Scarica Understanding the Security Dilemma and International Society - Prof. Zambernardi e più Appunti in PDF di Relazioni Internazionali solo su Docsity!
International relations
International relations refer both to a reality and the discipline that studies it. As a reality, international relations may appear historically omnipresent. In this sense, international relations can be considered as those relations between the great kingdoms of the ancient East, between the Greek city-states, between Rome and Carthage, etc… What we consider today to be ‘international relations’ can be traced back at least 2,500 years. The relevant political groups were Greek city-states. International relations in that period in some ways looks similar to what it is today: city-states traded with each other, participated in cross-border sports competitions, practiced diplomacy, formed alliances and fought wars against each other as enemies and alongside each other as allies against the Persian Empire. We define international relations as the political, economic, social and cultural relations between two countries or among many countries. As an academic discipline, International Relations was born in 1919, meaning in the aftermath of WWl. What kind of international relations? o Political o Military o Economic o Social o Cultural o Legal Raymond Aron: international relations «take place within the shadow of war». This is the crucial feature disinguishing international relations from other domains. The stakes in international relations sometimes involve conflict and war rather than trade and mutual economic benefit. International relations powerfully affect our everyday lives. There are 196 countries in the world today and they interact with each other over a wide variety of political, economic, social, cultural and scientific issues. They also interact with an array of international governmental organizations (IGOs), organizations that states join to further their political or economic interests , such as the United Nations (UN). And nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) , non-profit groups that operate independently of governments and typically address political or social issues , such as the international health crisis response team M édecins Sans Frontiè res (Doctors Without Borders), and transnational political and social movements. A little help from H.J. Morgenthau «There can be no more primitive and no weaker system of law enforcement than this [international law], for it delivers the enforcement of the law to the vicissitudes of the distribution of power between the violators of the law and the victims of the violation. It makes it easy for the strong both to violate the law and to enforce it, and consequently puts the rights of the weak in jeopardy. A great power can violate the rights of small nations without having to fear effective sanctions on the latter's part. It can afford to proceed against a small nation with measures of enforcement under the pretext of a violation of its rights, regardless of whether the alleged infraction of international law has actually occurred or whether its seriousness justifies the severity of the measures taken». Why International Relations and not International Law The weakness of international law results from the fact that it is international and not supranational : it exists between nations which are, at the same time, the interpreters and enforcers of the law. No enforcement agency can guarantee the observance of the law, especially against a powerful transgressor. Beyond the legal perspective o Enforcement of the law is dependent upon the power not of a central government, but of the individual participants in the legal dispute o As long as nations deal with each other and more particularly oppose each other on the basis of equality without having a sovereign superior to them which can give, apply, and enforce the law, the international order, international peace, and international law are bound to be in a precarious state International law vs IR: two current examples Legal perspective:
- Is the Russian invasion of Ukraine legal or not? Is the Ukranian response legal or not?
- Is Operation Iron Swords fought according to international law? Specifically, according to International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which is the law which seeks, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict The use of force in current international law The UN Charter includes a strong territorial norm embedded in Article 2.4 , which prohibits the threat or use of force and calls on all Members to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States. But limited circumstances can permit deviations from those norms. Deviations from the norm:
- One is under Article 51, which permits the right of individual or collective self-defense
- Another is through UNSC authorization, which typically takes place through Chapter VII of the UN Charter in response to threats to peace and security International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Accordingt to IHL even in an armed conflict the only acceptable action is to weaken the military potential of the enemy. The principle of distinction between combatants and civilians is the cornerstone of IHL.
However, civilians' immunity is by no means absolute. In fact, the norms of IHL do not prohibit the killing of non-combatants, but they declare that harm to civilians, which occurs during an attack on a military target, must be proportional to the intended military advantage. IR theory perspective on the war in Ukraine What are the causes of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Possible answers: o NATO enlargement in Eastern Europe o Russian traditional imperialism o Russian illiberal regime o Putin's ideas IR theory perspective on Operation Iron Swords in Gaza Why so many civilians have been killed in Gaza? Possible answers:
- Typical effects of wars among the people (i.e., war in a densely urban environment)
- Identity conflict between Israelis and Palestinians International Relations International relations are concerned with the political, economic, social, and cultural relations between two countries or among many countries or populations. As we said, international relations can be traced back at least 2,500 years to the city-states of Ancient Greece. Both the nature of and the relations among international actors have profoundly changed. The importance of international relations: international relations are extremely important, as they guide international trade, and war and peace, among other important issues. International relations do not just affect people in government; they affect people every day. Your phone, your car, and even your clothing play a role in International Relations. Think about the importance of borders, which are one of the defining aspects of international relations: people die everyday in the attempt to move across borders. War, wealth, disease o What do you think about the world we live in? Do you think there has been progress in terms of war, wealth, and life more in general? Africa larged untouched, war in Africa is a war against nature, not man o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo - > message: there was a general progress, but movement and evolution not equal, general healthier and wealthier. Colonialism (political) vs new colonialism (economic). Wester countries didn’t benefit from exploiting, but good for them. War is about killing and destroying things: the impact was only in the short time. The Spanish flue: it was spoken only in Spain, not in other countries during the war (because there was censorship, also in USA and liberal counties, no freedom of speech). On the same social reality we can provide different interpretation School of international relations Different perspective on the same reality. All of the them try to understand the world. Different schools of international relations help us to understand the causes of conflict and cooperation. Three main schools are (we can add Marxism): o Realism o Liberalism o Constructivism International relations differs drastically when viewed from varying perspectives. No consensus in what we know. Most economics think that they agree in how markets work, there is an agreement that doesn’t exist in international relations (there is not an absolute resource). Theories help us understand why something occurred in international relations, and the likelihood that it will happen again. Theories help us to describe and explain the world. They are analytical devices that make assumptions, put forward causal arguments and offer predictions about the workings of the international arena. Theories are usually not completely right or wrong but may be more or less useful. Any particular theory might be useful for some time, until it is challenged by new evidence or overtaken by a better theory that someone develops. Theories designed to explain international relations are usually grouped within broad schools of thought such as realism, liberalism, Marxism, constructivism. Proponents within each school make a set of assumptions about what is important, or what matters most, in international relations. None of these approaches or the theories associated with them is a clear winner in explaining the complicated world of international relations. