Scarica International Relations (modulo 1) e più Appunti in PDF di Relazioni Internazionali solo su Docsity!
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.
Lorenzo Zambernardi. INTRODUCTION. International relations refer to a reality and to the discipline that studies it → it may appear historically omnipresent
- international relations can be considered those relation between the great kingdoms of the ancients Est, between Greek city-states, between Rome and Carthage, etc. As academic discipline , IR was born in 1919 , in the aftermath of WWI
- first university class in Wales Why → to study war academically and to prevent an other global war
- (it was the first total war → social and economic trasformation - also the domestic economy was transform into a war economy) What kind of (international) relations?
- political
- military
- economic
- social
- cultural
- legal Raymond Aron: IR “take place within the shadow of war”. This is the feature that distinguishes international relations from other domains. International Humanitarian Law is the law that 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 norms: → article 51, which permit the right of individual or collective self-defense → UN authorization , which takes place through chapter VII of the UN Charter in response to threats to peace and security
- Security Council → 15 members → 5 permanent members whit veto power Russian invasion of Ukraine The war is illegal but there are two main positions on the conflict
- it’s russia’s fault → On the one hand, most policymakers etc. think that russian invasion of ukraine is an unjustifiable act of aggression. Russia is the only responsable and it should be dealt with accordingly (“deve essere trattata di conseguenza”)
- it’s the west’s fault → On the other hand, there is a little minority of scholars and policymakers (ex. J.J. Mearsheimer) who blame the west - especially USA → because of Nato enlargement (geopolitical and military security explenation) UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. IR are concerned with political, economic, social and cultural relations between two countries or among many countries and populations → they can be traced back at least 2,500 years to the city-states of ancient greece
- but the nature of the relations among international actors have profoundly changed throughout history The importance of IR → they guide international trade, war and peace , among other important issues → they affect people everyday , not just people in government
- ex. iPhone is produced thanks to a global network of trade
- ex. the importance of borders which are one of the defining aspects of IR they define quality of state system → people can die everyday in the attempt to move across borders
- ex. the Iron Curtain/Berlin Wall separated the western and eastern part of Berlin - East Berliners tried to escape → the citizens of some countries have an easier time crossing borders than do the citizens of others During years there has been a positive trend in terms of war, wealth and life in general. There is a progress. But not of all the states, many fail. Different schools of international relations help us to understand the causes of conflict and cooperation
- REALISM → Machiavelli, Hobbes → is about the struggle for the power and security → realists tend to emphasize that states use their power to pursue interests within a context of anarchy (there is no centralized authority)
- LIBERALISM → Thatcher → liberals think that free trade and economic independence encourage peace and cooperation - economy brings political effects
- CONSTRUCTIVISM → social construction is a collective idea → idealism - use of provocation
1. THE INDIVIDUAL
This level of analysis locates the cause of foreign policy in individual leaders or the immediate circle of policymakers within a particular government (ex. decision to go to war, humanitarian intervention etc.) → It focuses on human actors in the world stage identifying the characteristics of human decision making
- EX. war in ukraine → Putin and his ambitions 2. THE STATE This level of analysis locates causes in the nature and character of the domestic system of specific countries : in its political regime or economy.
