Monday, May 3, 2010
Different World Views of IR – A scientific
ontology - case study: The first Great Debate
between Idealism and Realism
• Recommended Reading:
• Jack Donnelly, Realism, Scott Burchill, Liberalism,
both in Burchill et.al, op.cit.
• Richard N. Lebow, Classical Realism, Bruce Russett,
Liberalism, both in Dunne/Kurki/Smith, op.cit.
• L.M.Ashworth: Did the Realist-Idealist Great Debate
Really Happen? a Revisionist History of International
Relations – PDF supplied
Grand Theories of International Relations





In its effort to find answers to extra-scientific
political and societal crises and problems, the
science of International Relations, over time, has
produced a number of different Grand Theories of
international politics, which try to grasp its subject
matter and phenomena on the basis of
different perspectives of perception/interpretation
different sets of questions
different anthropological
different normative and ethical
and different methodological predispositions and
presuppositions
Grand Theories of I.R. II
• Grand Theories differ in view of their ontological
assumptions, i.e. those assumptions referring to
the nature of their research objects.
• Grand Theories formulate different premisses and
assumptions regarding
 the international milieu, i.e. the characteristic
outlook, quality, and structure of the environment in
which international actors act
 the quality, character, and substance of international
actors themselves
 actors‘ aims and interests and the means which
actors, as a rule, use in the fulfillment of their aims
and interests.
Grand Theories and World Views
• Each and every Grand Theory formulates a
characteristic world view of International Relations:
Grand Theories and their world views compete with
each other without offering science a possibility to
decide which of the Grand Theories is the (only)
correct representation of international reality.
• If it would want to decide this question, science
would need an Archemedian point over and beyond
the competition of the Grand Theories, which would
enable it to establish firm criterias for deciding on
the truth or falseness of those premisses on which
Grand Theories base their ontological edifice.
• This Archemedian point is nowhere in sight !!
Grand Theories of International
Relations
Grand Theory
Actor
Realism
Milieu
Structural
Principle
World of states
as an-archic
state of nature
Vertical
segmentation,
unlimited zerosum game for
power, influence,
ressources
World of states
as legally
constituted
society
Vertical
Segmentation,
zero-sum game
regulated by norm
and agreement
World society as
society of
individuals and
their
associations
Universalistic
constitution
Nation
State
English
School or
Rationalism
Idealism
Individual
Grand Theories of International Relations II
Grand Theory
Actor
Milieu
Structural
Principle
Interdependencyoriented
Globalism
Individual or
societal actors
Transnational
society
Functional
border-crossing
networks
Theories of
Imperialism
Individual or
societal actors
representing
class interests
International
class society
Border-crossing
horizontal
layering
Dependency
oriented
Globalism:
Dependency
Theories and
Theories of the
Capitalist world
system
Societal and
national actors
representing
class interests
World system of
Capitalism as
layering of
metropoles and
peripheries
Horizontal layering
of national actors in
the world system;
structural
dependence of
peripheries on
metropoles;
structural
heterogenity of
peripheries
States as international gatekeepers
IGO
= government
State C
= society
Society C
State A
State B
Society B
Society A
INGO
= foreign or international societal interactions
= foreign or international political interactions
The modern territorial State – Substrate of the Billard-Ball-Model of
International Politics
Premiss: Legitimation of the state by successful completion of its functions:
guarantee of law and order domestically and protection against (military)attacks
in its external relations
Factors of Change:
Medieval starting point
Development of the forces of
production and destruction
Wall-protected impenetrability
cancels
Gun powder revolution of the late middle
ages: development of artillery and
distance weapons
Territorial State: hard shell of fortresses round periphery &
parallell abolition of independence of interior fortified
places by the central power
Fortress protected
impenetrability
manifestations
Strategy
military power
Politics:
Independence
Premiss: warfare rests in
the horizontal
Law
Sovereignty
Modern State: domestically pacified and externally hard shelled
defensible Unit with monopoly of the use of physical force on its
territory
Impenetrability based on military, political, legal
developments
cancels
Air warfare: ballistic carriers and
nuclear weapons of mass
destruction
Political Realism
• Realism, also known as political realism
(in order to distinguish it from philosophical
Realism), encompasses a variety of
theories and approaches, all of which
share a belief that states are primarily
motivated by the desire for military and
economic power or security, rather than
ideals or ethics. This term is often
synonymous with power politics.
