Introduction to International
Relations
Introduction to the Course
The Objective of the Course



Focus on the basic concepts and actors
in International Relations.
See the common points and
controversies of different theories
Evaluate the evolution of the
international system since the end of
the Second World war.
Major Questions in World
Politics



Who are the basic actors in world politics?
(the structure of the international system,
states, classes, genders, individuals)?
Are states the major actors in international
systems? What is the role of non-state
actors?
What are the causes of war? Is the primary
reason nationalism, ideology, the lack of
world government, or the fact that people are
by nature aggressive?
Major Questions



What is power in international affairs,
and why is it important?
What is the relationship between
military and economic power?
Is power increasingly defined in terms
of economic rather than military means,
and if so, why?
Major Questions



Does the lack of central government
(anarchy) create the problem of the security
dilemma?
Can stability be achived in the international
system? If yes how?
What is the impact of globalization on the
state and world politics?
Major Questions



Are democratic states more peaceful
than non-democratic states?
Why do states cooperate?
What role do International
Organizations have in international
politics?
Outline of the Lecture



What is international relations and why
do we study it?
In what ways IR theories are important
to the study of international relations?
What are the principal concepts and
theoretical debates in the field?
IR in Broader Terms


International relations is the study of the
nature and consequences of the relations
among the world’s governments.
Apart from dealing with relations among
states, IR also covers other actors like
international organizations,
Multinational Corporations (MNCs), and
individuals with other social structures and
processes (including economics, culture, and
domestic politics).
Why to study IR?


In a globalised economy, most jobs
today require an understanding of the
international political and economic
environment in which businesses
operate
So today, our daily lives themselves
are increasingly international in focus
What made our lives that
international?


Improvements in communications
technologies particularly internet and
transportation technologies enable us to
come into contact with people, places,
products, opportunities and ideas from other
countries very easily and rapidly.
Improvements in communications
technologies and integrated markets
consolidate the process of globalization which
directly impact our daily lives.
Globalization and IR



Two key events reflect globalization:
a. 9/11 terrorist attacks: The terrorists used
the internet for planning, coordinating and
fundraising for the attacks.
b. The global economic recession of 20082009: It began with the collapse of the US
home mortgage market and spread quickly to
other countries due to highly integrated
global financial markets.
Globalization and IR





Like globalization and IR impact our daily life,
individual citizens can influence the world as
well by:
-voting in an election
-buying a product or service on world
markets
-watching the news
The choices we make in our daily lives
ultimately affect the world we live in.
Collective Goods Problem



IR revolves around one key problem: How can a
group (such as two or more countries) serve its
collective interests when doing so requires its
members to forgo their individual interests?
Ex: Each country has an interest in stopping global
warming. This goal can only be achieved by many
countries acting together. But, each country has an
individual interest in burning fossil fuels to keep its
economy going.
Ex: all members of a military alliance benefit from the
strength of the alliance, but each member has an
interest in minimizing its own contributions in troops
Collective Goods Problem



This problem of shared interests versus
conflicting interests among members of
a group is called free riding, burden
sharing or collective goods problem.
Collective goods are easier to provide in
small groups than in large ones. In a
small group, free-riding or cheating is
difficult and is easier to punish.
Ex: G-7, G-20
IR and Collective Goods
Problem


The collective goods problem is problematic
for the IR because each nation is sovereign:
there is no central government to enforce on
inidividual nations the necessary measures to
contribute to the common good.
By contrast, in domestic politics within
countries, a government can force individuals
to contribute to the common good such as
paying taxes.
How to solve Collective Goods
Problem in IR

3 basic principles such as dominance,
reciprocity, and identity offer possible
solutions to the core problem of getting
individuals to cooperate for the
common good without a central
authority to make them do so.
Dominance


Dominance: The principle of domainance
solves the collective action problem by
establishing a power hierarchy in which those
at the top control those below.
Staying on top a hierarchy does not depend
on strength alone. The top actor may be the
one most succesful at forming and
maintaining alliances among the group’s
powerful members.
Dominance