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and its scholarly proponents and detractors. Although the realist approach became dominant after the Second World War, today many scholars find its assumptions and theories unsatisfying. REALISM
- Otto Von Bismarck: creation of realpolitik, he creates German, a country with coercive and violence. In realism you disregard international human rights/laws, you use mean to increase power
- Kissinger: not a very moral man, responsable of many killed people LIBERALISM
- Smith: wealth of nation depends from an open market economy, free trial is a good thing in general
- Kant: German filosofy
Theory o Theories are statements that explain laws o If a law identifies a relation among variables, a theory shows why this relation or association exists o Laws can be judged according to the criteria «true» and «false». Theories instead cannot be judged by whether they are true or false Give me a theory! o Black Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at nearly 5 times the rate of white Americans (African American only 13% of American population) o In 12 states, more than half the prison population is Black: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. o Nationally, one in 81 Black adults in the U.S. is serving time in state prison. Wisconsin leads the nation in Black Wishconsinites is in prison Level of analysis We employ a well-regarded analytical device for the classification of arguments about international relations. This device is called the levels-of-analysis framework. It is based on the view that a writer who puts forward any theory or explanation about international relations has had to make choices about which actors and causal processes to emphasize. They are analytical instruments/tools that provide the «causal location» of particular phenomena. They are useful to arrange explanations, 3 different categories:
- _individual
- the state
- the international system_ They produce different kind of policy. International system look at the environment, doesn’t look at individual and states. Level of analysis 1: the individual Many explanations and arguments in international relations focus on actors and processes that are situated at the individual level of analysis; this involves looking at the impact of individual decision makers (like leaders) on international relations and foreign policy. It also involves examining the impact of individual citizens , who might have a significant influence on international relations. o This level of analysis locates the cause of foreign policy (e.g., decision to go to war, humanitarian intervention, etc.) in individual leaders or the immediate circle of policymakers within a particular government o It focuses on human actors on the world stage identifying the characteristics of human decision making o Ex.: war in Ukraine, Putin and his ambitions Level of analysis 2: the state The state level of analysis comprises arguments that focus on the political or economic characteristics of countries or states. A good example is democratic peace theory. That argument suggests that what states do abroad, including whether they get into conflict with one another, is heavily influenced by the domestic political institutions of the country. States with democratic governments, the theory suggests, are very unlikely to fight wars with one another. States with capitalist economic systems at home are more likely to fight wars with one another than would be true if those same states were organized according to different principles. o This level of analysis locates causes in the nature and character of the domestic system of specific countries : in its political regime or economy o Ex. war in Ukraine is caused by the illiberal nature of Russia Level of analysis 3: the international system Countries do not exist in isolation, they interact with each other. Taken collectively, states and non-state actors coexisting and interacting at any point in history form an international system. o This level of analysis explains international phenomena as resulting from the nature or structure of the international system at the period under study o It takes into account the position of states in the international system o Ex. Putin's foreign policy towards Ukraine is the complex result of American expanding influence in Eastern Europe and Russian counter-attempt to stop it
the levels of analysis are not isolated from each other. Often a good explanation will combine or integrate ideas from different levels. There is a profound difference between how the world is and how we might like it to be. International relations must, in the first instance, entail the study of the world not as it should be but as it is.
The emergence of a global system of states 1500-today. Main Topics
- The state (vs nation) and sovereignty
- The states system and its expansion International Actors States but also non-state actors play a significant role in international relations. Non-state actors include: ● International institutions ● Businesses (MNCs) ● NGOs ● “Terrorist” organisations (ISIS) ● Catholic Church State as the primary actor. The state remains the primary actor in the global system. The number of states has risen steadily since the end of WWII. See, for example, the number of member states of the UN: in 1945 they were 51, now they are 19 3. The state o The state is the basic building block of international relations o In the 1990s, during the golden age of globalization, there was the idea of the irreversible crisis of the sovereign state o Today, it looks different: central role of states as coercive actors but also for the economy : active role in the support of the economy after the financial crisis in 2008: both the US and China employed expanding monetary policies to support their economies: massive stimulus in both countries Three crucial elements:
- Territory
- Population
- Political authority which enforces a common legal order Nation : states should not be confused with nations, collections of people who share a common culture, history, or language. Nations often transcend the boundary of any single state; states often contain more than one nation. Nation derives from natio (birth). It is only at the end of the 18th century with the French Revolution that nationalism became a full-fledged ideology. Nation-state : a political unit inhabited by people sharing common culture, history or language. Nationalism o Despite its apparent novelty, nationalism appeals to purported deep continuities with the past, which supposedly separated one's own nation from time immemorial from other nations o As Ernest Gellner (1983, 25) put it: «Nationalism... preaches and defends continuity, but owes everything to a decisive and unutterably profound break in human history. ... Its self-image and its true nature are inversely related» But what's the modern state? It's about sovereignty, which has four different dimensions : o Internal : supremacy over all other authorities within that territory and population. No other authority or group has a right to exercise force or maintain order within the territory of the state: "the state has the monopoly of the legitimate use of force" (M. Weber) o External : independence from external/foreign Two additional dimensions o Material : effective control of the territory (de facto sovereignty) o Legal : international recognition by other states (de jure sovereignty) Sovereignties Sovereignty: the capacity to govern residents within a given territory to establish relationships with governments that control other states. What states do