- EX: war in ukraine is caused by the illiberal nature of Russia 3. THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM This level of analysis explains international phenomena as resulting from the nature or structure of the international system at the period under study → It takes into account the position of states in the international system
- 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 EMERGENCE OF A GLOBAL SYSTEM OF STATES, 1500-TODAY States but also non-state actors play a significant role in international relations. Non-state actors include: - international institutions
- businesses - MNCs - multinational companies
- NGOs ( and IGOs: International Governmental Organizations) - Terrorist organizations Civil society → collection of non-state actors that operate outside the sphere of government or business control (ex. charities, volunteer organizations) STATE is THE PRIMARY ACTOR in the global system → The number of states has risen steadily since the end of WWII The STATE is the basic building block of international relations. In the 1990s, during the golden age of globalization, there was the idea of the irreversible crisis of the sovereign state. Today it look 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
Crucial elements of a State :
- territory (with well-defined borders )
- a population
- a political authority which enforces a common legal order → the political authority has the SOVEREIGNTY It 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 (members of the Chinese Nation are found in China, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia)
- similarly, States often contain more than one nation (ex. Kenya contain many ethnical groups) → 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 The nation is just an idea
- nationalism appeals to purported deep continuities with the past , which supposedly separated one’s own nation from time immemorial from other nations
- A sincere interest in the earlier history of one’s nation went hand in hand with historical misrepresentations and sometimes even outright forgeries. What’s the modern state? it’s about sovereignty , which has four different dimensions: → internal : supremacy over all other authorities within that territory and population. No other authority or group has a right to exercise force or maintein order within the territory of the state: “the state has the monopoly of the legitimate use of force”(M. Weber) → external : independence from external/foreign authorities. No authority exists to tell the state how to act and what to do. → Material : effective control of the territory (de facto sovereignty) → Legal : international recognition by other states (de jure sovereignty) 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 can have clear and continuous priority as wielders of force (“detentore”)
- Extraction : acquiring the means of carrying out these two activities 1500 → except for a nascent system of states in Europe, much of the eastern hemisphere consisted not of states, but of empires. Empire: a political entity that contains a substantial geographical space, often many different peoples, and over which a single powerful ruler governs. EX. China and Japan, the Ottoman Empire In Europe there were dynastic states (not the Italian case) → States ruled by ‘imperial dynasties’ or ‘dynastic families’
- The formation of the European state system was the unintended consequence of a succession of failed efforts over 300 years by powerful European leaders
→ this 2 elements allowed the moderation and limitation of conflit in europe jus ad bellum jus in bello 1648-1789 → from the Peace of Westphalia to the wars of revolutionary and Napoleonic France
- in reaction to French Revolution and Napoleonic wars , it was established the Concert of Europe (An agreement among the great powers, beginning in the early nineteenth century, to maintain order collectively within Europe .) 1815-1914 → from the Congress of Vienna to WWI The expansion of the system of states → From 1500 until 1900, European states competed for control over most of the rest of the world , including the Americas, Africa, and Asia. → The pursuit of global empire was driven largely by mercantilism - accoridng to the doctrine states should seek power (military power is the central goal of states), power is driven by wealth (“ricchezza”), and worldwide wealth is fixed. → Mercantilism led states to pursue imperialism, or the conquering of foreign lands to found colonies , areas over which they have political and economic control, so the conquering country can exploit the colonized lands and the peoples inhabiting them either through trade or by settling the conquered territories. After WWII → the final expansion of the system of states Decolonization : the achievement of independence by states formerly controlled by a colonial power
- it transformed the international system → 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. → 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’ The contemporary international order, 1989-present 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. Three features of the current international order stand out: **- the return of great-power politics
- the challenge of globalization
- the prevalence of international terrorism** Twofold enduring question: how did the interstate system come into being, and why is the maintenance of peace and order in that system a persistent problem?
- A sense of history is critical to any student seeking to understand the logic and dynamics of international politics.
MELIAN DIALOGUE.
→ it’a a dialogue between the Athenian ambassadors and the Melians → it’s a sort of Sophistic dialogue between utility and morality.
- sophists think that there are two truths , two different sides of the story → it is part of a book , “The history of the peloponnesian war”
- it’s an historical narrative, but not only a chronicle of events
- History gives us a perspective not only on countries’ behavior, but on the nature and evolution of the international system as a whole.
- an appreciation of the past may also reveal remarkable continuities in the practices of international relations alongside large scale changes THUCYDIDES is considered the first true historian → in his book there is no magic, myths and divine intervention (like in homer’s odissey) → he was not a theorist , but his history is not a mere chronicle of events: attempt to uncover recurrent patters in human behavior.