In IR, the principle of dominance
underlies the great power system, in
which powerful countries dictate the
rules for the others.
Ex: The structure of the UN Security
Council reflects the dominance
principle: Only 5 powerful countries of
the Security Council hold the veto
power.
Dominance


The solution of dominance principle to the
collective goods problem: Like a government
it forces members of a group to contribute to
the common good.
Disadvantage: the oppression and
resentment of low-ranking members.
Conflicts over position in the hierarchy can
harm the group’s stability; it can lead to wars
among great powers.
Reciprocity


The principle of reciprocity solves the
collective goods problem by rewarding
behavior that contributes to the group and
punishing behaviour that pursues self-interest
at the expense of the group.
Reciprocity may operate positively (You
sctratch my back and I will scratch yours), or
negatively (an eye for an eye and a tooh for
a tooth).
Reciprocity




In IR, reciprocity forms the basis of most of the
norms and institutions in the international system.
Many organizations such as World Trade Organization
(WTO) recognizes reciprocity as the basis for
cooperation.
Ex: If one country opens its markets to another’s
goods, the other opens its markets in return.
On the negative side, reciprocity may trigger arms
race as each side responds to the other’s build-up of
weapons.
Identity



A third solution is the identities of participants
as members of a community. The roots of
this principle lie in the family and the kinship
group.
As members of a family care about each
other, so do members of an ethnic group, a
gender group, a nation, or a professional
group like scientists.
Ex: A European Jew may give money to Israel
because of a shared Jewish identity.
Identity



In IR, identity communities play important roles in overcoming
difficult collective goods problems, including the issue of who
contributes to development assistance, and UN peacekeeping
missions.
The large foreign aid contributions of the Scandinavian
countries or the high Canadian participation in peacekeeping
cannot only be explained self-interest. These countries behave
like that because of their self-defined identities as members of
the international community.
Non-state actors, such as NGOs, feminist organizations, MNCs,
churches or terrorist networks also rely on identity politics.
Case study for collective
goods problem




The problem of nuclear proliferation: All countries share an
interest in the collective good of peace and stability, but there
are also countries that make nuclear weapons. In 2006, North
Korea tested its first nuclear bomb and Iran continued its
uranium enrichment.
Dominance approach: only few powerful countries can have
nuclear weapons. Based on the NPT Treaty, the big five
countries try to prevent others from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In 2003, the US invaded Iraq and overthrew its government as
it thought Saddam Husseyin might have an active nuclear
weapons program.
Similarly, when Iraq began working for a nuclear bomb in 1982,
Israel sent its jets to bomb Iraq’s nuclear facility.
Case study for collective
goods problem



These dominance solutions create resentment
among smaller countries.
Non-nuclear weapon states expect that
nuclear weapon states will get rid of their
nuclear weapons and nuclear-free world
would be created.
Other countries also ask what gives Israel the
right to bomb another country or the US the
right to invade one. They speak of a double
standard for the powerful and the weak.
Case study for collective
goods problem



Reciprocity: The NPT ensures that nuclear
weapons states disarm in exchange for nonnuclear weapon states’ agreement not to
develop nuclear weapons.
Threats: The US warned North Korea in 2006
not to sell its bombs.
Rewards: When Libya gave up its nuclear
weapons program in 2003, the international
community gave it various rewards, including
the ending of economic sanctions.
Case study for collective
goods problem
Identity: many countries that have the technical ability
to develop nuclear weapons chose not to do so.
Sweden as a neutral state does not intend to fight wars.
Germany under the nuclear protection of the US within
the NATO does not need a nuclear bomb.
Japan’s experience of the nuclear destruction in 1945
shaped japan’s identity as a country that does not want
nuclear weapons, even though it has the know-how and
the stockpile of plutonium to make them.
Peace of Westphalia and the
State System