- State making : eliminating or neutralizing their rivals inside those territories
- War making : eliminating or neutralizing their own rivals outside the territories in which they have clear and continuous priority as wielders of force
- Extraction : acquiring the means of carrying out these two activities
The formation of the European state system was the unintended consequence of a succession of failed efforts by powerful European leaders, beginning in the early 1500s, to use war to establish control and create an imperial order over the European continent. Leaders of other European states formed alliances and a balance of power to counter these efforts, and these balancing alliances ultimately defeated each bid for empire. Decolonization : the final expansion of the system of states One key development after 1945 was the creation of new states through the process of decolonization, or the achievement of independence by states formerly controlled by a colonial power. Decolonization: the process by which imperial powers relinquished their overseas holdings leading to new independent nation-states. The international system was transformed by the process of decolonization following WWII. With European economies devastated, European empires lost their colonies and numerous new countries came into existence. Although these countries tended to be poor, with little international influence, the system of states became global. Decolonization had many causes. Nationalism increased significantly over the two world wars and led many people in the South to question the legitimacy of an international order in which some states were ruled formally by other states. The idea of self-determination complemented that appeal of nationalism. By 1945, both colonizing and colonized states also came to question the economic benefits of their political enmeshment. European powers also faced the mounting administrative and military costs of maintaining colonial control over populations increasingly willing to resist them. Decolonization transformed the international system. In 1955, several of these countries grouped together in the Non Aligned Movement in an attempt to band together for greater international influence while avoiding the spheres of influence of either major world power: birth of the concept of " Third World ' (Alfred Sauvy: French anthropologist). The idea of a ‘third world’ as a prize to be captured by democracy or communism was an artifact of the Cold War. When the Cold War ended, the international system became more meaningfully a global one. We live today in a global system of states and non-state actors. That system is characterized by both conflict and cooperation, and the perennial problems of conflict management and the maintenance of international order remain with us. Several features of the international order that has evolved over the past three decades stand out: the return of great- power politics, the challenge of globalization and the rise and decline of international terrorism. A distinctive feature of the contemporary international order is globalization, the process by which national economies have become more closely integrated regionally and globally. Today goods, services, technology, money and ideas move more rapidly across borders than ever before. Much of the political backlash against globalization has been associated with populism, or political movements that promise to support the rights and interests of common people as opposed to the interests of a privileged elite. From the populist perspective, globalization has enabled the rich to get richer while poor and working-class groups in industrial societies have experienced job losses or stagnant wages due to competition from countries in which wages and living standards are lower. Political Realism: The Melian Dialgaue Political realist do not think that ideology plays a role in war. The Peloponnesian war is important, also to understand international politics today. 5th century bc. The book doesn't tell the entire story of the war. Sparta wins, but then Sparta didn’t rule for a long time after than, it didn’t last long. Thucydides says that the causes of the conflict were 3: glory, trade and fear (the growth of Athens created fear in Sparta, who had to stop that growth, it would have been threatening for Sparta → you strike first in order to have an advantage, the only change to win for you is to go first or it will be too late because the other has become too powerful). Athens was divided in tribes. Athens was a democracy. We can see critcism in Thucydides. The Melian, Dialogue
- Almost a sophistic dialogue (but here sophism means that there are actually two truth, dialogue between utility and morality). In the book you don't find a precise theory, but you find lot of principles, they don't form a theory but they give you a certain kind of understanding international politics. It is a dialogue between the Athenian and the Melian ambassadors. The dialogue is part of Thucydides' book “The Peloponnesian War”. The book is neither a work of political philosophy nor a sustained theory of international relations.
- The Peloponnesian war (the book): the story of the war is not concluded: the narrative is interrupted in the 21st of the 27 years of the war (420 BC). The work ends with a sacrifice by a Persian satrap to Artemis: this is not the conclusion of anything: the tale remains suspended. There are, however, the Hellenica of Xenophon (some 20 years younger than Thucydides): Xenophon's book ends the narrative of the war.
- Thucydides , who was Thucydides? Little is known of his life. The most accurate information are those autobiographical provided by Thucydides himself. He was an Athenian politician and then general who lost the city of Amphipolis, Thrace, in 424 BC, and, then, he was exiled. Thus, he was a man with concrete practice of politics and warfare.
- History of the Peloponnesian War: Thucydides is considered the first true historian, since in his History of the Peloponnesian War there are no divinities, no poetry, no magic (like there are, e.g., in Homer’s Odissey). Thucydides was not a theorist in any sense of the term, but his History is not a mere chronological of events: there is the attempt to uncover recurrent patterns in human behavior. Peloponnesian War, 431 - 404 B.C. Alliances: •Athens led the Delian League •Sparta led the Peloponnesian League
Historical context: Persian War •490 AC Marathon •480 AC Thermopylae •480 AC Salamis •479AC Plataea Causes of war Fear, glory, gain. But Thucydides underlines how it is the growth of Athens and the fear of Sparta to be subjugated that is the main cause of the war: GROWTH > FEAR > WAR Here you find the four most important battles of the Persia war When Persia tries to invade Greece, the Greek form an alliance against Persia, it was successful in stopping the Persia's invasion. The story of the cooperation between Greek against an external power. During the WWII, you see very different state that join a common alliance, and they fight together because they have a common threat, but when the enemy is defeated, you have the cold war, a security competition. Also here we have the same thing: we have cooperation against the common enemy, when it is defeated you have conflict. The implications are that the conflict is inevitable, there may be stability for a few years but then there will be again conflict; at some point, there will be conflict again; this is the vision of politics supported by realistic. Melian, Dialogue, Book V 84- 116 Historical situation: 416 BC Athens is at full power. Melos was a colony of Sparta, but up to that point it had declared its neutrality (this is what we understand from the Dialogue, but the reality was different: Melos was used to pay a tribute to Athensand at some point stopped to pay. In this sense Athen’s intervention is a sort of ‘punitive expedition’). Dialogue between the Athenians and the Melians: the story of an imperial repression, one of many, but important because there is precisely the Dialogue. Thucydides depicts the