- he thinks human nature is unchangeable, so what he said is valid also for the future → He was a politician and at a certain point also a military commander → Born in the Athens that was a restricted democracy
- not a democracy like nowadays: women, slaves, foreigners couldn’t vote and most of the people didn’t care about the politics Accoding to some scholars Thucydides was the first REALIST THINKER and a POLITICAL SCIENTIST → he inspired thinkers and theorists, such as Hobbes and Machiavelli (political realism) → in his book he wrote about how IR works
- he was interested not just in reporting war
- but in understanding in general the problem of warfare He used the experience of the Greek city-states to ponder the ethical issue of whether “might makes right”, or whether the more powerful groups in human society have the right to govern the weaker
- He said “My work is not a piece of writing designed to meet the taste of an immediate public, but was done to last forever” PELOPONNESIAN WAR → it’s a conflict between two powerful Greek city-states, Athens and Sparta, and their respective allies → between 431-404 BC Alliances
- Athens led the Delian League
- politics based on reality
- usually policy makers don’t tell the truth, they conceal it (“nascondere”)
- The great powers usually justify their actions , sometimes they lie about the real reason
behind.
- Justice can play a role in IR when there is a balance of power between states.
Melians replied that also the strongest has to respect the principles, because
also the strongest can become weak and invited the Athenians to respect the
moderation
- if they treat Melians nicely that will be better for the future , because power is not forever
- Athenians are going to pay what they do to Melians
Melos appeal to the concept of neutrality
→ but the only states who have more power are in charge to declare neutrality
Athenians said:
“ one is not so much frightened of being conquered by a power which rules
over others, as Sparta does, as of what would happen if a ruling power were
attacked and defeated by its own subjects”
- They want to subjugate without destruction
- power is based on capabilities and what the subject think about itself
- The expedition is in order to discipline everyone and not Melos itself
→ Athens was interested on the little island to increase the security of his
empire
→ if one weaker power would attack Athens, then the other weaker
powers will follow. It would ruin the image and the power of Athens. The
whole empire can crumble. The weakest is the worst enemy, but if they
subjugate by themselves, it’s an example to the others
→ the goal is to give a lesson to other , the strategy is the same used by mafia,
terrorism : they don’t attack a big enemy, but a small one, an un-defensive one just to
send a message, show other what they are able to do.
(attack not to gain something strategical but for show the brutality of your power - is for disciplinate power)
- Athenians know that they are a brutal empire
Athenians want to improve their certainty, and being brutally they are increasing certainty
and decreasing uncertainty. Everyone must know what could happen if they don’t follow
the willingness of Athens
→ international politic problem is that you dont know what others want to do
“ If we were on friendly terms with you , our subjects would regard that as a sign
of weakness in us, where as if we are hatred is evidence of power ”
- Machiavelli, Il Principe: it’s better to be feared than to be loved
Melians suggested that they are creating more enemies by subjugating them and
disciplining them.
- They are talking the language of consequences
Athenians are not talking ethically :
“ Do not think about honor, because there is no balance of power in this fight .”
→ They have to be sensible and don’t think about the values
→ Melians are talking about honour, but Athenians don’t get it, because in these situations
the main thing is physical survival, and not honour, also Malians are not in a position to
talk about honour with Athens since they’re not at the same level
Melians: “war is a very complicated matter, and the end is not sure. Even the
weakest can defeat the strongest”
Examples of weak country that defeated powerful country:
- Ethiopian - Italian
- Vietnam - US
- Nationalists and Communists in China
- Taliban in Afghanistan
“it is a general and necessary law of nature to rule whatever one can, Thins is not a
law that we made ourselves, nor were we the first to act upon it when it was made.
We found it already in existence, and we shall leave it to exist for ever among those
who come after us”
Athenians said that there is a law of nature that suggests that the strong rules
whatever they can.
They said they didn’t make it, it has always existed
→ nomos vs physis
**- physis is a physical law, it cannot change
- nomos is made by man** and it can change
Athenians affirmed that it’s not their responsibility but they are just acting in
accordance with physis.
→ 3rd^ level system analysis: different people in the same situation will act in the same way.
“We are merely acting in accordance with it, and we know that you or anybody else with the same
power as ours would be acting precisely the same way.”
- Responsibility comes with some amount of freedom, but Athenians are
declining it saying that they are acting in a system, and they have no
choice but to act in that way.
- Moral doesn’t matter in this question , only law of nature matters here.
→ Sparta speaks in terms of justice (they use morality to hide their true interest
- hypocritical)
- as Callicles says in Plato’s Gorgias, moral principles are merely
mystifications of self-interest.
Ex.