The history of state system is the history of international
relations and goes back to the Peace of Westphalia (1648)
Peace of Westphalia is regarded as the starting point for the
international relations:
It gave an end to the Holy Roman Empire and established the
modern European state system. This newly created European
state system was based on the concept of sovereignty that
was introduced by the Peace of Westphalia.
This principle ensured the independence of states in a
specific territory and also the right to determine the religion
within their territory
Westphalia agreement also encouraged the
institutionalization of diplomacy and armies.
The Concept of Sovereignty








The basic rules of the state system are derived from the concept of
sovereignty:
Two key principles of contemporary IR were established:
The principal of internal sovereignty: a government is supreme
within its own territory and authority
External sovereignty: externally, a sovereign government is
accountable to no higher authority
No other international actor, state or otherwise, has the
authority to interfere in the internal affairs of another state
Since each government is sovereign within its boundaries, sovereign
states are equal in the legal sense, despite their disparities in
terms of power
These basic rules determine the way in which world politics is
conducted.
It established the independent nation-state.
Shift of the International
System


The international system shifted from
empires to independent nation states
The relations between such
independent states have been labeled
as ‘international relations’
State System (1815-1914):




Actors: relatively small number of states, growing but limited
number of non-state actors, system focus on Europe, limited
impact of ideological divisions between state actors
Structure: multipolar, five great powers: Britain, France,
Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia
Patterns of interaction: great power war diminished in
frequency, but increases in intensity, severity. Costs of war
increase with industrialization. Developments in communication
technologies lead to expansion of international trade and
commerce. With the improved communications, importance of
diplomacy increases
Rules and practices: a managed balance of power system.
undermined by the growth of the German power. Use of great
power conferences to resolve disputes
Changing Nature of the State
System


State system is not static. Different historical
periods generate new principles and practices
and new power centers
Whereas Spain, Portugal, Sweden Denmark
were the great powers of the 17th century,
they were no longer so in the 18th century.
19th century was dominated by 5 powers:
Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary
and Russia.
Cold War (1945-89):




Actors: rapid expansion in number of both state and
non-state actors, emergence of a global international
system. ideological divisions.
Structure: bipolar, two superpowers, an emerging
tripolar system in the 1970s. development of nuclear
weapons and military competition. North-south divide
Patterns of interaction: costs of war increases
with the nuclear weapons. International trade
continues to grow, but through regional blocs.
Growth of multilateral diplomacy, economic
interdependence
Rules and practices: Superpowers use summit
diplomacy in managing relationship
Domination of Europe in the
State System



European state system was exported to
the Americas, Africa, and Asia through
colonialism and Western imperialism
In the 19th century, international
system was dominated by European
powers.
Emergence of new states as colonies of
European empires.
Enlargement of the State
System




After the Second World War, with the
decolonization process in Asia and Africa, the socalled Third World, once colonized states became
independent.
Growth of the idea of national self-determination as a
basis for the structure of international relations.
Europe, once the center of the international system
weakened by two world wars, lost its centrality. By
1945, world arena dominated by two rival
superpowers: US vs. SU.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union together with the
breakup of Yugoslavia at the end of the Cold War,
many new independent states joined to the state
system: Baltic States, Ukraine, Georgia...
State System as a Global
Institution





The number of actors operating in the system increased, almost
200 states exist in the world today and the state system turned
out to be a global institution.
So, today states are part of an international system that
is global in scope.
That means that world politics cover variety of states that differ
from each other substantially in terms of their cultures,
religions, languages, forms of government, military capacity,
levels of economic and technological development.
The ordering of the states at the top of the world hierarchy
changed: rise of the United States
International system became also divided in terms of
the distribution of wealth between rich and poor
countries.
Rise of Non-State Actors



Non-state actors assumed an important role
in world politics. Two categories:
Intergovernmental Organizations
(IGOS): its membership consists of
government representatives (UN, Association
of south Asian nations (ASEAN)
Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs): membership lies outside the
government sphere.
Growth of state and non-state
actors since 1945








Year
1946
1956
1960
1972
1981
1989
1992
States
55
80
100
132
157
159
182
IGOs
132
154
280
337
300
286
INGOs
973
1255
2173
4265
4621
4696
Growth of state and non-state
actors

Today in addition to around 200
sovereign states, there are more than
300 international intergovernmental
organizations. The number of
internationally operating NGOs across
the world is around 40,000.
Challenge to the State System

That is a fundamental change in the state system and a fundamental
challenge for IR scholars to theorize.