What is Realism
• The term "Realism" is used with such frequency that
it appears to defy the need for definition - all that
needs to be known about the concept seems to be
encapsulated in the word. Yet closer examination
uncovers a great deal of variation. Each of the
principal Realist theorists - Carr, Morgenthau and
Waltz - offer their own definitions, and often focus on
the aspects they wish to emphasise.
• Divisions of opinion exist between the classical (or
traditional) Realists and the structural Realists
(neorealists); and within these broad groupings
there are further variations and shades of opinion.
All share a large part of a common body of thought,
but many have particular aspects on which they
differ. Too precise a definition excludes some
individuals; too broad a description loses some
common threads of thought.
What is Realism II
• Of the threads that make up the Realist school, the most
important ideas include:
• International relations are subject to objective study. Events
can be described in terms of laws, in much the same way that a
phenomenon in the sciences might be described. These laws
remain true at all places and times.
• The state is the most important actor of internaqtional politics.
At different times in history the state may be represented by the
tribe, city-state, empire, kingdom or nation-state. Implicit in this
is that supra-national structures, sub-national ones and
individuals are of lesser analytical importance. Thus the United
Nations, Shell, the Papacy, political parties, interest groups,
etc, are all relatively unimportant to the Realist.
• The first corollary is that the international system shows a
structure of anarchy, with no common sovereign.
• A second corollary is that the state is a unitary actor. The state
acts in a consistent way, without any sign of split purposes.
• Further, state behaviour is rational - or can best be approximated by rational decision-making. States act as though they
logically assess the costs and benefits of each course open to
them and then optimize/maximize their gains.
.
What is Realism II contd.
• States act to maximise either their security or power.
The distinction here often proves moot as the
optimum method to guarantee one‘s security is
frequently equated with maximising one‘s power.
• States often rely on the threat of or application of
force to achieve their ends.
• The most important factor in determining what
happens in international relations is the distribution
of power between international actors.
• Ethical considerations are usually discounted.
Universal moral values are difficult to define, and
unachievable without both survival and power.
Recommended reading
Classical Authors of International Relations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hedley Bull: The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics. 3.
Aufl.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2002
Edward Hallett Carr: The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919 – 1939. An Introduction to
the Study of International Relations. 2.Aufl. London: Macmillan 1974
Hans J. Morgenthau: Politics Among Nations. New York:Alfred A.Knopf 1960
Edward L.Morse: Modernization and the Transformation of International
Relations. New York: Free Press 1976
Kenneth N. Waltz: Man, the state and war. A theoretical analysis. New York:
Columbia UP 1959
Adam Watson: The Evolution of International Society. A comparative
historical analysis. London: Routledge 1992
Martin Wight: International Theory. The three traditions, ed. Gabriele Wight &
Brian Porter. Leicester: Leicester U.P. 1991
Realism: More Characteristics
• The international system is anarchic. There is no
authority above states capable of regulating their
interactions; states must arrive at relations with
other states on their own, rather than it being
dictated to them by some higher controlling entity.
• Sovereign states are the principal actors in the
international system. International institutions, nongovernmental organizations, multinational
corporations, individuals and other sub-state or
trans-state actors are viewed as having little
independent influence.
• States are rational unitary actors each moving
towards their own national interest. There is a
general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
Realism: Still more Characteristics
• The overriding 'national interest' of each
state is its national security and survival.
• In pursuit of national security, states strive to
amass resources.
• Relations between states are determined by
their comparative level of power derived
primarily from their military and economic
capabilities.
• There are no universal principles which all
states can use to guide their actions. Instead,
a state must be ever aware of the actions of
the states around it and must use a
pragmatic approach to resolve the problems
that arise.
Realism – yet more…
• To sum up, realists believe that mankind is not inherently
benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. This
Hobbesian perspective, which views human nature as selfish
and conflictual, leads to a state of nature which can only be
overcome by a social contract on the societal level. Thus establishing a Leviathan on the state level, the state of nature is
freed to move up the ladder of analysis to the level of the
international system.
•
Further, they believe that states are inherently aggressive
(offensive realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive
realism); and that territorial expansion is only constrained by
opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to
a security dilemma where increasing one's own security can
bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) build up their
own arms. Thus, international and/or security politics is a zerosum game where an increase in one party‘s security means a
loss for the security of others.
The Security Dilemma-Theorem
Anarchic international Self-help-system
Insecurity of individual actor
Security regarded as military superiority
Protection by military (re-)armament
A arms
A feels threatened
A arms marginally more
than B
B feels threatened
B arms marginally more than A
B feels threatened
etc. etc.