invasion of Athens as an invasion of a neutral state. Lettura di Melian, Dialogue (analisi) The Athenians says that this is unfair not to them but to the people, because they would be persuaded; they don't want their people to be involved, they want to negotiate like in secret. The Athenians says them they do not let them speak in front of their people, because they have fear that they will be persuaded. "Then we on our side will use no fine phrases saying, for example, that we have a right to our empire because we defeated the Persians, or that we have come against you now because of the injuries you have done us, a great mass of words that nobody would believe. And we ask you on your side not to imagine that you will influence us by saying that you, though a colony of Sparta, have not joined Sparta in the war, or that you have never done us any harm" The Athenians are not going to use fine words, usually state pretend to do what they do to some false reason to justify themselves, instead the Athenians are not going to use these rhetorical devices. "Instead we recommend that you should try to get what it is possible for you to get, taking into consideration what we both really do think; since you know as well as we do that, when these matters are discussed by practical people, the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept." The standard of justice depends on the equality of power. The possibility of have justice depends on the distribution of power, it can be justice only between state with the same distribution of power. International law works if there is a balance of power. "Meligns: Then in our view (since you force us to leave justice out of account and to confine ourselves to self-interest) in our view it is at any rate useful that you should not destroy a principle that is to the general good of all men - namely, that in the case of all who fall into danger there should be such a thing as fair play and just dealing, and that such people should be allowed to use and to profit by arguments that fail short of a mathematical accuracy. And this is a principle which affects you as much as anybody, since your own fall would be visited by the most terrible vengeance and would be an example to the world." Athens is going to be defeated, sort of prediction. They say that everyone has an interest in respecting law and justice. They say that they are not interested in the distant future. The Athenians suggest that power rest on material resources, but also on what the other people think about you → theory of power. The subjugation of a very weak state. When you are powerful you need to use your power brutally, to give a sign to the others. The Melians say that in this way every one is going to be enemy. The idea is that the Athenians must reduce the uncertainty existing in the international system, everyone must know that the Athenian are going to behave brutal → you don't know what other people will do, so do reduce the uncertainty you can subicate all the neutrals if Athenians act brutal here, they can reduce uncertainty. At that time benesis important, but Athenians say that at that moment is better saving your life than preserve your. "Yet we know that in war fortune sometimes makes the odds more level than could be expected from the difference in numbers of the two sides. And if we surrender, then all our hope is lost at once, whereas, so long as we remain in action, there is still a hope that we may yet stand upright." War is about also change and luck, and sometimes a big power can be defeated from a small one (Russia vs Ukraine, Vietnam, Afghanistan → fortune in politics (like Machiavelli wrote). It depends on a single decision to take in that moment. "Athenians: So far as the favour of the gods is concerned, we think we have as much right to that as you have. Our aims and our actions are perfectly consistent with the beliefs men hold about the gods and with the principles which govern their own conduct. Our opinion of the gods and our knowledge of men lead us to conclude that it is a general and necessary law of nature to rule whatever one can. This is not a law that we made
8 main features of classical realism:
- Detached, clinical search for truth
- Pessimistic view of human nature
- Repetetiviness of history
- Irrelevance of legal and ethical considerations (in anarchy)
- Notions of justice and law play a significant role only in 2 (opposite) cases
- The problem of anarchy
- National interest
- Importance of the balance of power: there must be a policy, the "balance?" Carr: he wrote “The twenty years' crisis” Realism: origin of the name Given the distinction between how the political world works and how we would like it to work, Machiavelli advised statesmen not to ask whether what exists is morally right or wrong, but rather to understand how politics functions and to act according to its rules. Realism happens to have been named after the distinction between the ‘ideal’ and the ‘feasible’ (i.e., the real), and differs from utopian/normative approaches because these aim to build a reality. The importance is how it works, even if it is terrible; not the idea of what it is morally good. Realism has a critical target: they criticize the utopians , because they want to build the world, but it is impossible to build it. Detached, clinical search for truth It’s the aim of Thucydides’ writing to report human events as they actually occurred without any moral judgment: “the results…will perhaps seems the less enjoyable for listening. Yet if they are judged useful by any who wish to look at the plain truth about both pastevents and those that at some future time, in accordance with human nature, will recur in similaror comparable ways, that will suffice”. He doesn't want to write a pleasant story, he just wants to say how policy works. He says that this page is a possession of all times (repetitiveness). As Machiavelli puts it in the Prince: ‘since my intent is to write something useful to whoever understands it, it has appeared to me more fitting to go directly to the effectual truth of the thingthan to the imagination of it’ (Prince, ch. XV). Useful to the reader. Plain truth, how policy effectively works, not how policy should work. Pessimistic view of human nature According to realists, the first thing to acknowledge is that human beings are greedy, evil individuals dominated by an overwhelming desire for power, wealth, and glory who cannot trust and are afraid of one another. On this point, Thucydides writes that human beings are ‘always ready to act unjustly even in violation of laws’; Machiavelli describes individuals as ‘wicked’ and ‘bad’; Hobbes depicts ‘the nature of man’ as principally moved by competition. The dark/negative of human nature. Human beings are evil, they are motivated by glory and power (la lussuria del petere), they would do anything to have glory and money. Contemporary realistic don't believe to it because they are not like proved → Machiavelli says that not everyone is evil, but you cannot test human people because the war can start even if there is a minority of evil people. Repetitiveness of history A single event or unique series of events presents a general character from which the eternal laws governing politics can be inferred but not altered. Realists deny the possibility of transcending power politics and conflict : as long as there are states there will be war. Irrelevance of ethical considerations The corollary of such a vision of politics is the relative irrelevance of international law and ethical considerations in the conduct of political affairs, which should be guided by a careful determination of ends and means, and not by noble sentiments. Legalism and moralism are the big enemies of realism. You might have periods of peace but at some point there will be war, so states live in the shadow of war. If humans try to behave in an ethical manner, they are going to be removed at some time; suggest policy makers not to behave according to the principles of the ethics of his time (christian etics) but instead to the principles of politics - > this is why he thinks that the idea of policy makers combines the lion of the fox (intelligent and smart). Lion: strong animal; represent strenght; he keeps the wolves distant. Legalism and moralism are the biggest enemies of realism: realists are not cinical, but they think that if you try to use justice you are going to ruin yourself and your state; legalism when it works, can make situations even worse. Notions of justice and law play a role only in two opposites cases a) When there is a symmetry of power, namely in a situation of balance of power b) When there is a clear situation of hierarchy, in which all the parts of a society live under a monopoly of organized violence These are the two opposites situation where law can play an effective power. Balance of power In the words of the Athenian envoys in Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue ‘in human considerations justice is what is decided when equal forces are opposed, while possibilities are what superiors impose and the weak acquiesce to’. Hierarchy As Hobbes puts it in the Leviathan, 'The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice' have no place in anarchy: Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice'. However, thanks to the concentration of material power, which eliminates the state of nature, the Leviathan creates political order and shared notions of justice. International anarchy