These 200 different states interact with each other and affect each
other

Economic interdependence requires that they enter into relations with
each other.


Complete isolation is usually not an option. When states are isolated
and are cut off from the state system, their people usually suffer as a
result. That has been the case recently with regard to Libya, North
Korea, Iraq, and Iran.
Therefore, they must somehow find ways to exist all together and to
deal with each other.
What is State?






How important is it? How should we think
about it?
Different answers depending on the
theoretical approach adopted.
Characteristics of a state:
a territorial base
a population
a sovereign government that means it enjoys
a monopoly in the exercise of legitimate
coercive power within its boundaries.
The Central Role of States in
World Politics



No other international actor possess these characteristics.
Antarctica is not a state lacking people and a government.
Similarly colonies are not regarded as independent state actors
as they lack sovereign governments.
UN covers a range of issues that are central to domestic and
world politics: education, health, employment, environmental
pollution. But no other actor than state provide all these
services for its citizens.
States provide security, maintain public order, facilitate trade
and investment, arbitrate in domestic disputes, and affect
distribution of wealth in pursuit of social justice.
Basic values states are
expected to provide






security
freedom
order
justice
welfare
These social values are so fundamental to
human well-being that they must be
protected or ensured in some way. In the
modern era, the state is expected to ensure
these basic values.
Focus on Security: Realist
Approach






Friendly vs. agressive states
there is no world government or higher authority to constrain
them: problem of national security.
military power is usually considered a necessity so that states
can coexist and deal with each other without being intimidated
or threatened.
alliances with other states to increase their national security. To
ensure that no great power succeeds in achieving a hegemonic
position on other states, it is also necessary to construct and
maintain a balance of military power.
Such an approach to the study of world politics is called realist
theories of IR
It operates on the assumption that relations of states are based
on competition and conflict due to the possibility of war.
Freedom and Liberal Theory





The second basic value is freedom, both personal freedom and
national freedom or independence.
Having states, paying taxes or obligations of military service is
the condition of national freedom or independence. War
threatens and sometimes destroys freedom.
Peace fosters freedom. Peace also makes progressive
international change possible, that is, the creation of a better
world.
This approach to the study of world politics is called liberal
theories of IR.
It operates on the assumption that international relations can
be best characterized as a world in which states cooperate with
each other to maintain peace and freedom and to pursue
progressive change.
Wealth and Welfare



People expect their government to adopt appropriate policies to
encourage high employment, low inflation, steady investment,
the uninterrupted flow of trade and commerce, and so forth.
To enhance or at least defend and maintain the national
standard of living.
States engage in economic policies that can deal adequately
with international markets, with foreign investment, with foreign
exchange rates, with international trade, with international
transportation and communications, and with other international
economic relations that affect national wealth and welfare.
IR theories and the Basic
Values




Traditional IR theories recognize the
significance of these basic values even if they
disagree about which ones are most
important
Realists emphasize the importance of security
and order
Liberals emphasize freedom and justice
IPE scholars emphasize economic equality
and welfare
Which Countries to Focus on ?


Realist scholars focus mainly on the states at the center of the
system: the major powers and especially the great powers.
They see Third World states as marginal players in a system of
power politics. Such marginal or peripheral states do not affect
the system in any very significant way.
Some IPE scholars, usually Marxists, focus on the
underdevelopment of peripheral countries and the unequal
relations between the center and the periphery of the global
economy. They investigate international linkages between the
poverty of the Third World, or the South, and the enrichment of
America, Europe, and other parts of the North. They argue that
the developed capitalist states advance their interests at the
expense of the weak, underdeveloped states at the periphery.
The Level of Analysis