What is a security dilemma ?
Definition by Herz 1961
Das Sicherheits- oder Machtdilemma ist „…diejenige
Sozialkonstellation, die sich ergibt, wenn
(a) Machteinheiten (wie z.B. Staaten und Nationen in
ihren außenpolitischen Beziehungen) nebeneinander
bestehen,
(b) ohne Normen unterworfen zu sein,
(c) die von einer höheren Stelle gesetzt wären und sie
hindern würden, sich gegenseitig anzugreifen.
In einem derartigen Zustand treibt ein aus gegenseitiger
Furcht und gegenseitigem Misstrauen geborenes
Unsicherheitsgefühl die Einheiten in einem Wettstreit
um Macht dazu, ihrer Sicherheit halber immer mehr
Macht anzuhäufen, ein Streben, das unerfüllbar bleibt,
weil sich vollkommene Sicherheit nie erreichen läßt.“
(Herz 1961: 130f.)
Recommended Reading
John H.Herz: Weltpolitik im
Atomzeitalter. Stuttgart 1961.
John H.Herz: Staatenwelt und
Weltpolitik. Aufsätze zur internationalen Politik im Nuklearzeitalter. Hamburg 1974.
The Birth of Realism: Morgenthau
• In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War,
Hans J. Morgenthau was credited with having
systematised classical Realism. His Politics Among
Nations became the standard textbook, and continued
to be reprinted after his death.
• Morgenthau starts with the claim that he is presenting
a "theory of international politics". He sees his theory
bringing "order and meaning" to the mass of facts of
international politics. It both explains the observed
phenomena and is logically consistent, based on fixed
premisses. Like Carr, he sees this Realism as a
contrast to liberal idealism.
The Birth of Realism: Morgenthau II
Morgenthau’s theory is based on six principles he
enumerates in his first chapter. In summary, these
principles are:
•
1. Politics, like society in general, is governed by
objective laws that have their roots in human
nature which is unchanging: therefore it is possible to develop a rational theory that reflects these
objective laws.
•
2. The main signpost of political realism is the
concept of interest defined in terms of power
which infuses rational order into the subject matter
of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. Political realism
stresses the rational, objective and unemotional.
•
3. Realism assumes that interest defined as power
is an objective category which is universally valid
but not with a meaning that is fixed once and for
all. Power is the control of man over man.
The Birth of Realism: Morgenthau III
• 4. Political realism is aware of the moral signifigance
of political action. it is also aware of the tension
between moral command and the requirements of
successful political action.
• 5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral
aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws
that govern the universe. It is the concept of interest
defined in terms of power that saves us from moral
excess and political folly.
• 6. The political realist maintains the autonomy of the
political sphere. He asks "How does this policy
affect the power of the nation?" Political realism is
based on a pluralistic conception of human nature. A
man who is nothing but "political man" would be a
beast, for he would be completely lacking in moral
restraints. But, in order to develop an autonomous
theory of political behavior, "political man" must be
abstracted from other aspects of human nature.
Recommended reading
• E.H.Carr: The 20 Years‘ Crisis 1919 – 1939.
An Introduction to the Study of International
Relations. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan 1974
u.ö.
• Kenneth N. Waltz: Man, the State and War. A
theoretical analysis. New York: Columbia UP
1959
• John A. Vasquez: The Power of Power
Politics. From Classical Realism to
Neotraditionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP 1998
Kennlinien des klassischen Realismus
Historischer Hintergrund:
 Radizierung von Herrschaft
 Genese der friedens- und
sicherheitsstiftenden Funktion des
Territorialstaats
 Trennung von Innen und Aussen
 Entstehung des europäischen
Staatensystems seit 1648/1713
Ideengeschichtliche Quellen:
Machiavelli
Entwicklung des
Staatsräsongedankes als
legitimatorischer Bezugspunkt für
die Selbstbehauptung des
modernen Territorialstaats.