The Leviathan, however, cannot completely eradicate the state of nature, but it confines anarchy within politics among states, since law in the international arena is not sustained by an adequate aggregation of material power. In such a condition of anarchy and competition, states must worry about their security and survival. National Interest According to realists, in a realm of sovereign nations, which lacks any superior arbiters, states' foreign policy is driven by the pursuit of the national interest, regardless of moral values and ideological principles. Moreover, since power is a crucial instrument for achieving a variety of political goals, from survival to supremacy, international politics amounts to a recurring struggle for power. Balance of power The balance of power, intended as a policy aimed at creating an approximately equal distribution of power at the international level , is the most important foreign policy instrument for states living in anarchy. The balance of power is a strategy that states employ to protect themselves in a world of anarchy and danger. Faced with rising power and threats from other states, a state can attempt to protect itself by generating countervailing power. A companion proposition to the balance of power is that states will respond to threatening situations by forming alliances, coalitions of states formed for mutual protection. Alliances are the main form of cooperation among states. They are temporary associations that pool military power to guard against or deter a common foe. Deterrence, or the use of power resources to discourage an adversary from taking aggressive action, is for realists an important mechanism for keeping the peace in an anarchical setting. The fact that states exist in anarchy means they can never be sure of each other’s intentions. In particular, when a state threatens to become hegemonic, other great powers should respond by either creating a counter- balancing coalition or by increasing their military might. Thus, diplomatic arrangements and military alliances should not be guided by cultural identifications or principles of justice, but rather by the interest of maintaining the balance among states. The balance of power is not meant primarily to prevent wars, but rather to maintain the autonomy of states. Morgenthau: 'If the goal were stability alone, it could be achieved by allowing one element to destroy or overwhelm the others and take their place. Since the goal is stability plus the preservation of all elements of the system, the equilibrium must aim at preventing any element from gaining ascendancy over the others'. Historical examples Britain: British foreign policy in Europe is a classical example of balancing. For almost four centuries Great Britain opposed the hegemonic designs posed by Philip II of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, William II, and Hitler, respectively. In all these instances Britain decided to ally with the weaker side against the hegemonic aspirations of a continental power, a policy driven not by noble sentiments but rather by security concerns and the British national interest. In doing so, Britain acted as "the holder" and guardian of the European balance of power. Summing up The realist school can be said to depict human beings as dangerous individuals who resort to violence in order to get what they need or aspire to, and who live in a state of nature as a condition of insecurity and potential conflict. The state creates domestic order through the monopoly of violence, but it cannot eradicate anarchy completely, which is confined to the international sphere. In these political conditions, states are driven to pursue their own national interest, and to act according to the principle of the balance of power. From Classical Realism to Neorealism Main neorealist theorist: Kenneth Waltz What's neorealism in comparison to classical realism? o From political thought to scientific theory o From reductionist thought to systemic/structural theory o A theory of the balance of power modeled on microeconomic theory Central concept: Anarchy According to Waltz, classical realists postulated the repetitiveness of history on the basis of the immutability of human nature. Waltz finds instead in anarchy the constant and specific element of the environment in which interstate relations take place. His analysis starts from the anarchic structure of the environment in which states live to construct a theory of international politics. Systemic/Structural Theory The need for a systemic approach stems from a simple consideration. "Each state arrives at its political decisions through internal processes, but these decisions are influenced by the presence of and interaction with other states." Hence the need for a systemic approach that suggests, in the famous expression coined by Émile Durkheim and taken up by Waltz, that 'sociology is not reducible to psychology'. International System as a market The international system is formed by two elements: a structure and a variety of interacting units (at least two). The international system, in particular, is generated by the interactions of its political units (states), just as markets are spontaneously generated by the activity of economic units (firms). Units' (states) objectives
It smells like a colonial war and we are not going to help you against the soviets, they financiated the soviets in order to stop the British-french invasion, and they stopped the war. This example speaks of the absence of chainganging: because they were not interested in losing their allies; example of why in allies are not so important in this type of system. Suez Crisis 1956: the United States could dissociate itself from the Suez adventure of its two principal allies and subject one of them to heavy financial pressure. Opposing Britain and France endangered neither the United States nor the alliance because the security of Britain and France depended much more heavily on the US than American security depended on them. In bipolar systems there is
- rigidity of alignment
- flexibility of policy Buckpassing
- When states defer responsibility to deal with a threat , i.e., they do not balance against the threat...
- Appeal: because if conflict breaks out, the buckpasser may sit safely on the bench
- However, buckpassing is risky, because the eventual balancer may be defeated and leave the buckpasser alone to confront the aggressor They don’t address the threat. Buckpassing is bad because there is no one challenging the emerging treath; it is something that allow the aggressor to become more and more powerful; this is typical of a multipolar system (like Germany before WW2 as the aggressor; no one addressed the nazi threat, France and UK are backpassing). Instead in a bipolar system one of the two has to balance; there is a higher degree of uncertainty. Buckpassing and polarity Bipolar systems: buck-passing is precluded because no third power exists to confront the threat. Multipolar systems: buckpassing is more likely because each power can be confident that aggression can be checked by another great power. Example: Europe in the 1930s European states "passed the buck" on the Nazi threat. Who was the threat? Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? Who should balance? "Uncertainties about who threatens whom, about who will oppose whom, and about who will gain or lose from the actions of other states accelerate as the number of states increases" (Waltz, 1979, 165). War according to neorealism
