.
• For realists, the world is an anarchy.
• Anarchy is a Greek word which means
‘absence of government’, or ‘absence of
authority’. (It does not mean chaos).
Features of international anarchy
• Several features which are present in a domestic
political order are absent from international politics,
according to realists. For example:
• 1. realists argue that there is no world government;
• 2. realists argue that there is no international police
force;
• 3. realists believe that international organizations
such as the United Nations are not effective;
• 4. realists believe that international law is weak. This
is because existing international law reflects the
interests of the most powerful states in the system.
Also, if a state is powerful, it can simply ignore
international law if it chooses to.
Inside and outside
• Realism is often referred to as an
‘inside-out’ theory.
• This is because realists argue that
domestic and international politics are
different.
• The ‘inside’, domestic politics, is a
domain of peace, order, and safety.
• Threats to security come from the world
‘outside’, international politics, which is
a domain of competition, threat, conflict
and war.
Power
• Realists claim that in order to understand
international politics, it is necessary to
understand which states are the most
powerful, and what their interests are.
• Power is the study of who gets what, and how.
• Put simply, the most powerful states control
international politics.
• It is often claimed that the ancient Greek
scholar Thucydides is the first systemic realist
thinker.
• In The History of the Pelepponesian War he
argued that ‘The strong do what they will
(want), and the weak suffer what they must’.
Resources
• In order to be powerful, it is
necessary to own, control, or have
access to, important resources.
• The easiest way to define a
resource is as ‘something which
can be used to achieve an
objective’.
• In international politics, resources
can take a variety of forms.
Types of resource
• Natural resources, such
as oil, pig iron, water,
uranium, gas.
• Size of national
population.
• Size and quality of
armed forces.
• Possession of nuclear
weapons.
•
•
•
•
Strategic location.
Quality of government.
Size of territory.
Flexibility and creativity
of national population.
• Prestige and status.
• Size and level of
development of
economy.
Scarcity
• International politics is a competitive struggle
for power and resources.
• But there is a problem. The most important
resources are SCARCE.
• If something is scarce, this means that there
is not enough supply to satisfy demand.
• This scarcity means that there will be winners
and losers in the struggle for resources.
Human nature
• According to Morgenthau, the most important fact
about human nature is that human beings are selfish,
and they have a desire to dominate.
• In Latin this is referred to as an animus dominandii.
• States are groups of human beings, operating in a
world of anarchy and scarcity.
• It is therefore reasonable to expect that states will
compete in a selfish manner for prestige and
resources, according to realists.
• According to realists, then, we live in a world of
anarchy and scarcity, and humans are motivated by
an animus dominandii.
Gilpin’s law
• Robert Gilpin is a well-known American
realist professor of international relations at
Princeton University.
• He takes the argument a stage further, and
argues that states will try to expand their
power and control as much as they can.
• Put simply, if a state is powerful enough to do
something, and it wants to do it, then it will.
• We might refer to this as Gilpin’s law.
The ‘security dilemma’
• States are aware of anarchy, scarcity, and the
animus dominandii.
• As a result of this, they are always worried
that they will be attacked.
• The rational response to this is to arm and to
form alliances.
• However, such behavior causes other states
to worry.
• Realists believe that in this way states find
themselves in a ‘security dilemma’.
A ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’?
• The only way in which a state can
provide for external security is to build
up its own military forces, or to form
alliances with other countries.
• But this behavior reduces security,
because other states respond by arming
against you.
• This is how arms races begin and
develop.
• The security dilemma creates a ‘selffulfilling prophecy’.
Outcomes in the international system
• The fact of competition can lead to three
different types of outcome in the
international system, according to the
French realist Raymond Aron.
• 1. Empire
• 2. Hegemony
• 3. A Balance of Power
Empire
•
•
•
•
An empire exists when one country
has official political control of other
countries.
These countries become colonies of
the imperial power.
Use of the term ‘empire’ also implies
that the imperial power exercises a
high level of real control over the
activities of its colonies.
In the past, for example, India has
been a colony of Britain.
Hegemony
•
•
•
•
•
•
This term comes from the Greek word for leader.
The word actually has two elements – leadership
and control.
A hegemon does not officially possess colonies.
But a hegemonic state is clearly more powerful
than all of the other states in a given international
system.
A hegemon also exercises a high level of control
over the behavior of other states in the system.
Many commentators argue that the current
international system is hegemonic, and that the US
is the hegemonic state.
The US can strongly influence the behavior of other
states in the system, such as Japan and the UK.
Balance of power
•
•
•
•
A balance of power is the most ‘normal’ situation in
the international system.
This occurs when there is no state which is
significantly more powerful than all of the other
states in the international system.
To use the definition of Hedley Bull, ‘a balance of
power exists where no one state or group of states
has more power than any other state or group of
states’.
To explain how the balance of power works, I will
discuss the historical example of Europe between
1870 and 1914.
Changes in relative power
• Each of the three outcomes is possible,
according to Aron.
• But it is important to note that states develop
at different rates in the international system.
• As a result, states are always adjusting to
accommodate the rise and fall of great
powers.
• For example, at the moment the long-term
relative power of China and India is
increasing, and that of Japan is falling.
• This will make it necessary for there to be
adjustments in the system.
Progress?
• Realists take a longer view of international relations.
They count in tens and hundreds of years, rather
than months and years.
• Realists argue that in the long run, history always
repeats itself.
• Progress in the international system is not possible.
• The English realist Martin Wight offers an interesting
thought experiment. He suggests that if Thucydides
were to travel in time to the 21st century, he would be
in awe of some of the technological progress that
humans have made. In this sense, there have been
profound changes in human life.
• But Wight suggests that Thucydides would recognize
similar realist patterns of competition in international
relations. Just as in Ancient Greece, it is still relevant
to talk of arms races, balances of power, deterrence
and war.
The realist cycle
• Despite all of our progress in other areas of
human existence, then, our patterns of
international politics are just the same as they
were in ancient Greece.
• The anarchical structure of the international
system is the same as then, and, according to
realists, it will always remain the same.
• This is because the facts of anarchy and
scarcity create a security dilemma that states
always respond to in the same way, by
arming, and forming alliances.
• In this way, they continue to create empires,
hegemonic systems or balances of power.
• These always collapse in the long run, and
the mistakes are repeated.
The realist cycle of conflict
Emergence of
new system
States
Anarchy/scarcity
Breakdown of system/war
Different rates
of growth
Competition/security dilemma
Empire
Hegemony
Balance of Power
Realism and democracy
• Realists also argue that the domestic regimes
of states are not relevant to their international
relations.
• For example, realists believe that it does not
matter whether a country is democratic or
authoritarian.
• The behavior of states can simply be
explained by the amount of power they
possess.
• I will discuss this issue in much more detail
when I talk about liberalism…