Hobbes
Überwindung des
innergesellschaftlichen
Naturzustands durch die
gesellschaftsvertragliche
Begründung des Leviathan;
Legitimation von Herrschaft als
Garant einer territorial abgegrenzten
sicherheitsgemeinschaftlichen Schutzzone: Basis
der Souveränitätsanspruchs; Freisetzung des
Naturzustands-Konzepts zur Charakterisierung der
Beziehung zwischen solchen Schutzzonen (d.h.
souveränen Staaten)
Idealtypisch-metaphorische Charakteristika
der internationalen Politik
Idealtypisch-metaphorische
Charakteristika der internationalen Politik
Systemebene
 anarchische Struktur
 Sicherheitsdilemma: Erhöhung der
eigenen Sicherheit durch Stärkung
militärischer Fähigkeiten verringert die
Sicherheit anderer; Folge:
spiralenförmiger Rüstungswettlauf
 Gleichgewicht der Mächte durch
Abschreckung
 Internationale Politik als
Nullsummenspiel staatlicher Akteure
um Macht, Ressourcen, Einfluss
Akteursebene
 exklusiver Handlungsanspruch der
Akteure im Bereich der „high politics“
 Territorialität: Schutzfunktion der harten
Schale
 zweckrationales, nutzenmaximierendes
/nutzen-optimierendes Handeln
 Prinzip der (notfalls militärischen)
Selbsthilfe bei der Durchsetzung von
Interessen
Recommended reading
• Robert G. Wesson: State Systems. International
Pluralism, Politics, and Culture. New York: Free
Press 1978
• Hedley Bull: The Anarchical Society. A Study of
Order in World Politics. 3.Aufl. Basingstoke:
Palgrave 2002
• Barry Buzan/Richard Little: International Systems in
World History. Oxford: OUP 2000
• Heinz Duchhardt/Franz Knipping (Hrsg.): Handbuch
der Geschichte der Internationalen Beziehungen in 9
Bänden. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh 1997ff
The English School in IR Theory
The 'English School'
• Particular strand of international relations
theory, also known as Liberal Realism,
Rationalism, Grotianism or the British
institutionalists, maintains that there is a
'society of states' at the international level,
despite the condition of 'anarchy' (literally
the lack of a ruler or world state). Its
strongest influence is functionalism, but it
also draws heavily on realist and critical
theories.
also known as International Society
Theory
• focuses on the shared norms and values of
states and how they regulate international
relations. Examples of such norms include
diplomacy, order, and international law.
Unlike neo-realism, it is not necessarily
positivist. Theorists have focused
particularly on humanitarian intervention,
and are subdivided between solidarists, who
tend to advocate it more, and pluralists, who
place greater value in order and sovereignty.
Reexamination of traditional
approaches
• A great deal of the English School of thought
concerns itself with the examination of traditional
international theory, casting it into three divisions
(described by Buzan as the English schools' triad):
• Realist or Hobbesian (after Thomas Hobbes)
• Rationalist (or Grotian, after Hugo Grotius)
• Revolutionist (or Kantian, after Immanuel Kant).
• In broad terms, the English School itself has
supported the rationalist or Grotian tradition,
seeking a middle way (or via media) between the
'power politics' of realism and the 'utopianism' of
revolutionism.
• Later Wight changed his triad into a four part
division by adding Mazzini (see: Martin Wight, Four
Seminal Thinkers in International Theory:
Machiavelli, Grotius, Kant, and Mazzini).
International Society
• International relations represents a society of states.
This international society can be detected in the
ideas that animate the key institutions that regulate
international relations: war, the great powers,
diplomacy, the balance of power, and international
law, especially in the mutual recognition of
sovereignty by states.
• Kai Alderson/Andrew Hurrell (eds.): Hedley Bull on
International Society. Basingstoke 1999
• Cf. also HIP, 11th ed, Krieg und Frieden, Fig. 4
International Society II
• There are differing accounts concerning the
evolution of those ideas, some (like Martin Wight)
arguing their origins can be found in the remnants of
medieval conceptions of societas Christiana, and
others such as Hedley Bull, in the concerns of
sovereign states to safeguard and promote basic
goals, especially their survival. Most English School
understandings of international society blend these
two together, maintaining that the contemporary
society of states is partly the product of a common
civilization - the Christian world of medieval Europe,
and before that, the Roman Empire - and partly that
of a kind of Lockean contract.
Recommended reading: Key
Works
• Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society (1977).
• Herbert Butterfield, Martin Wight (eds),
Diplomatic Investigations (1966).