- Russia VS Ukraine: Russia is not denying their real reasons, they’re acting as
the Athenians
- Melians are like Belgium in WW2 because they want to be neutral, but at the end of the
day the ones who decided were Athens/Germany: in fact Melo and Belgium were
attacked
→ neutrality is not a decision of the state - the great power decides
CONCLUSIONS
What we get from this dialogue: → Materialist vision of politic
- only considerations of power guide states on the international scene.
- Notions of justice do not apply to politics (if not risking destruction)
→ In politics there are only two alternatives: subjugate or be subjugated
→ the Melians lack are resources and foresight. In their decision to defence themselves, they are
guided more by their hopes than by the evidence at hand or by prudent calculations
It’s a Sophistic dialogue between utility and morality There’s another truth , a second interpretation → exercise power non arrogantly because otherwise you will be the victim of revenge should you lose power
- is better to exercise power with moderation, not in an arrogant way
→ Arrogance in the exercise of power leads to revenge , whereas prudence
has the potential to lead to just and fair treatment
CLASSICAL REALISM
→ According to the realist perspective, in a world of anarchy ( the absence of a higher authority - such as a world government), in which nation-states must provide their own security , competition and conflict are inevitable.
- Anarchy does not mean chaos; instead, states take measures of their own accord to protect themselves
- States achieve security or realize their interests to the extent of their power → In international politics, the resolution of conflicts between states will be shaped by the distribution of power between them
- As realists argue, in a world of anarchy the powerful prevail and the weak submit Classical authors: Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes
- Thucydides’ famous observation about the Greek conquest of Melios that ‘ the strong do what they wish while the weak suffer what they must’ 20th Century authors: E.H. Carr, Morgenthau, Waltz , Mearsheimer → struggle for security and power has been the recurring theme in relations among states → because of anarchy , states tend to be fearful of other states, and seek to increase their power to protect themselves and get what they want from the international system States are the main actors in IR.
- Other actors may flourish, but they are secondary. States are rational actors → they can perceive the prospective benefits and losses and can adjust their behavior when the costs of actions exceed their benefits. Security → the central problem of international politics (because of the reality of anarchy, war and violence)
- Foreign policy is first and foremost an exercise in national security
- States may want to spread their values and create open trading system, but, in the final analysis, states must worry about being exploited or attacked by other states. 7 main features:
- Detached (“distaccato”), clinical search for truth it is in the aim of thucydides’ writing to report human events as they actually occurred without any moral judgment Ex. Machiavelli in the Prince → he is the first political scientist - how politic works 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.
- Pessimistic view of human nature → Human beings are dangerous
- they are dominated by the desire for power, wealth and glory So, conflict is inevitable
- Repetitiveness of history → Eternal laws governing politics can be inferred by events but not altered → There is no progress - history is a cycle
- as long as there are states there will be war
EX. of balance of power: Britain → For more than three 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. 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, 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
IS THE DECLINE OF WAR A DELUSION? US, Canada, Europe, Australia are the most developed parts of the world. Development and peace are connected → in deveped states war, security dilemma, civil war disappear While in the undeveloped part of the world the possibility of war is higher. The “long peace” phenomenon → first longest peace between the great powers between 1815-1864 (for 39 years) → the second longest peace ever between the great powers took place between 1871- (for 43 years) → the third - from 1945 What is the cause → world war(?) is much more expansive, destructive (relative to population) le precedenti guerre in realtà aevvano molti più morti rispetto alle guerre mondiali sommate MA ????