- States in an anarchic order must provide for their own security
- Relations remain tense
- Actors are usually suspicious and often hostile even though there are not aggressive powers Neorealism How neorealism explain war? Neorealism can only provide a theory in international system, and can’t explain the singular and particular cases. How can you explain war on the basis of anarchy? The recurrence of war on the basis of the constant “anarchy”. Anarchy is the explanation of war: it means that states need to provide to their own security; so a state should arm itself. Maybe one has no weapons, but maybe because he wants to attack you, so you arm yourself, so it starts the process, everyone is going to arm itself; so from the situation in which nobody had arms, then all have them; there is a cycle, and this dynamic is called “the security dilemma”, spiral of mistrust. Security Dilemma In an anarchic domain, the source of one's security is the source of another's insecurity. For example, a state that is amassing weapons (rearmament), even for its own defense, is perceived by others as a threat requiring response. The response itself then serves to confirm the first state's belief that it had reason to worry. Likewise, a defensive alliance implies an opposing alliance and provokes countermeasures. It explains conflicts that should not happen. As long as there is anarchy in Europe, there will be war; the only way to avoid it is to create as European state; Ventotene. Implicationof the Security Dilemma:
- War may occur even if there is not real conflict among states, even if all states seek only to ensure their own security
- Although neorealist theory does not explain why particular wars occur, it does explain war's recurrence through the centuries
- In an anarchic domain, peace is fragile If each state possessed a military capability capable of causing total damage to the enemy, could the security dilemma be solved? Basically a 1000 atomic warheads would destroy every country. Risk = something that is not certain, there is a situation of uncertainty. Final system is a field where there isn’t probability, you make calculation. The security dilemma could be solved but you need specific element, to make sure that it disappeared. Nuclear deterrence
Deterrence is the effort of one actor to persuade another to refrain from a certain action by convincing the opponent that the costs will outweigh the gains of the action. Necessary element of nuclear deterrence: ability of nuclear weapons to survive the first strike: this is the so-called "second- strike capability". You might have some deterrence but is not enough. If Russia is able to absorbe the strike, it makes nuclear deterrence very strong. Balance of terror Second strike capability, ability, after being struck by a nuclear attack, to strike back with nuclear weapons and cause massive damage to the enemy. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) possession of a capacity for "second strike capability" means that one can always inflict unacceptable harm. The Canadian diplomat/MFA/prime minister Lester Pearson said: “the balance of terror has succeed the balance of power” (1955). The spread of nuclear weapons: they are good, and deterrence works (controversial theory). Inflict huge pain to the enemy. Liberalism and international relations Political concept are polemical, we have to find the aim. Individual, protect it from the rule of tyrants. Individual different from human being: there will always be human being but not individual, it is a political subject, individual should be before the law (same duties and rights). Before this modern inventions there were no individuals. War and conflict have been pervasive features of international relations. But so too has been the tendency of states to trade, settle disputes and build cooperative relationships. The liberal tradition offers a variety of ideas about how and why such cooperation takes place in the global system. The old enemy of liberalism Feudalism as a society of orders in which individuals do not exist as such but as members of religious orders, guilds, villages, towns, families, etc. ... from which derive particular rights and unequal obligations. People were got individuals qua individuals. Liberalism, some principles and implications:
- Legal equality of citizens and fundamental rights and liberties (security, property, freedom of religion and press)
- Rule of law: it is the law that determines rights, duties, freedoms and their limitations
- Power must be separated, because when concentrated it becomes tyrannical Liberal view of war Killing peaople and destroy things, human and economic resources. Conscription was not invented by French Revolution (there was also in Britain).
- It's irrational: economic resources are wasted and human lives are sacrificed unnecessarily
- War doesn't pay, or rather only pays a few individuals and groups: the arms manufacturers, those in power (sometimes!), the military class, etc...
- Goal: abolition of war, or at least reduction of wars Different view from realist: they think that is not possible to eliminate the war. Liberal conscience Several types of liberalisms:
- M. Howard prefers to speak of liberal conscience, i.e, the attitude that the world we live in should change and can change
- It's a view that develops against determinism and conservative thought according to which reality is not susceptible to voluntary change by individuals or where everything should remain as it is (there is no option) Greatest critic of French Revolution is Burke. Causes of war for classical liberalism
- Mercantilism (trade barriers, tariffs)
- Warrior cast in power : aristocracy
- Armaments , as long as there are lot of armaments there will be war
- Secret diplomacy , as long as people are unaware they do not know that’s happening
- Absolutist states , they are bad because the ruler has private interest that are different from those of the people Solutions Reflect the analysis of the causes:
- 'Doux commerce': Peace encourages commerce and trade, "softening" customs, nourishes peace (Montesquieu, J-S Mill, N. Angell)
- The bourgeoisie in power rather than the warrior class (Emeric Crucé [French monk], Nouveau Cynée, 1623), they are interested in trading and making money, interested in new market, not in war
- Disarmament (Bentham, Plan for a Universal and Perpetual Peace, 1789)
- Open Diplomacy (Bentham), rather than segret diplomacy, so that everything is clear to people and they exercise a big power
- Self-determination (G. Mazzini), implies violence at the beginning but there will be stability in long times
The Polity scheme examines concomitant qualities of democratic and autocratic authority in governing institutions, rather than discreet and mutually exclusive forms of governance. This perspective envisions a spectrum of governing authority that spans from fully institutionalized autocracies through mixed authority regimes ("anocracies") to fully institutionalized democracies. The "Polity Score" captures this regime authority spectrum on a 21-pont scale ranging from - 10 (hereditary monarchy) to +10 (consolidated democracy). The Polity scores can also be converted into regime categories in a suggested three part categorization of "autocracies" (-10 to - 6), "anocracies" (-5 to +5), and "democracies" (+6 to +10). Freedom House : Data Freedom house is used by several researches about global freedom. It doesn’t show a very good map of freedom: only 20% of people are actually free. 18 consecutive years of decline in global freedom. Political rights and civil liberties have diminished in 52 countries, while only 21 countries made improvements. Today, some 38 percent of the global population live in Not Free countries, the highest proportion since 1997. What is to be done? 2 options
- Keeping the separate peace : example for the world (extension of John Quincy Adams' doctrine: «Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [United States] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy», 1821).