• Martin Wight, Four seminal thinkers in
international theory : Machiavelli, Grotius, Kant,
and Mazzini (2005)
• Martin Wight, Systems of States (1977)
• Martin Wight, Power Politics (1978)
• Martin Wight, International Theory. The three
traditions (1991)
Recommended reading
• Adam Watson: The Evolution of International
Society. A comparative historical analysis. London
1992
• Hedley Bull/Adam Watson (eds): The Expansion of
International Society. Oxford 1984
• Tim Dunne: Inventing International Society. A
History of the English School. Basingstoke 1998
• Barry Buzan: International Society and World
Society, Cambridge 2004
• Andrew Linklater and Hidemi Suganami, The English
school of international relations: a contemporary
reassessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press: 2006)
Website
• www.polis.leeds.ac.uk/research/internat
ional-relations-security/english-school/
Liberalism – result of changing internat.
boundary conditions
overcomes
Military and political impenetrability
protected by force
underlines
Penetrability
Globalization
functional
Interdependence
Transnational
networking
Further differentiation of international division
of labour
Environmental problems & their
secondary effects crossing borders
Intensification of social and cultural forces by
social change
Replacement of Fordistic by Postfordistic
Accumulation
Air Warfare, in particular
ballistic weapons of mass
destruction
Modern industrial
dynamics
LOOKING AT THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FROM A
RECENT INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PERSPECTIVE
For some time already, the analysis of International Relations is characterised
by a change in perspective
- away from the state as a unitary actor acting as a gatekeeper between the
domestic and international policy areas
- up, down, and sideways to supra-state, sub-state, and non-state actors.
From the society of states, our focus of attention has consequently
shifted to transnational and transgovernmental societies which take the
form of boundary-crossing networks amongst individuals and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs).
Cobweb model of international Relations
International flight connections, 2010
Transnational Society (of Actors)
Government
Government
Government
Transnational Society
A
Society
National Actor
B
Society
C
Society
Transnational Politics
Government
A
Society
Government
B
Society
Government
C
Society
Liberalism/Idealism
• Liberalism or Idealism covers a fairly broad perspective
ranging from Wilsonian Idealism through to contemporary neo-liberal theories and the democratic peace
thesis.
• States are but one actor in world politics, and even
states can cooperate through institutional mechanisms
and bargaining that undermine the propensity to define
survival interests simply in military terms.
• States are interdependent and other actors such as
Transnational Corporations, INGOs, IGOs, and the
United Nations play a decisive international role
• Source:
http://home.pi.be/%7Elazone/ir_theory_overview.html
Liberalism/Idealism II
• The goal of liberal internationalism is to achieve global
structures within the international system that are
inclined towards promoting a liberal world order. To that
extent, global free trade, liberal economics and liberal
democratic political systems are all encouraged. In
addition, liberal internationalists are dedicated towards
encouraging democracy to emerge globally. Once
realized, it will result in a 'peace dividend', as liberal
states have relations that are characterized by nonviolence, and that relations between democracies is
characterized by the democratic peace thesis.
Recommended reading
• Relevant chapters in David A. Baldwin (ed):
Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The
Contemporary Debate, and Charles W.
Kegley (ed): Controversies in International
Relations: Realism and the Neoliberal
Challenge.
• Michael W. Doyle: Liberalism and World
Politis, in: American Political Science Review
80 (1986), pp. 1151 - 1169
Liberalism/Idealism III
• Key intellectual progenitors: Locke,
Rousseau, Kant
• Variants
– Idealism/ Liberal Internationalism: A political theory
founded on the natural goodness of humans and the
autonomy of the individual. It favours civil and political
liberties, government by law with the consent of the
governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
Corporations, the IMF and the United Nations play a
role. (Source: http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm)
– Neoliberalism
– Complex Interdependence
– Democratic Peace Theory (Kant)
Waltz v. Kegley
Waltz
Kegley
International politics is
anarchical, and anarchy is
the necessary cause of war.
Therefore, war and conflict
are ultimately located at the
international level and cannot
be eliminated because
anarchy cannot be eliminated
International politics can be
reorganized around
international society rather
than international anarchy,
potentially eliminating
problems like war and conflict
and replacing international
anarchy with international
hierarchy (world government)
Two Most Different Accounts of International Anarchy
Realism
Idealism
Goals
Survival
Survival
Actors’
behavior
under
Anarchy
Increase power to
ensure survival
Promote social
learning though:
•Institutions
•Ideas
What
forms
state
behavior?
Self-help because
•No world gov’t
•Cooperation
amongst states
unreliable
International
society as
cooperation of
free association
of individuals
Logic of
anarchy
Conflictual, zerosum game
Cooperative,
win-winsituations
Good evening & good bye…