- la popolazione era concentrata nelle città in cui si svolgeva la guerra technological innovation favorites attack but also defense population in worl wars was put in the above level ??? What’s the explanation for the decline of the war 1815 there was one thinker who gave an explanation → the world enters in a new hera, the industrial hera The effect of the industrial revolution → from the growth was constant 1800
Mallus - economist and demographer - said that humanity? From? Production increased everywhere because of ??? In relation to war untill 1800 the economy was constant to increase your power you have to conquer - resources are limited, you have to take it from your neighbour Utility of war changed → is it more profitable war or peace? Trade interdependence → theory: the producers consume more than they produce → now nobody consume what they produce
- with specialization born a national and international market The reason why we have war is the rise of modern nations → nationalism IMPERIALISM: the political domination of weaker countries by stronger ones → at the end of the 19th century state needed new markets to maintain their economic profits - they looked for it abroad, where investments were more profitable
- from 1870 started the scramble for Africa → European states tried to conquer some African territories
- it responde to the need of capitalist countries to expand
- this is Lenin’s theory from 1850 free trade In? development countries adopted a protectionist policy following the british one the new global economy is divide in two blocks In an open system you can profit from other states → colonialism (ex. in Africa)
- they put these territories under their political control One of the incentives to go to war for soldiers? → rape as compensation of their experience in western countries it changed - rape was forbidden during the 1960 - revolution of sexual norms??????? “make love not war” → sexual gratification has changed before sexuality was conservative - opportunities were differents → with sexual revolution changed Today, in ukraine war Russia doesn’t participate at all in the industrial production for war ????????? before war was profitable for countries → now it changed, peace is more profitable
TWENTIETH-CENTURY REALISM was born in response to the liberal perspective that dominated international relations scholarship in the aftermath of the First World War.
It’s not a coincidence that the 99% of the states have their own forces , because without it they risk to be punished by the international system and could stop existing (they could be invaded)
- The states without military forces are very small, like Granada of Marshall Islands → even if they’re threatened they remain not armed, because they find security in the international system. Systems are composed of two elements: → A structure ; Defined by 3 main elements: - ordering principle → The ordering principle of international politics is anarchy , understood as the absence of a central authority that holds the monopoly on the use of force. → The anarchic character of international politics is what differentiates it from domestic politics (Of the domestic one is hierarchy). In an anarchic environment, each actor retains responsibility for its own security. → International politics is therefore a “self-help system”
- functional specification → States are functionally undifferentiated , unlike individuals within the states who tend to specialize in different functions. → Since the international system is anarchic, each state must take care of itself by reproducing within itself all the functions that allow it to survive : so at the international level there is no division of labor in those fields that are related to security.
- distribution of power/ capabilities → what distinguishes one international system from another is the distribution of power between the units
→ The distribution of military capabilities tells us something about the
polarity of the international system
(the 3rd element of structure - which ultimately determines its “polarity” )
Waltz: ‘Market structure is defined by counting firms; international-political structure, by counting states” For example: bipolarity and multipolarity → we can see the international system as an interchange of bipolarity and multipolarity
→ the succession of the bipolar or multipolar system, but there is still anarchy,
the polarity of system create differences in the international system
→ unipolarity does not last long
→ A variety of interacting units (at least two).
Neorealism suggests that states , instead of being driven by an instinctive and fundamentally irrational “lust (desiderio) of power”, pursue two minimal goals: → survival → independence They want to be secure and independent. It’s the system that makes the state rational because if the states don’t act in order to attain security and independence, the system will punish them, and maybe they’ll be eliminated by the system
NEOREALISM AS ONTOLOGICAL MATERIALSM
The power distribution is, for Waltz, measurable through the mere calculation of the
material forces of the states
→ Neorealism embraces a materialist ontology
- A theory purly material, ideas doesn’t matter
EX. historical materialism of Marx
→ distribution of economic resources = distribution of wealth
Types of balancing in IS
→ in the bipolar system - there’s an INTERNAL BALANCING (balancing depends on
rearmament)
→ in a multipolar system - there’s an EXTERNAL BALANCING (balancing depends on
the formation of military alliances between States)
In a bipolar system alliances are not as important as in a multipolar system
- Ex. That’s because the security of a state, such as the United Nations,
depends on the domestic capacity, its security wouldn’t be affected by a
change in alliances (for example if Great Britain goes with Russia)
They can happen in both system, but each one is stronger in a determinate system
Comparing bipolar and multipolar systems (From the article in virtuale)
BIPOLAR SYSTEMS are more stable than multipolar ones
Because:
- bipolar systems do not suffer of two syndromes which multipolar system suffer
→ Chain-ganging
→ Buckpussing
- States has a great antagonism but is more simple and there are more certainties
MULTIPOLAR SYSTEMS are more unstable than bipolar systems
→ dangers are diffused and responsibilities unclear