- Universal peace : democracy promotion or exporting democracy abroad? However, exporting democracy through force rarely worked, with the exceptions of Italy, West Germany, and Japan after WWII, Panama (1989), and Grenada (1983). EU enlargement as democracy promotion Success:
- Stabilization of Southern (Greece 1981, Spain and Portugal 1986) and Eastern Europe (2004 and 2007)
- Contributed to democratic transition and market economy Realist are mostly critical and against of exporting democracy. Democratization and war Mansfield and Snyder point out that democratic peace only works between stable democracies. «Democratizing» regimes, instead, fight a lot (even more than autocracies). The lack of consolidation of democratic legitimacy and the erosion of traditional legitimacy can lead the élites to’ the use ultra-nazionalist rhetoric and platforms. Those 2 people (Mansfield and Snyder) found out that democratizing states are more likely to authoritarian regimes and are more likely to use violence. The explanation is that the democratizing stats usually implies ultra-nationalist rhetoric. Commercial liberalism The more indipendent is a state, the more likely is the state to be peaceful. Several theses: at least two
- Classic thesis : economic interdependence generates interests in peace, so interdependence increases the probability of peace regardless of the political regime of the states. However empirical problems: the people who believe in commercial liberalism respond to critics by saying that world trade has changed completely and also now there is not just interdependence but also so much interactions between the states
- Complex interdipendence : power and independence (1977) by Keohane and Nye. Not only independence between states, but also the presence of transnational actors such as NGOs and multinationals with interests in stable financial and commercial flows. Moreover, states are not unitary actors, but entities composed of influential actors with their own agendas and interests Index
- Cooperation
- Game theory and cooperation without international institutions
- Role and functions of international institutions Cooperation versus Harmony Pure conflict: if international politics were a zero sum game there would be no cooperation.
- Harmony : even if there were harmony, there would be no need for cooperation
- Cooperation requires common but not perfectly harmonic interests: "mixed-motive situation". That is, there is cooperation when there conflict and this can be overcome Distinction between harmony and cooperation: if you are in a condition of harmony you don't need cooperation because in that condition you do whatever you want; you need to cooperate when you are in a situation of not. If there is pure conflict, cooperation would be good but it's impossible, zero sum game is when you gain 10 and the other lose 10, there the cooperation is impossible. Game theory Particularly useful to study situations in which there are interests in common and in conflict: games with "sum” different from zero. Assumption: rational actors MAXimize their profits (pay off).
The final result depends on the interaction between the decisions of the actors. Three elements describe a game
- Players The decision makers in the game 2,3, … N players
- Strategies : a player's choice in a game In simple games, they are the same as actions
- Payoffs The utility of both the money earned in the game plus any other things the player cares about The player's goal is to obtain the largest possible payoff A key concept Nash Equilibrium : a situation in which, given the choice of the other actor, the player has no interest in changing the decision. If there is a Nash Equilibrium, then the game ends: it's the final outcome of the interaction. Chicken game Worst situazione - 10;-10, they both lose, none swerve
- 1;1 1;- 1 - > no interest in playoff, because the other player will get more Prisoner' Dilemma The game: two criminals are arrested for a crime. DA puts them in separate rooms and offers each the same deal Each prisoner is told the following:
- We have arrested you and another person for committing this crime together
- If you both confess, we will reward your assistance to us, by sentencing you to 5 years in prison
- If you confess, and the other person does not, we will show our appreciation to you by letting you go. We will then use your testimony to put the other person in prison for 15 years
- If you both don't confess, we will put you in prison for 1 year
if we think of a singol player the favorite target is 0 (my defection and the other don’t confess). 2° option both cooperation. Worst option don’t confess and the other do The is a interest in cooperating, better outcome. Best solution for both 5; There is no communication between the two prisoners. You have to trust the other but the other has no interest in cooperating. Trust is excluded from the logic of the game. No cooperation also if there is a better outcome. Prisoner’s Dilemma Confess is the dominant strategy. It is the best response to any of the other player’s strategies. Pareto inefficient mutual noncooperation is the single-shot equilibrium. PD explains in a rational manner why there is no cooperation though both actors would gain from cooperation. PD explains why two rational actors do not cooperate even if they would benefit from cooperating. One-Shot versus repeated Games PD leads to mutual defection if it is played once (or a finite and known number of times). In a famous experiment, the winning strategy was a trigger strategy: reiteration and reciprocity. Trigger strategy in PD: initially play Don't Confess. If your opponent plays Confess, then play Confess in the next round. If your opponent plays Don't Confess, then play Don't Confess in the next round. This is known as the "tit for tat" strategy. If you cooperate 10 times you know that there will be a defection. Shadow of the future With an indefinite repetition, the cost of each cheating is diluted, while the opportunity cost of failed cooperation increases. The actors cooperate today so as not to compromise the possibility of cooperation in the future. The "shadow of the future" develops trust. Implication: the most important question is to understand if there will be and end. Implication of repeated games, advise: if you plan to pursue an aggressive strategy, ask yourself whether you are in a one- shot or in a repeated game. If a repeated game, think again. It’s not a logical game, it’s a behaviour game. International politics example where we can see this logical. Understand if a state find himself in a one-shot game or repeated game. The other one might not respect the agreement and cheat, a state can change his position: - Security area, if you cheated you might disappeared or have home costs (one shot game) A way to explain war. Price of being cheated. Axelrod and Keohane (1985) on Cooperation without Institutions - Reiteration: the long shadow of the future
Ex. GATT: at each round, the procedures already created were used without the need to develop new ones (even in case of failure). Future expectations : States know that failure to comply now may lead to retaliation by others playing tit-for-tat. Reputation: being easily discovered, it is difficult to participate in forms of cooperation in the future or in other areas (issue- linkage). And viceversa: just as banks check your credit rating, international institutions check the reputations of states. States involved in iterated interactions worry about reputation, as it affects opportunities for future cooperation. If you misbehave, in future you will be not trust again. Summary of the role of institutions Thanks to international institutions:
- cheaters will be caught
- they will be punished rapidly
- in turn, this information and punishment will jeopardize cheaters’ future possibility of cooperating Realist Critique States are not "rational egoists" who maximize "absolute gains" but "defensive positionalists" who maximize "relative gains" and try to maintain their position in the international system (J. Grieco). They are interested in maximising relative gains. Absolute gain = my profit Relative gain = the difference between my gain and other state The loss of absolute gains is rational if this avoids strengthening the counterpart, who could aggressively use its increased capabilities. The question is not "will I gain?" or "will we both gain?" but "who will gain more?". Relative gains The basic predicament of states operating in a world of anarchy leads realists to another important proposition: states care deeply about relative gains or relative position. The stronger a state is, the more likely it is to realize its goals and guard itself against enemies. States are interested in two types of gains :
- Absolute gains (V), in which the neoliberals are concerned
- Relative gains W-V (where W is the gain by the other state), in which realists are concerned Realist Utility Function : in mathematical terms, the utility function that states are interested in is U = V- k (W-V) Where k represents the coefficient of sensitivity to the relative gains. Thus, the possibility of cooperating largely depends on the factors that influence K. K is not important at all when is 0, utility function is equal to absolute gain. If I you that the other gain more than me, K is negative. When cooperation is likely to occur, factors that reduce K:
- economic affairs instead of security (Lipson)
- no immediate threats (Powell)
- allies instead of enemies (Gowa) Constructivism Role of ideas and the ways in which ‘what people believe’ shapes what individuals, groups and states do. This constructivist perspective comes in several varieties, but it is unified by the view that ideas and beliefs matter in how actors define and pursue their interests. People do not simply act on self-evident interests or operate in a realist world of anarchy. International relations, according to constructivists, are ‘socially constructed’. What people think and believe matters regarding how they act in the world. While constructivism as a tradition in international relations is relatively new, the notion that ideas matter is an old notion reflected in a broader philosophical tradition known as idealism. Central concept: social construction, society can change. Social construction/social fact: meaning that you provide to a brute fact. Social construction
- Distinction between brute facts and social/institutional facts
- Brute facts like mountains, rivers, or weapons are not socially constructed and exist independently from human institutions, they exist independently from what we think. Physical reality doesn’t change
- Social/institutional facts are tacit and shared agreements on the meaning of brute facts. They need human practices to exist and produce their effects The importance of ideas
- For social constructions to exist, at least some people need to think in the same way
- Especially important are those ideas that are taken for granted: these ideas are «naturalized»; they do not need to be discussed, taken for granted. There could be question in the future about them
- Social constructions often appear as given, unalterable, and self-evident Examples
- Water vs holy water: there is no difference between them from a chemical viewpoint. But some people think and value it very differently (even if you are thirsty) Interestingly, an ape cannot distinguish between water and holy water.