The many actors involved in IR lead to competing
explanations and theories.
Is the cause of war found in the nature of individuals,
are humans innately aggressive. Or in the nature of
states and societies. Are some types of states more
aggressive. Or in the nature of international system
of states.
Each answer reflects a different level of analysis:
individual, state and society, international (inter-state
or sytemic), and global.
The Individual Level of
Analysis



The individual level of analysis concerns the
perceptions, choices, and actions of
individuals.
Ex: Without Lenin, there might have been no
Soviet-Union.
Ex: If Nixon instead of Kennedy had won the
1960 elections, the Cuban Missile Crisis might
have ended differently.
The Domestic (Societal) Level
of Analysis




The Domestic (Societal) Level of Analysis concerns
the groups of individuals within states that influence
state actions in the international arena. Such groups
include interest groups, political organizations, and
government agencies.
These groups operate differently in different societies
and states.
Ex: Democracies and dictatorships may act differently
from one another.
Within governments, foreign policy agencies often
fight bureacratic battles over policy decisions.
The Interstate (Sytemic) Level
of Analysis



The Interstate (Sytemic) Level of Analysis concerns
the influence of the international system upon
outcomes.
This level of analysis focuses on the interactions of
states themselves, without regard to their domestic
situation or the particular individuals who lead them.
This level pays attention to states’ relative power
positions in the international system and the
interaction (for instance, trade) among them.
The Global Level of Analysis


The global level of analysis: This level tries to
explain international outcomes in terms of
global trends and forces that trannscend the
interactions of states themselves.
The evolution of technology, worldwide
beliefs, humans’ relationship to the natural
environment are all processes at the global
level that influence IR.
Case: The 2003 US-led War
against Iraq



The individual level of analysis:
The war can be attributed to Saddam
Hussein’s gamble that he could defeat
the forces against him. Or
The war can be attributed to president
Bush’s desire to remove a leader he
personally deemed threatening.
Case: The 2003 US-led War
against Iraq


The domestic level of analysis:
The war can be attributed to the rise of
the powerful neoconservative faction
that convinced the Bush administration
and Americans that Saddam was a
threat to US security after the 9/11
attacks.
Case: The 2003 US-led War
against Iraq


The interstate (systemic) level of
analysis:
The war can be attributed to the
predominance of the US power. With no
state willing to back Iraq militarily, the
US as the largest global military power
was free to attack Iraq without fear of a
large-scale military response.
Case: The 2003 US-led War
against Iraq


The global level of analysis:
The war can be attributed to a global
fear of terrorism, or even a clash
between Islam and the West.
Case 2: Nuclear Proliferation
and Iran





Systemic-Level Motivations:
Quest for Security
Seeking Regional Hegemony
Gaining International Prestige
Obtaining Bargaining Advantages
Case 2: Nuclear Proliferation
and Iran






State-Level Motivations:
Domestic Conflicts
Economic motivations
Public Opinion
Scientific/Technological Momentum
Bureaucratic Politics
Case 2: Nuclear Proliferation
and Iran


Individual-Level Motivations:
Attitudes and Beliefs of Leaders
Importance of the Unit of
Analysis


Different levels emphasize different
actors and processes for explaining an
event.
There is no single correct level for a
given ‘why’ questions.
IR Theories and Unit of
Analysis



Neo-realists tend to show how the structure of
international system influences the behavior of
states or the perception of decision makers.
Thus, they emphasize the system level.
Similarly globalists examine how the historical
development of the capitalist world economy
generates state actors. System level.
Pluralists examine bureaucracies, interest groups
and individuals. So they use state-societal and
individual levels of analysis.
Agent-Structure Problem

Connected to levels of analysis issue

Is the structure or the agency that we should focus on ?

The problem results from the 2 truths about social life:

First, human agency is the only moving force behind the
actions, events and outcomes of the social world

Second, human agency can be realized only in concrete
structures that condition possibilities for action.

Agents vs. structure. This problem creates difficulties of
developing theory that successfully includes both dimensions.