- A cow is a cow in Italy and India, but cows are holy animals in India. In Italy, they are kept to produce milk and butchered. In India, cow is a holy animal (for some) ➔ There might be social consequence if you don’t respect this
- Ex. Sex vs gender: sex is a biological fact, gender is a personal state (social construction).
Simone de Beauvoir: "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" (The Second Sex). Distinction between sex and gender:
- Gender is an identity that one gradually acquires
- Implication: anatomy is not destiny (J. Butler, 1986) Implications Observable differences between societies in terms of what is taken for granted as "reality", but also in terms of what it is good, bad, and appropriate behaviour. Observable differences within the same society throughout history: "historicity of social reality". Meanings are not fixed but can change over space and time depending on societies' ideas and beliefs. From a specific social construction you have a specific meaning. Also a difference between society; meaning are not fixed and can change, over space and time Constructivism: core principles
- We live in a world filled with social constructions
- The reality of everyday life is often taken for granted as reality
- The world of everyday life is not only taken for granted as reality, but it is a world that originates in thoughts of people and actions, and is maintained as real by these
- Reality is «always» under construction, which opens the prospect for change The strongest social constructions are those who are taken for granted. They are maintained through people action, through people natural behavior, those actions maintain those social construction: Rosa Parks refused the social construction where she lived; it is about actions; this implies that there are possibility of change, but it is difficult. Constructivism in IR Constructivism's arrival in IR is often associated with the end of the Cold War, though the first constructivist works can be dated to the early 1980s. But before delving into the end of the Cold War, let's go back in history. Gramsci 1917: The Revolution against 'Capital'
- when Gramsci speaks about hegemony he speaks in cultural terms
- he is a Marxist and an Italian communist
- he wanted to solve a specific political problem: what is to be done in Italy to establish a communist state
- he sees the belscevis revolution but said that the Italian communist couldn't do it, the Italian communists couldn't follow the path of the belscevists in Russia (they cut the head of the Russian state): here there was nothing because the head of the state and the citizens, but in Italy there is something between the people and the state, there were the catholic church that controlled many Italians in Italy, you had to become culturally hegemonic; because the revolution, they had to make a political and social policy. This is why he develops the idea of organic intellectual
- the Italian situation is different from the one of Russia
- concept of hegemony based not on the concentration of the material power, but it is based on the ideas "The Bolshevik revolution is based more on ideology than actual events. It's a revolution against Karl Marx's Capital. Events overcame ideology. Events have blown out of the water all critical notions which stated Russia would have to develop according to the laws of historical materialism. The Bolsheviks renounce Karl Marx and they assert, through their clear statement of action, through what they have achieved, that the laws of historical materialism are not as set in stone, as one may think, or one may have thought previously". - > he says that this is a revolution against Marx. Marx thought that the revolution needed the development of capitalism and industrialism, instead in Russia there it wasn't, so Russia wasn't the place to make the revolution. Historical materialism is Marxism. "Yet, (.) if the Bolsheviks reject some of that which is affirmed in Capital, they do not reject its inherent, invigorating idea. They are not 'Marxists', that's what it comes down to: they have not used the Master's works to draw up a superficial interpretation, dictatorial statements which cannot be disputed. They live out Marxist thought, the one which will never die; the continuation of idealist Italian and German thought, and that in Marx had been corrupted by the emptiness of positivism and naturalism. In this kind of thinking the main determinant of history is not lifeless economics, but man; societies made up of men, men who have something in common, who get along together, and because of this (civility) they develop a collective social will". - > Marx ideas were produced by positivism and naturalism: it is something strong because actually Marx was against positivism (he called it like "shitty positivism"). Naturalism: society should be studied as natural sciences studied in nature, you end with theories based on natural laws. He thinks that Marxism is an example of naturalism and positivism. 1917 ▪ 1917 - October Revolution ▪ On November 24, 1917, the Italian philosopher and member of the Italian Socialist Party Antonio Gramsci published an article on l’Avanti with the title: ▪ “La Rivoluzione contro Il Capitale” Gramsci on the Russian Revolution
- ‘Events have blown out of the water all critical notions which stated Russia would have to develop according to the laws of historical materialism’
- ‘They live out Marxist thought, the one which will never die; the continuation of idealist Italian and German thought, and that in Marx had been corrupted by the emptiness of positivism and naturalism. In this kind of thinking the main determinant of history is not lifeless economics, but man Gramsci on politics and the social world
